A question about the Polish Catholic Church
…at Roman Catholic Resources. I posted a comment which reflects what I’ve written below. I think the writer is asking (?) whether the PCC believes in “papal infallibility.” My response (extended and revised):
The Polish Catholic Church (Kościół Polskokatolicki) is a member of the Union of Utrecht, but has very little in common with what remains of the Union. A little history:
The Union of Utrecht was formed after Vatican I in response to the “dogmas” of papal infallibility and the immaculate conception. The Union desired to stick with the Church’s common dogmas as established prior to 1074. At the time of its organization it primarily consisted of Churches in the Netherlands and Germany.
The PNCC was organized in the United States. The Rev. Francis Hodur was elected Bishop and was consecrated in 1907 by Archbishop Gerard Gul of Utrecht, Bishop John Van Thiel of Haarlem, and Bishop Peter Spit of Deventer, the Old Catholic Bishops of the Netherlands thus becoming a member of the Union of Utrecht. In approx. 1920 the PNCC sent a mission to the old country and attempted to establish parishes there. There was some success particularly in northern Poland.
Like the Orthodox we all see the Papal office as a man-made office established for the good order of the Church; not a Divinely instituted office ordained with special powers and privileges onto itself.
The Church in Poland was somewhat prosecuted by Roman Catholics as was the PNCC in the United States. During WWII the Polish Church’s bishop, as well as its priests, were arrested and imprisoned by the Nazi Germans. Its bishop, Jozef Padewski was released in a prisoner exchange and returned to the United States until after the war. On his return to Poland he was arrested by the communists, was tortured, and was martyred for the faith. The communist authorities in Poland then forced the Polish Church to break its ties with the PNCC and to independently establish itself (in other words PNCC and PCC were made administratively separate).
To this day the PNCC and the Polish Catholic Church consider themselves sister Churches but remain administratively separate.
While the Polish Catholic Church remains a member of the Union of Utrecht, the PNCC broke its ties with the Union in 2003 over the Union’s liberal innovations (“womanpriests” and gay “marriages”). The PNCC had previously broken its intercommunion with the Episcopal Church over the issue of women’s “ordinations” in 1978. The PNCC was the largest Church in the Union. What remains of the Union, excepting the Church in Poland, is rather small and insignificant. In my opinion it will eventually become a rump organization absorbed into the Anglican or Episcopal Church. Sadly, once a Church with close ties to Orthodoxy, it has become just another “church of what’s-happenin’-now,” another Protestant body with fancy externals.
As noted, the Polish Catholic Church remains a member of the Union of Utrecht even though it rejects women’s “ordination” and gay “marriages.” How long that union lasts remains to be seen.
A side note, there is a group in Poland that calls itself the “Polish National Catholic Church in Poland” (PNKK). Don’t be fooled. It is a group of deposed clergy and vagantes. It has nothing to do with the PNCC or the PCC.
Why make digs about other churches…”church of what’s-happenin-now”…”womenpriests”…gay “marriages”…”sadly, once a church with close ties to Orthodoxy…” You were born, baptized by our parents and raised as a Roman Catholic – as an adult you chose to join the PNCC for your own reasons just as other people choose their own spiritual path, also for their own reasons. You want people to respect your beliefs but shouldn’t you extend the same courtesy to them?
In the above I was trying to provide a historical exposition of the issues in Old Catholicism, the PNCC and the PCC for the questioner. Those were key issues in the break-up of the Union and my statements reflect that. On the Orthodoxy issue there was once a very real possibility of union between Old Catholics and the Orthodox. On many levels Utrecht and the Orthodox were on the same page. That is impossible now. Organizationally and factually a Church cannot call itself Catholic if it rejects core Catholic teaching and I was pointing that out. Even the Pope cannot redefine ordination or marriage because if he did the R.C. Church would say that he is no longer the Pope.
On a personal level I really don’t bear anyone any ill will for living as they choose or finding something that suits them. At the same time I cannot say it is, in-itself, a right choice. I can respect anyone’s right to a choice, or to change their mind, and I even believe that the government should afford everyone an equal right to what the government controls (co-habitation contracts in essence). That is everyone’s personal business. I’ve made that point on several occasions very publicly.
Unfortunately I think that the term courtesy has been redefined to mean don’t criticise anything and if you do you’re bad. I don’t think that’s what courtesy is. Courtesy is a personal interaction. I give everyone their space at that personal level, but if they were to ask me I would tell them what the Church teaches — my obligation. As the Young Fogey points out: Tolerant conservatism is charity and discretion about people’s failings while at the same time not making excuses for those vices either. Don’t ask, don’t tell, we give you your space and God forgives but we don’t teach that it’s not a sin. I like that saying and it really captures what I think.
To the last question… I don’t expect people to “respect” my beliefs. If a person believes differently they couldn’t possibly respect what I believe, that would make them hypocritical to their belief system. What I do ask is that people respect my freedom to practice my beliefs. I do respect their freedom to believe whatever they wish, even if they are atheists, satanists, or even Episcopalians 😉
I wanted to point out that you always word things in a way that indicates disdain – you don’t need to do that to give a historical exposition of Old Catholicism, PCC and PNCC – it diminishes what you are saying. Semantics…I did mean respect for your right to believe what you want to believe, not respect for your specific beliefs. FYI, I haven’t redefined the meaning of courtesy – I mean it in the old fashioned way, excellence of manners, treating others the way I would like to be treated, or better yet the way I would like someone to treat my mother, father, brother, nieces, nephews, aunts, uncles, cousins, friends, etc…. I like that saying and it captures what I think.
I agree. Thanks.
I have to agree with the Deacon…He hasn’t been discourteous in any way. The issues between Utrecht & the RC& /PNCC/PCC are involve serious theologial questions and cannot be dismissed as semantics. Further, no one is under any obligation to avoid stating the truth because someone thinks it isn’t “nice” to disagree with them. Nor is it in particularly good taste to use that criterion to attempt censor other people’s views on the basis that disageement is “offensive.”
Semantics was in reference to my mistated remark regarding respect for my brother’s beliefs – not the serious theological questions regarding Utrecht, the RC/PNCC/PCC. I don’t have much knowledge of these issues and could not even begin to debate with my much smarter older brother – I am a regular reader of his blog because I am interested in him and the path he has chosen and the message he is spreading; spreading that message from a negative place diminishes him and the work he is trying to do.
…and not for the first time has my sister’s insight helped me in being more charitable in my message. Charity and the truth need to walk hand-in-hand.