Mutual? Who held to the orginal practice and doctrine and who inovated, and where did the inovators get their authority?
The Spirit is descended!
As noted, the PNCC in the US is not in communion with the PCC in Poland and has not been for years.Are you refering to the withdrawal of the PNCC from the Union of Utrecht?
The PNCC refused to go along with the ordination of women and therefore there was a kind of mutual expulsion between them and the Utrecht churches, with more or less the same happening between them and ECUSA (the "less" being that we don't really function that way: as far as I know we still recognize all their sacraments).
They got their authority by existing as an institution.
That's called self consecration. No, it doesn't count.
"Mutual" means that they both broke off communion with each other.
I don't quite remember it that way:http://www.touchstonemag.com/archives/article.php?id=12-01-021-f
Old Catholics, New Doctrines
The Demise of the Union of Utrecht
by William J. Tighe
The Union of Utrecht has fallen—or embraced a modern Anglican ecclesiology on the issue of women’s ordination, which amounts to much the same thing....In 1895 A. J. Kozlowski formed an independent Catholic parish in Chicago for his fellow immigrant Poles. In due course he was excommunicated. His response was to turn to the bishops of the Utrecht Union, who accepted him into their fellowship and in 1897 consecrated him a bishop. In 1897–1898 a similar situation arose in Scranton, Pennsylvania, where a recently ordained priest of the Scranton diocese, the Polish-born Francis Hodur (1866–1953), agreed to serve an independent Polish parish there and for so doing was ultimately excommunicated. He went on to organize the Polish National Catholic Church, and in 1907 the European bishops chose to consecrate him as Kozlowski’s successor. Not only has the PNCC, with six dioceses and perhaps 150,000 adherents in the United States and Canada, been the most successful church of its communion, but in recent years the most orthodox as well.
In the early 1920s the PNCC began missionary activity in newly independent Poland: the result of this was the Polish Catholic Church. Originally an extension of the PNCC, it became a separate member-church of the Union of Utrecht after the new Communist government of Poland forced it to sever its links with its American parent in 1951. The PNCC was not the first Old Catholic presence in Poland, however. In 1906, when Rome attempted to suppress a vastly popular Polish devotional society (Mariae Vita, the Life of Mary) for the “unbalanced excesses” of its focus on Marian devotion and Eucharistic adoration, its leaders refused to submit. Upon their ensuing excommunication they joined the Old Catholics and for a time drew much support from the rural peasantry. By the early 1920s, however, the Mariavites (as they were termed) had adopted a number of practices that were well out of the Old Catholic mainstream. Among these were “mystical marriages” between priests and nuns (unions not necessarily permanent or exclusive), whose offspring were held to have been born without Original Sin, and beginning in 1929, the ordination of women as deacons, priests, and bishops. In 1924 the Mariavites were cast out of the Union of Utrecht. Having been trailblazers in the cause of the ordination of women, and having abandoned “mystical marriages,” perhaps it is high time they were readmitted to the Union.
or rather, the liberal successor of the Union of Utrecht-as the only member steadfast to it has withdrawn and the other, inovating, members derive their "authority" from a Union which they have voided. How is that? Because the Union of Utrecht and the communion it set up ruled on the issue. The dissidents, now wanting otherwise, they threw out the rules. But when you do that, how do you stand on them?
In September 1974, at the annual meeting of the International Old Catholic Bishops Conference (IBC) a provision was made for decision-making among their churches. All matters affecting the harmony and communion of the churches of the Union of Utrecht would require the endorsement of the IBC before individual member churches could act on their own. A majority vote would suffice in most instances, but on matters “touching the Faith” unanimity of the bishops would be required—and it would take the request of only one bishop among them to require that a particular matter be treated as one “touching the Faith.”
In 1976 the IBC emitted a forthright statement on the issue of women’s ordination. “The International Old-Catholic Bishops Conference of the Union of Utrecht,” it ran,
in accordance with the ancient undivided church does not agree with a sacramental ordination of women to the catholic-apostolic ministry of deacon, presbyter and bishop.
The Lord of the Church, Jesus Christ, through the Holy Spirit called twelve men to be his Apostles, in order to perpetuate his work of the salvation of mankind.
The catholic churches of the East and West have called men only to the sacramental apostolic ministry.
The question of ordination of women touches the basic order and mystery of the Church.
The churches which have preserved continuity with the ancient undivided Church and its sacramental ministerial order should jointly discuss this question of sacramental ordination of women, being fully aware of eventual consequences resulting from unilateral decisions.
Admitting that Old Catholics were not agreed on the merits of arguments for and against ordaining women, the IBC bishops declared that they were certain that no individual Catholic church (such as the Church of England, the Old Catholic Church of Germany, or the Orthodox Church of Greece) nor even an individual Catholic Communion of Churches (the Anglican Communion, the Old Catholic Union of Utrecht, the Orthodox Church, or the Roman Catholic Church) possessed the competence to authorize the ordination of women to any order of the threefold ministry: only an ecumenical council recognized as such by these Catholic bodies could do so.
