Polish National Catholic Church and the Sacraments, odd bulletin entry

[Yeoman]

For some odd reason, the bulletin last week had an entry in it noting that members of the Orthodox Churches and the Polish National Catholic Church should be aware of their church’s views on receiving the sacraments at the Roman Catholic Church, but that in the eyes of the Roman Catholic Church, the Church did not object to the Orthodox receiving communion. I’m truncating this as a series of Orthodox Churches were actually listed.

Listed in on the general note was the Polish National Catholic Church, although I can’t recall if they were given the okay to receive communion or not. Anyhow, I think I understand our position in regards to the Orthodox, but the Polish National Catholic Church really surprised me. Isn’t it part of the Old Catholics?

It isn’t in communion with Rome, of course, and I don’t even know if we regard its holy orders as valid. Do we?

This is particularly odd as there isn’t an Old Catholic church in the entire state, and only four Orthodox Churches. Perhaps that explains it however, as travelers definitely would have a hard time finding those churches on Sunday.

 

[Jegudiel]

For some odd reason, the bulletin last week had an entry in it noting that members of the Orthodox Churches and the Polish National Catholic Church should be aware of their church’s views on receiving the sacraments at the Roman Catholic Church, but that in the eyes of the Roman Catholic Church, the Church did not object to the Orthodox receiving communion. I’m truncating this as a series of Orthodox Churches were actually listed.

Listed in on the general note was the Polish National Catholic Church, although I can’t recall if they were given the okay to receive communion or not. Anyhow, I think I understand our position in regards to the Orthodox, but the Polish National Catholic Church really surprised me. Isn’t it part of the Old Catholics?

It isn’t in communion with Rome, of course, and I don’t even know if we regard its holy orders as valid. Do we?

This is particularly odd as there isn’t an Old Catholic church in the entire state, and only four Orthodox Churches. Perhaps that explains it however, as travelers definitely would have a hard time finding those churches on Sunday.

The PNCC has a valid priesthood. I don’t believe the PNCC is still part of the “Old Catholic Church” (there is more than one.) The PNCC like the Orthodox is not in perfect communion with the Holy See but they can receive communion in a Catholic parish if it’s OK with THEIR church.

The reason it was mentioned in your bulletin is likely because the boilerplate from the USCCB shows up in missalettes and other many printed materials:

*"For our fellow Christians

We welcome our fellow Christians to this celebration of the Eucharist as our brothers and sisters. We pray that our common baptism and the action of the Holy Spirit in this Eucharist will draw us closer to one another and begin to dispel the sad divisions which separate us. We pray that these will lessen and finally disappear, in keeping with Christ’s prayer for us “that they may all be one” (Jn 17:21).

Because Catholics believe that the celebration of the Eucharist is a sign of the reality of the oneness of faith, life, and worship, members of those churches with whom we are not yet fully united are ordinarily not admitted to Holy Communion. Eucharistic sharing in exceptional circumstances by other Christians requires permission according to the directives of the diocesan bishop and the provisions of canon law (canon 844 § 4). Members of the Orthodox Churches, the Assyrian Church of the East, and the Polish National Catholic Church are urged to respect the discipline of their own Churches. According to Roman Catholic discipline, the Code of Canon Law does not object to the reception of communion by Christians of these Churches (canon 844 § 3)."*

Rf: old.usccb.org/liturgy/q&a/mass/communion.shtml

 

[Aelred_Minor]

I can’t comment on the policy of allowing certain non-Catholics to receive communion because I still don’t understand it, but regarding the Polish National Catholic Church’s status I believe they partially cut off their connection to the Old Catholics of the Utrecht Union and were later expelled entirely. The main point of contention is that the PNCC, surprisingly (to me), has held firm on the issue of women’s ordination, both for itself and refusing recognition of female ordinations in other ecclesial communities. I believe there was an earlier falling out between them and the Episcopalians over the same issue.

 

[Rainaldo]

This is particularly odd as there isn’t an Old Catholic church in the entire state, and only four Orthodox Churches.

It’s boilerplate written by the USCCB and appears in all parish bulletins, regardless of location.

 

[Mintaka]

Schism is a whole different can of worms than heresy. As St. Isidore of Seville said, a community in schism “believes in the same worship, the same rite as the rest.” What it lacks is generally Peter and his counsel and support (and that of the rest of the Bride), not beliefs or bishops which can ordain.

So although a member of a schismatic church has problems, he’s pretty much a member of the Catholic Church with problems. So he has the same right to march up and receive Communion as any other Catholic. If he’s in danger of death, Father X of St. Y’s is doing the right thing to administer certain Sacraments to him. (Though generally Father X will wait to be asked, because he’s not in the business of torquing off Father Z of St. A’s Zendovian Orthodox Church.)

