Anglican thoughts about a PNCC blog

I’m wondering if any Anglican posters have any thoughts about the following (that they’d like to share). It’s from this blog by a deacon of the Polish National Catholic Church. (Or, if you want to be precise, its from a PNCC blog that quotes and Anglican priest who cites an NCC bishop. :))

Also, on Anglican-PNCC Dialog, Fr. Victor E. Novak, a priest of the Diocese of Mid-America, and the rector of Holy Cross Anglican Church in Omaha, Nebraska writes on Independent Catholicism and the Ecumenical Imperative (see also here) where he states in part:

[INDENT]The day that Bishop Frank Weston and our spiritual forbearers longed for has come. The Eastern Orthodox, Rome, and the Polish National Catholics, all now recognize orthodox Anglicans as their own stock, bone of their bone and flesh of their flesh…

Until 1978, the Polish National Catholic Church was in full communion with the Episcopal Church USA and the Anglican Communion, but severed that communion because of the introduction of the “ordination” of women among Anglicans. The PNCC are our estranged brothers and sisters, and they want to heal the breach in the family. The December 2011, issue of Forward in Faith’s New Directions magazine published an article by Norwegian PNCC Bishop Roald Flemstad titled, “Looking for a New Home?” [See page 15] In the article Bishop Flemstad invites Anglicans to embrace Catholic unity through the PNCC led Union of Scranton.

The Polish National Catholic Church is unique among Western Churches in that it is not only recognized as a valid and legitimate national Catholic Church by Rome, but it has limited intercommunion with the Roman Catholic Church as well. Dialogue with the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, with the approval of the Holy See, led in 1996 to a “limited inter-communion”. What this means is that the Roman Catholic Church recognizes the validity of the sacraments of the PNCC, making applicable to its members the provisions of canon 844 §§2–3 of the Code of Canon Law. This canon allows Roman Catholics who are unable to approach a Roman Catholic minister to receive, under certain conditions, the sacraments of Reconciliation, Eucharist and Anointing of the Sick from “non-Catholic ministers in whose Churches these sacraments are valid”, and declares it licit for Roman Catholic priests to administer the same three sacraments to members of Churches which the Holy See judges to be in the same condition in regard to the sacraments as the Eastern Churches, if they ask for the sacraments of their own accord and are properly disposed. Remaining obstacles to full Communion are different understandings regarding the place of the papal ministry in the Church, and the PNCC reception of some former Roman Catholic clergy, most of whom subsequently married.

I have been told by an Anglican bishop with close ties to the PNCC that although the PNCC has long recognized Anglican Orders as valid, Anglican clergy would be required to undergo conditional ordination in order to avoid endangering the intercommunion now enjoyed with Rome. Union with the Polish National Catholic Church would bring Anglicans into limited intercommunion with the Holy See, while the implications of Ut Unum Sint are worked out.

The article offers certain cautions on orthodoxy, and the whole reason for a good a constructive dialog. Let us pray for those who work toward Christian unity.[/INDENT]

So, the Anglicans are willing to undergo a conditional ordination?

Interesting article. I appreciate the ramifications of Anglicans being in communion with the Roman Catholic Church. We’re making progress :thumbsup:

Good question (I’m assuming you meant it as a question). Perhaps we’ll hear views on that as well.

I wouldn’t necessarily go by Fr. Novak – especially since it is my understanding that he’s no longer Anglican (he was Anglican when he wrote the above, 2 years ago).

Novak was bad news. He took his parish to Eastern orthodoxy.

That’s what I thought. The entire parish entered into the Eastern Orthodox Church.

That doesn’t sound that bad.

No, there were other problems. I know a number of people who were forced out of the parish for contending for the Anglican position Novak and the other jurisdiction-hoppers were content to dump. Bad news.

From Fr. Novak’s blog dated July 2013: “Holy Cross is an Anglican Rite parish of the Western Rite Vicariate of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia.”

I am having a hard trime sorting through all that. I guess I didn’t know there were Western Rite Orthodox churches, let alone Anglican Rite ones. Is that just the Russian Orthodox church that has that? This must have been difficult for the parish to deal with. Anglican to independent Catholic to Orthodox…

Generally when a parish switches denominations there are some who don’t want to go along and are de facto forced out of the Parish. Your issue seems to be more that they abandoned Anglicanism than that some people lost a parish.

This was not addressed to me so sorry if I am stepping a bit.

I praise they are now in the Orthodox Church but I feel that it should more along the lines of the individual rather than a parish. Hijacking a parish it a bit much.

No they hijacked the parish. These people were bad characters. Novak was in a number of jurisdictions.

Generally the parish loses their church buildings when they leave the diocese.

What jurisdiction (some sort of Continuing Anglican?) was Fr. Novak, as an Anglican?


I am still very curious about the conditional ordination deal.

That’s because the diocese usually owns the church buildings. If that didn’t happen in this case (a parish and a building are not synonymous) then there must be a reason.

You mean he entered the Parish, then began stacking the parish with people who agreed with him, and began outright kicking out those who disagreed with him before he gifted the parish, with property and parishoners to ROCOR?

Your judgement only makes sense if this was premeditated, that he had privately converted to Orthodoxy before entering the parish.

Otherwise it is a story of the parish as a whole finding faith.

In the Anglican world, the parish is just as likely to own the property. Not that it has meant a lot, in these cases.


Sad, though not entirely surprising. By way of comparison, I remember a case where some parishioners in a Continuing Anglican parish wanted the parish the join the Ordinariate, and took a very combative stance toward those parishioners who didn’t want that. (Notwithstanding Cardinal Kaspar’s position that we are not fishing in the Anglican pond – which I very much agree with.)

I read that blog article as the usual confident predictions/exhortations of what could/may/should/might happen with disaffected Anglicans and (perhaps, in this case) the PNCC. Not a reporting of any serious reality in the making. It would be like the reporting on the 10 years of backing and forthing on the crusade pushed by the Traditional Anglican Communion to bring about unity with the RCC. At the end, as the Ordinariate was being birthed, predictions were of up to 400,000 total TAC folks, including the entirety of the Anglican Church in America, the TAC presence in the the US, would be going over.

Didn’t happen.

OTOH, if those Anglican priests who did take advantage of the Ordinariate could accept being absolutely ordained, perhaps any such interested in the PNCC could accept ordination* sub conditione*.


DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit