What is the Polish National Catholic Church?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Catholic_Dude
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
C

Catholic_Dude

Guest
I have heard about the PNCC, I have heard they are not in communion with the Catholic Church, but I dont know much else.

What, who, when, where, why, how…is the PNCC
 
Marilena-
Google says this:
this is at the bottom of the definition:
It says:The Polish National Catholic Church (PNCC) is a former member of the Old Catholic Union of Utrecht and was the only member church of the Union of Utrecht based outside Western or Central Europe (though it was not so when the Philippine Independent Church or Aglipayan Church briefly joined the Union of Utrecht). The PNCC left the Utrecht Union over a variety of issues, most critically the elevation of women to the priesthood by other Utrecht Union Churches.
Whats the Old Catholic Union of Utrecht?
Here is the link on Wikipedia
It says:The PNCC was founded in the late 1800s in North America by Polish Roman Catholics resentful of diocesan ownership of their parishes and the dominance of the Roman Catholic Church in North America at that time by German and Irish prelates. (In this way the movement response for the PNCC’s formation resembles the movement among the Ruthenian/Carpatho-Rusyn Uniates in North America away from Catholicism and towards Orthodoxy.) Its first leader and bishop was Francis Hodur.
Founded in America? What did they have a beef about?
The PNCC was the largest member of the Union of Utrecht. All orders of its clergy are allowed to marry (including bishops) and Mass is celebrated in both Polish (the vernacular of the PNCC’s founders) and local vernaculars. As a member of the Union of Utrecht the PNCC rejects a number of Roman Catholic dogmas insisting that they are theological novelties, including the infallibility of the Pope, the Immaculate Conception of the Mary the Ever-Virgin and Mother of God, and original sin.

I question the author/credibility of this ariticle, they allow married clergy yet they were an offshoot of the Latin rite? The author calls the Ever Virginity and title Mother of God and original sin as “novelties”?
 
As the article you quoted says, the PNCC was founded for largely nationalistic, not theological reasons. And the article doesn’t call the title “Ever-Virgin and Mother of God” novelties. It calls the Immaculate Conception *of Mary the Ever-Virgin and Mother of God *a novelty–which, as a dogma, it is. “Mary the Ever-Virgin and Mother of God” is simply a respectful way of saying “Mary”! The author of the article doesn’t seem to be a native English-speaker, so the wording is a bit confusing.

The PNCC was in communion with the Episcopal Church but broke communion with us when we ordained women.

There is also an “Old Catholic Church in Poland” which is still in communion with us and is not the same thing as the PNCC, though they do have some historic ties.

Edwin
 
Catholic Dude:
I have heard about the PNCC, I have heard they are not in communion with the Catholic Church, but I dont know much else.

What, who, when, where, why, how…is the PNCC
Dude,

The PNCC is much as described in the Wikipedia piece although, as is always the case with Wikipedia, whatever one reads in it should be verified elsewhere since it is essentially a collection of pieces independently written by whomever has the inclination to do so - regardless of the extent of their knowledge (or lack thereof).

In the late 19th and early 20th centuries, most Catholic hierarchs in the US were of Irish or German ethnicity, either themselves immigrants or, at most, only a generation or two removed from their ancestors who had arrived often in steerage.

They were, by and large, well-meaning priests and some were unquestionably holy; however, among them were men who were notoriously intolerant or who had little sympathy for or understanding of the pastoral care needs of those within their dioceses who had limited or no English language skills. These included many of the East European peoples, both Latin and Byzantine Catholic, who tended to cluster in ethnic ghettos throughout the industrialized urban areas of the Northeast, Mid-Atlantic, and Central Mid-West, as well as in the rural townships of the Coal and Rust Belts. These pastorally unserved or, at best, underserved peoples included the Polish.

The earliest points of contention related to the needs of the Polish population for presbyters who spoke their language. Mass was served in Latin, but homilies rendered in English were irrelevant and the historical role of priests as intercessors between their frequently illiterate flocks and civil authority was ill-served by priests who couldn’t understand them. These issues were gradually overcome; the ready availability of Polish clergy, who were dispatched by their bishops at home to either accompany or closely follow the crowds of emigrant Poles, made it difficult for the American hierarchy to refuse assignment of Polish clergy to parishes replete with their countrymen. However, new issues arose.

The Poles were determined to retain their culture and saw the teaching of Polish in their schools as an integral part of achieving this goal. The hierarchy objected, as it did to the use of the Polish tongue in marriage ceremonies, confession, and every other ecclesial consideration. While these battles raged and were generally resolved - albeit by default as often as not - a more significant issue brewed. It sounds melodramatic but it’s true that most Polish parish churches were built on the toil, sweat, and hard-earned pennies of their parishoners. Suddenly, though, they discovered that the hierarchy expected to exert ownership over the fruits of their labor and to exclude them from decision-making in regards to the parish and its property.

Not that some of the nationalistic and ethnic issues weren’t factors, but “trusteeship”, as it came to be called, was the ultimate deal-breaker (as it was in many Eastern Catholic parishes that would eventually form the nucleus of two Orthodox Churches) that caused the schism which would result in the PNCC. The earliest instances weren’t organized across jurisdictions - there were a few “independent” Polish Catholic parishes formed here and there. The first is thought to have been organized in 1872 in Polonia, WI, by Father John Frydrychowicz, of blessed memory. In the mid-1880s and into the 1890s, additional parishes sprung up, some loosely affiliated with one another, and at least one bishop, Anthony Kozlowski, of blessed memory, was consecrated by hierarchs of the Old Catholic Church of the Utrecht Communion. Another, Stephen Kaminski, of blessed memory, received his episcopal orders at the hands of Rene Joseph Vilatte, of blessed memory, an “independent Catholic” bishop. Kaminski was incardinated into Vilatte’s American Catholic Church, one of the many “independent” Catholic and Orthodox bodies that, to this day, trace their origins back to Vilatte (of whom it is sometimes said that he never met a man he didn’t want to make bishop).

It was Francis Hodur, of blessed memory, who really brought it all together though. He was about 30 years old when he initially broke with Rome and erected a parish in Scranton, PA that would eventually become the Cathedral of the PNCC’s Prime Bishop. The principal points at issue in his decision related to ownership of parish property and laity (name removed by moderator)ut and approval in assignment of clergy to their parish. Almost a decade later, he would be elected as the Church’s first Prime Bishop and consecrated by hierarchs of the Old Catholic Church.

(continued)
 
Eventually, most of the “independent” Polish Catholic churches merged with the PNCC, although there is at least one small body within American Old Catholicism (Polish Old Catholic Rite of North America) that traces back to the early independent Polish Catholic movement and it is still possible to identify a few parishes of Polish origin in other of the various American “Old Catholic” Churches that derived from Vilatte’s American Catholic Church.

Concomittant with the PNCC’s birth, there were similar dissident movements within other ethnic Catholic communities. These spawned the Croat, Czech, Slovak, and Lithuanian National Catholic Churches, all eventually subsumed into the larger PNCC.

Of the myriad of American-based Churches which obtained their episcopal orders through the Old Catholic Church of the Utrecht Communion, only the PNCC maintained an ongoing relationship with Utrecht. It was because of those ties that it came to espouse the OCC/Utrecht stance on papal infallibility and the Immaculate Conception, dogmas over which the OCC had broken with Rome. The PNCC itself had no particular issue with regard to those, but adopted the tenets of its episcopal parent.

As Edwin notes, the PNCC broke communion with the Episcopal Church over the ordination of women and with its OCC/Utrecht parent when it failed to condemn some of its constituent bodies for ordination of women. The “Polish Catholic Church”, originally a missionary outreach of the PNCC to its homeland, was forced to break communion with the PNCC during the era of Nazi rule in Poland and those ties were never restored due to concern by the PNCC with some doctrinal tenets adopted by its former mission during the years of separation. There is also a small group in the US in schism from the PNCC - its precise name presently escapes me.

The PNCC has a married clergy, including a married episcopate. Its parishes are owned by the congregation, which has the right to accept or reject priests proposed to pastor it. Their Mass is now usually served in English, although there are parishes which serve it in Polish. They recognize an eighth Sacrament (although it is de-emphasized in their most recent publications), being the reading or hearing of the word of God. Frequent individual confession is uncommon, with communal general absolution being more the norm. In the remainder of their Sacraments, the form is essentially that of the pre-Vatican II Catholic Church (which is also true of their rubrics for Mass).

There has been ongoing dialogue between the USCCB and the PNCC for 25 years or so and, a few years ago, the USCCB asked that Rome review and formally define the validity of Apostolic Succession, Holy Orders, and the Sacraments within the PNCC. Rome has ruled that the PNCC possesses valid Apostolic Succession, Orders, and Sacraments - but only as to its US Church - effectively excluding the former mission body in Poland (which was not reviewed, as its status was not relevant to the request).

Hope that info helps to answer your questions.

Many years,

Neil
 
Irish Melkite:
Eventually, most of the “independent” Polish Catholic churches merged with the PNCC, although there is at least one small body within American Old Catholicism (Polish Old Catholic Rite of North America) that traces back to the early independent Polish Catholic movement and it is still possible to identify a few parishes of Polish origin in other of the various American “Old Catholic” Churches that derived from Vilatte’s American Catholic Church.

Concomittant with the PNCC’s birth, there were similar dissident movements within other ethnic Catholic communities. These spawned the Croat, Czech, Slovak, and Lithuanian National Catholic Churches, all eventually subsumed into the larger PNCC.

Of the myriad of American-based Churches which obtained their episcopal orders through the Old Catholic Church of the Utrecht Communion, only the PNCC maintained an ongoing relationship with Utrecht. It was because of those ties that it came to espouse the OCC/Utrecht stance on papal infallibility and the Immaculate Conception, dogmas over which the OCC had broken with Rome. The PNCC itself had no particular issue with regard to those, but adopted the tenets of its episcopal parent.

As Edwin notes, the PNCC broke communion with the Episcopal Church over the ordination of women and with its OCC/Utrecht parent when it failed to condemn some of its constituent bodies for ordination of women. The “Polish Catholic Church”, originally a missionary outreach of the PNCC to its homeland, was forced to break communion with the PNCC during the era of Nazi rule in Poland and those ties were never restored due to concern by the PNCC with some doctrinal tenets adopted by its former mission during the years of separation. There is also a small group in the US in schism from the PNCC - its precise name presently escapes me.

The PNCC has a married clergy, including a married episcopate. Its parishes are owned by the congregation, which has the right to accept or reject priests proposed to pastor it. Their Mass is now usually served in English, although there are parishes which serve it in Polish. They recognize an eighth Sacrament (although it is de-emphasized in their most recent publications), being the reading or hearing of the word of God. Frequent individual confession is uncommon, with communal general absolution being more the norm. In the remainder of their Sacraments, the form is essentially that of the pre-Vatican II Catholic Church (which is also true of their rubrics for Mass).

There has been ongoing dialogue between the USCCB and the PNCC for 25 years or so and, a few years ago, the USCCB asked that Rome review and formally define the validity of Apostolic Succession, Holy Orders, and the Sacraments within the PNCC. Rome has ruled that the PNCC possesses valid Apostolic Succession, Orders, and Sacraments - but only as to its US Church - effectively excluding the former mission body in Poland (which was not reviewed, as its status was not relevant to the request).

Hope that info helps to answer your questions.

Many years,

Neil
I’ve been asking this question for awhile. all I get is that it is a grave sin to go to a PNCC. Why is it a mortal sin to go to aPolish National Church if Rome has ruled that the PNCC possesses valid Apostolic succession, orders and sacraments. all The answers I get is it doesn’t matter what Rome say the Pncc is in schism. In what you told me about Rome aPNCC mass is as good as a RC mass. If that is wrong tell me why.
 
40.png
chriswilliam:
I’ve been asking this question for awhile. all I get is that it is a grave sin to go to a PNCC. Why is it a mortal sin to go to aPolish National Church if Rome has ruled that the PNCC possesses valid Apostolic succession, orders and sacraments. all The answers I get is it doesn’t matter what Rome say the Pncc is in schism. In what you told me about Rome aPNCC mass is as good as a RC mass. If that is wrong tell me why.
Chris:

The Catholics have given you fairly good answers but since you don’t seem to like the answers you’re getting let a traditionalist Anglican make a stab at it.

First: you need to re-read the exact text of the exact document which you claim gives Catholics the right to receive communion from a PNCC. I suspect, without seeing it, that it gives such permission only in ‘dire necessity’ or ‘extreme circumstances’ or some such similar wording. That is to say, if a particular Roman Catholic drops to the ground stricken mortally-ill, at the same bus stop where a PNCC priest happens to be waiting–the PNCC priest can absolve the Roman Catholic, give them Last Rites, etcetera, vaidly. There are several scenarios which the RCC would deem to be sufficiently-urgent for a schismatic priest to perform rites on behalf of a Roman Catholic without the Catholic committing sin.