Now, his obedience to his schismatic church superiors and the state of his soul (including remaining in a schism, if he knows he’s in one and shouldn’t be) are a whole other can of worms. But that can of worms is mostly his own problem, not that of Father X of St Y’s. The bulletin notice lays out our side of the rules, and that’s all Father X has to worry about.

 

[Yeoman]

The PNCC has a valid priesthood. I don’t believe the PNCC is still part of the “Old Catholic Church” (there is more than one.) The PNCC like the Orthodox is not in perfect communion with the Holy See but they can receive communion in a Catholic parish if it’s OK with THEIR church.

The reason it was mentioned in your bulletin is likely because the boilerplate from the USCCB shows up in missalettes and other many printed materials:

*"For our fellow Christians

We welcome our fellow Christians to this celebration of the Eucharist as our brothers and sisters. We pray that our common baptism and the action of the Holy Spirit in this Eucharist will draw us closer to one another and begin to dispel the sad divisions which separate us. We pray that these will lessen and finally disappear, in keeping with Christ’s prayer for us “that they may all be one” (Jn 17:21).

Because Catholics believe that the celebration of the Eucharist is a sign of the reality of the oneness of faith, life, and worship, members of those churches with whom we are not yet fully united are ordinarily not admitted to Holy Communion. Eucharistic sharing in exceptional circumstances by other Christians requires permission according to the directives of the diocesan bishop and the provisions of canon law (canon 844 § 4). Members of the Orthodox Churches, the Assyrian Church of the East, and the Polish National Catholic Church* are urged to respect the discipline of their own Churches. According to Roman Catholic discipline, the Code of Canon Law does not object to the reception of communion by Christians of these Churches (canon 844 § 3)."

Rf: old.usccb.org/liturgy/q&a/mass/communion.shtml

You are right, that’s exactly what I read.

 

[Yeoman]

In the confusion category, why are we urging them to adhere to the disciplines of their own schismatic church? I’m sure there’s a reason, but it just reads a bit odd.

 

[Aelred_Minor]

Schism is a whole different can of worms than heresy. As St. Isidore of Seville said, a community in schism “believes in the same worship, the same rite as the rest.” What it lacks is generally Peter and his counsel and support (and that of the rest of the Bride), not beliefs or bishops which can ordain.

So although a member of a schismatic church has problems, he’s pretty much a member of the Catholic Church with problems. So he has the same right to march up and receive Communion as any other Catholic. If he’s in danger of death, Father X of St. Y’s is doing the right thing to administer certain Sacraments to him. (Though generally Father X will wait to be asked, because he’s not in the business of torquing off Father Z of St. A’s Zendovian Orthodox Church.)

Now, his obedience to his schismatic church superiors and the state of his soul (including remaining in a schism, if he knows he’s in one and shouldn’t be) are a whole other can of worms. But that can of worms is mostly his own problem, not that of Father X of St Y’s. The bulletin notice lays out our side of the rules, and that’s all Father X has to worry about.

I won’t debate this too thoroughly since as I mentioned I don’t fully understand the Church’s reasoning on this and don’t want to inadvertantly find myself arguing against the Church. However, I’m fairly confident that it is improper to refer to schismatics as Catholics and speak of them having a certain right just like “any other Catholic.” By definition a schismatic has separated his or herself from the Catholic Church. Surely the word “Catholic”, when used in reference to people, should be reserved for those who are fully canonical members of the Catholic Church?

 

[Aelred_Minor]

In the confusion category, why are we urging them to adhere to the disciplines of their own schismatic church? I’m sure there’s a reason, but it just reads a bit odd.

Considering that we are in considerable ecumenical dialogue with these Churches, we don’t want to harm the wider cause of unity by encouraging their members to disregard the disciplines of their own Churches (unless they want to convert, of course. That goes without saying).

 

[curlycool89]

So although a member of a schismatic church has problems, he’s pretty much a member of the Catholic Church with problems. So he has the same right to march up and receive Communion as any other Catholic. If he’s in danger of death, Father X of St. Y’s is doing the right thing to administer certain Sacraments to him. (Though generally Father X will wait to be asked, because he’s not in the business of torquing off Father Z of St. A’s Zendovian Orthodox Church.)

This paragraph is false. Someone who is in schism is not in communion with the Catholic Church and cannot receive any of the sacraments (save confession).

When you receive communion (the Eucharist), you are receiving Jesus in the Eucharist, but receiving communion is also a profession that you are in communion with the Church. In the case of the schismatic, the latter is false.