Secondly: The PNCC is in the same position as the Eastern Orthodox Churches: it has valid sacraments, BUT it is not in communion with Rome. Roman Catholics cannot normally receive communion in an Eastern Orthodox Church either, unless, as noted earlier, some sort of dire circumstances exist. (On the other hand, the Anglican churches are usually assumed to NOT have valid sacraments, so if in the bus-stop scenario I described above, the priest standing by were an Anglican priest–the priest’s efforts to render sacramental service to the stricken Catholic would not be considered valid).

By the way, it’s my impression that the Eastern Orthodox do NOT consider Roman Catholics to have valid sacraments, nor even to be Christians. If it were an Eastern Orthodox priest standing by, I suppose this means he’d call a doctor and perhaps attempt to render CPR, but would do nothing sacramentally for the stricken Catholic. Irish Melkite or one of the Eastern Orthodox folk might pop in and clarify things.

In another thread you also asked about why such-and-so PNCC bishop had an excommunication lifted from him. My guess, without really knowing the particulars, is that this was an effort an healing the breach by making a symbolic gesture–I gather the PNCC bishop in question has been dead for some time. These sorts of gestures happen fairly frequently as a way of initiating or continuing dialogue. The ruling on intercommunion is probably a similar gesture, though I suspect that there are substantial limits placed on when such intercommunion can take place, as I just explained.

Does this help?
 
40.png
flameburns623:
Chris:

The Catholics have given you fairly good answers but since you don’t seem to like the answers you’re getting let a traditionalist Anglican make a stab at it.

First: you need to re-read the exact text of the exact document which you claim gives Catholics the right to receive communion from a PNCC. I suspect, without seeing it, that it gives such permission only in ‘dire necessity’ or ‘extreme circumstances’ or some such similar wording. That is to say, if a particular Roman Catholic drops to the ground stricken mortally-ill, at the same bus stop where a PNCC priest happens to be waiting–the PNCC priest can absolve the Roman Catholic, give them Last Rites, etcetera, vaidly. There are several scenarios which the RCC would deem to be sufficiently-urgent for a schismatic priest to perform rites on behalf of a Roman Catholic without the Catholic committing sin.

Secondly: The PNCC is in the same position as the Eastern Orthodox Churches: it has valid sacraments, BUT it is not in communion with Rome. Roman Catholics cannot normally receive communion in an Eastern Orthodox Church either, unless, as noted earlier, some sort of dire circumstances exist. (On the other hand, the Anglican churches are usually assumed to NOT have valid sacraments, so if in the bus-stop scenario I described above, the priest standing by were an Anglican priest–the priest’s efforts to render sacramental service to the stricken Catholic would not be considered valid).

By the way, it’s my impression that the Eastern Orthodox do NOT consider Roman Catholics to have valid sacraments, nor even to be Christians. If it were an Eastern Orthodox priest standing by, I suppose this means he’d call a doctor and perhaps attempt to render CPR, but would do nothing sacramentally for the stricken Catholic. Irish Melkite or one of the Eastern Orthodox folk might pop in and clarify things.

In another thread you also asked about why such-and-so PNCC bishop had an excommunication lifted from him. My guess, without really knowing the particulars, is that this was an effort an healing the breach by making a symbolic gesture–I gather the PNCC bishop in question has been dead for some time. These sorts of gestures happen fairly frequently as a way of initiating or continuing dialogue. The ruling on intercommunion is probably a similar gesture, though I suspect that there are substantial limits placed on when such intercommunion can take place, as I just explained.

Does this help?
It seems what you are saying that all the dailogue is are gestures or give them what they want and maybe they'll go away.
 
roman catholics have valid sacarments but not the eastern orthodox pncc or the esipcopal. Then the eastern orthodox say they are the only one that are valid. the episcopal and pncc say all are welcomed to communion as long as they believe in the true presence of Christ. We are suppose to love each other and Jesus said we are all to be one. If this doesn’t stop at the end we all are going to have stand before God and explain all this mess.so lets try to put aside our differances and be one like it is suppose to be. God Bless chris
 
40.png
chriswilliam:
It seems what you are saying that all the dailogue is are gestures or give them what they want and maybe they’ll go away.
The point was that lifting the Bishop’s excommunication was probably a gesture towards a dialogue. Not to encourage the PNCC to ‘go away’ but in hopes that the PNCC will ultimately reunite with the RCC. Similar gestures happen fairly regularly between EO and the RCC, between the Episcopal communion and the RCC, and between various other Protestant bodies and the RCC. It is not an effort to drive others ‘away’ but to remove certain long-dead offenses so that the two sides may talk over the living differences which remain in hopes of restoring full communion.

It’s a very slow process, where each side engages in give-and-take on various points. A process which likely will not be completed in your lifetime, even though you sound from the tone of your posts as if you are very young and rather naive about certain things–no insult intended. Merely pointing out that your posts lack a certain degree of breadth of knowledge about the world in general and about religious disputation in particular. You make notable factual errors, as for instance:
chris william:
roman catholics have valid sacarments but not the eastern orthodox pncc or the esipcopal.
The Eastern Orthodox most assuredly ARE recognized by the RCC as having valid sacraments. I am fully aware that the RCC does not recognise the Episcopal Church as having valid sacraments. The issue gets tossed about with some degree of regularity in this forum and in the Eastern Christianity forum.

Not only do you make errors with respect to facts, but you express sentiments, shared by great numbers of Christians for many long generations, in a tone which seems to suggest that you think that you alone have ever felt such sentiments:
chris william:
We are suppose to love each other and Jesus said we are all to be one. If this doesn’t stop at the end we all are going to have stand before God and explain all this mess.so lets try to put aside our differances and be one like it is suppose to be.
I would suggest to you that this forum and apostolate exists as one of many vehicles within the RCC to achieve exactly the goal you have in mind.

However, one seldom resolves issues by ‘putting aside our differences’–usually at least one side in a debate will insist that THEIR side is the ‘correct’ side of the issue and they will therefore refuse to put aside differences. Not out of stubbornness (one hopes) but out of a sincere desire to be true to God’s truth, to be obedient to God, and to show love for God by their faithfulness.

Obviously the ‘other side’ feels differently abut the issue–they feel that to accept the other’s position would be an act of DISobedience or UNfaithfulness to God. And so the fight is joined.

Hope this helps.
 
40.png
flameburns623:
The point was that lifting the Bishop’s excommunication was probably a gesture towards a dialogue. Not to encourage the PNCC to ‘go away’ but in hopes that the PNCC will ultimately reunite with the RCC. Similar gestures happen fairly regularly between EO and the RCC, between the Episcopal communion and the RCC, and between various other Protestant bodies and the RCC. It is not an effort to drive others ‘away’ but to remove certain long-dead offenses so that the two sides may talk over the living differences which remain in hopes of restoring full communion.

It’s a very slow process, where each side engages in give-and-take on various points. A process which likely will not be completed in your lifetime, even though you sound from the tone of your posts as if you are very young and rather naive about certain things–no insult intended. Merely pointing out that your posts lack a certain degree of breadth of knowledge about the world in general and about religious disputation in particular. You make notable factual errors, as for instance:

The Eastern Orthodox most assuredly ARE recognized by the RCC as having valid sacraments. I am fully aware that the RCC does not recognise the Episcopal Church as having valid sacraments. The issue gets tossed about with some degree of regularity in this forum and in the Eastern Christianity forum.

Not only do you make errors with respect to facts, but you express sentiments, shared by great numbers of Christians for many long generations, in a tone which seems to suggest that you think that you alone have ever felt such sentiments:

I would suggest to you that this forum and apostolate exists as one of many vehicles within the RCC to achieve exactly the goal you have in mind.

However, one seldom resolves issues by ‘putting aside our differences’–usually at least one side in a debate will insist that THEIR side is the ‘correct’ side of the issue and they will therefore refuse to put aside differences. Not out of stubbornness (one hopes) but out of a sincere desire to be true to God’s truth, to be obedient to God, and to show love for God by their faithfulness.

Obviously the ‘other side’ feels differently abut the issue–they feel that to accept the other’s position would be an act of DISobedience or UNfaithfulness to God. And so the fight is joined.

Hope this helps.
Thank you I wish I was young and navie I am 50. you’re right you have to put up your differences to get them resolved. I read about the dialogues and it not too much on theology thats not why they split. I think it was how the church was governed. How the priest were assigned and their nationality and how the church is governed. I’ve read that they are close on alot of things The biggest thing is the pope thats the one that going to take years to settle. Chris
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top