As EWTN notes, a schismatic person incurs latae sententiae excommunication for themselves. The person must confess this sin and have the excommunication lifted (which can sometimes be done all at once, but sometimes the lifting is a separate process depending on the faculties the priest has) before receiving any sacraments.

A schismatic person does not have the same rights as a Catholic in good standing.

 

[Cristiano]

I won’t debate this too thoroughly since as I mentioned I don’t fully understand the Church’s reasoning on this and don’t want to inadvertantly find myself arguing against the Church. However, I’m fairly confident that it is improper to refer to schismatics as Catholics and speak of them having a certain right just like “any other Catholic.” By definition a schismatic has separated his or herself from the Catholic Church. Surely the word “Catholic”, when used in reference to people, should be reserved for those who are fully canonical members of the Catholic Church?

Well the Churches that have been mentioned are not schismatic they are in schism and that is quite a different situation.

 

[Cristiano]

This paragraph is false. Someone who is in schism is not in communion with the Catholic Church and cannot receive any of the sacraments (save confession)…

I think that your statement is not completely correct:

Code of Canon Law

Can. 844 §1. Catholic ministers administer the sacraments licitly to Catholic members of the Christian faithful alone, who likewise receive them licitly from Catholic ministers alone, without prejudice to the prescripts of §§2, 3, and 4 of this canon, and ⇒ can. 861, §2.

§2. Whenever necessity requires it or true spiritual advantage suggests it, and provided that danger of error or of indifferentism is avoided, the Christian faithful for whom it is physically or morally impossible to approach a Catholic minister are permitted to receive the sacraments of penance, Eucharist, and anointing of the sick from non-Catholic ministers in whose Churches these sacraments are valid.

§3. Catholic ministers administer the sacraments of penance, Eucharist, and anointing of the sick licitly to members of Eastern Churches which do not have full communion with the Catholic Church if they seek such on their own accord and are properly disposed. This is also valid for members of other Churches which in the judgment of the Apostolic See are in the same condition in regard to the sacraments as these Eastern Churches.

 

[Aelred_Minor]

Well the Churches that have been mentioned are not schismatic they are in schism and that is quite a different situation.

If the word “schismatic” does not mean “in schism” (if used as an adjective) or “a person or group that is in schism” (if used as a noun) then what on earth does it mean?

 

[curlycool89]

I think that your statement is not completely correct:

Since someone in formal schism incurs excommunication, they are no longer in communion (hence ex-communication).

If the word “schismatic” does not mean “in schism” (if used as an adjective) or “a person or group that is in schism” (if used as a noun) then what on earth does it mean?

“Schismatic” usually applies to acts (for example, consecrating a bishop in the Latin-Rite without papal approval is a schismatic act). “Schism” applies to a situation (the East-West Schism for example) or to a state (a group is in schism from the Catholic Church).

You would think otherwise, but performing a schismatic act does not necessarily put one in schism.

 

[Aelred_Minor]

“Schismatic” usually applies to acts (for example, consecrating a bishop in the Latin-Rite without papal approval is a schismatic act). “Schism” applies to a situation (the East-West Schism for example) or to a state (a group is in schism from the Catholic Church).

You would think otherwise, but performing a schismatic act does not necessarily put one in schism.

Certainly there is a difference between a schismatic act and schism itself. I didn’t have this distinction in mind. I’m merely responding to the idea that someone can be in schism and yet not be a schismatic, or that a Church can be in schism and yet not be schismatic.

 

[Cristiano]

Certainly there is a difference between a schismatic act and schism itself. I didn’t have this distinction in mind. I’m merely responding to the idea that someone can be in schism and yet not be a schismatic, or that a Church can be in schism and yet not be schismatic.

I was not referring to a general purpose dictionary but I was referring to how the Church uses this terms in Canon Law. Bro. JRedcation clarified the difference more than once on the threads that relate to the state of the SSPX.

 

[Aelred_Minor]

I was not referring to a general purpose dictionary but I was referring to how the Church uses this terms in Canon Law. Bro. JRedcation clarified the difference more than once on the threads that relate to the state of the SSPX.

Hmmm. Older Catholic sources certainly speak of “schismatics.” I suppose the usage within the Church may have shifted without anyone sending me an email about it, while dictionary definitions have continued reflecting the old usage.

 

[Cristiano]

Hmmm. Older Catholic sources certainly speak of “schismatics.” I suppose the usage within the Church may have shifted without anyone sending me an email about it, while dictionary definitions have continued reflecting the old usage.

You are correct. I have quite a few of the older resources and they use the terminology in the manner that you described. I did not get an email either and usually I am puzzled when I learn the proper terminology and its use, often is not new at all. I was educated only using the basic old catechism and now that I read more and more I understand the constraints of my initial education.