This is fully in accord with the essence of the Union of Utrecht's own self proclaimed understanding of its itself, expressed by the opening words of its own statute:http://www.utrechter-union.org/pagina/148/a_preamble:_the_ecclesiological_
The “Union of Utrecht” is a union of churches and their bishops governing them who are determined to maintain and pass on the faith, worship, and essential structure of the undivided Church of the first millennium. On September 24, 1889, at Utrecht this determination was recorded in three documents that form the “Convention of Utrecht”: the “Declaration”, the “Agreement”, and the “Regulations”. By their uniting to form a Bishops' Conference, which other bishops joined later, the full communion of the Churches represented by them found its expression
Did any bishop of the undivided Church of the first millenium authorize the ordination of women to any order of the threefold ministry? Not they did not. The Union of Utrecht's Bishops' Conference upheld the essential structure of the undivided Church of the first millenium on this issue, as they did in the September 24, 1889 aforementioned "Declaration of Utrecht":
(1) We adhere to the principle of the ancient Church laid down by St Vincent of Lérins in these terms: ‘Id teneamus, quod ubique, quod semper, quod ab omnibus creditum est; hoc est etenim vere proprieque catholicum’. Therefore we abide by the faith of the ancient Church as it is formulated in the ecumenical symbols and in the universally accepted dogmatic decisions of the ecumenical synods held in the undivided Church of the first millennium. http://www.utrechter-union.org/pagina/152/appendix:_the_declaration_of_utr
but that is not what the New "Old" Catholics did:
When Bishop Vobbe announced in 1995 that he would proceed in a year’s time to ordain two women to the priesthood, the IBC suspended him from full voting membership. Undeterred, on May 27, 1996, he proceeded to “priest” two women (both former Roman Catholics of course) in Konstanz.http://www.touchstonemag.com/archives/article.php?id=12-01-021-f
Urgent consultations and exchanges among the IBC bishops soon revealed that there was no agreement among them on how to resolve the situation. Those of the PNCC wished to reaffirm the 1976 IBC statement and expel the German Old Catholic Church from the Union of Utrecht if it stood by its action. The Austrian bishop announced that he would begin ordaining women in 1997 no matter what decision the IBC reached, but expressed the hope that it would permit the individual churches to decide for themselves.
Indeed, the Anglican or “local option” solution appears to have carried the day as a result of two meetings of the IBC in 1997. The first, in March, a meeting of the IBC “bureau” or executive committee only, took place in Scranton. The absence of a common celebration of the Eucharist by the assembled bishops vividly symbolized the breach of their common faith. The five PNCC bishops (their numerically small Canadian diocese has been vacant for a number of years) form the largest cohort in the IBC, and with their three Polish brethren they would constitute a majority of the thirteen bishops. But between the March meeting in Scranton and a July meeting in Switzerland, the PNCC bishops, perhaps anticipating what was to come, appear to have abandoned their attempts to keep the Utrecht Union true to its principles, so that, in the event, they sent to Switzerland only one of their bishops, the prime bishop, John Swantek.
According to the Order of the Union of Utrecht, one bishop would have sufficed, a la Athanasius contra mundi. But when faced with that, the innovators decided, of course, to change the rules in the middle of the game:
It might appear obvious that a “local option” solution would contradict the 1976 IBC declaration and would therefore—as a matter “touching the Faith”—require the unanimous consent of the bishops to be adopted. But when the PNCC representative, Bishop Swantek, tried to assert this, the archbishop of Utrecht informed the assembled bishops that since back in 1976 one bishop (van Kleef, now deceased) had not assented to the declaration, it could not be regarded as a statement of faith (the Old Catholic equivalent of a dogmatic utterance) but only as the expression of the opinions of the individual bishops of the IBC at that time. Therefore, the current bishops could alter it by a simple majority vote of those present. It is not clear why, if the account presented here is accurate, Bishop Swantek could not have insisted that, whatever creative interpretation the archbishop wished to project retrospectively upon the events of 1976, in 1997 the question was to be treated as one “touching the Faith” and that, consequently, any motion to allow the individual churches to decide it for themselves required the unanimous consent of the bishops.http://www.touchstonemag.com/archives/article.php?id=12-01-021-f
especially as Bp. Swantek was "adher[ing] to the principle of the ancient Church laid down by St Vincent of Lérins in these terms: ‘Id teneamus, quod ubique, quod semper, quod ab omnibus creditum est; hoc est etenim vere proprieque catholicum.' But since the New "Old" Catholics had abandoned that principle
What will become of the Union of Utrecht is far from clear. At the time of this writing, the PNCC bishops were preparing to decide whether to remain in the Utrecht Union. Alternatively, there appear to be numerous grounds on which the bishops of the PNCC might attempt to challenge or reverse the recent decision of the IBC—a decision that, according to one Swiss source, Bishop Gerny of Switzerland, who voted for it, nevertheless has since described as “invalid” because not unanimous. But they will have to decide if it is worth the effort to do so, since it is clear that most of the churches comprising the Utrecht Union have now jettisoned both the antiquity and the Catholicism of which their “Old Catholic” name, correctly or incorrectly, boasted. Instead, they have fallen into the pragmatic ecclesiological incoherence of Anglicanism, which the Roman Catholic Benedictine monk-scientist Stanley L. Jaki has characterized as “mimic Catholicism.”http://www.touchstonemag.com/archives/article.php?id=12-01-021-f
Perhaps the most significant single event in the evisceration of the Union of Utrecht was Archbishop Kok’s 1976 decision to remain in communion with Anglican churches that had begun to ordain women to the priesthood. Although his reported motivation, that the Church today cannot afford to add new schisms to those of the past, was not a contemptible one, it nevertheless constituted an abandonment of the most critical function of a bishop in the Body of Christ: to banish erroneous doctrine and strange teaching and so to safeguard the flock that its master purchased at the cost of his blood. It also constituted an implicit endorsement of the modern, and quintessentially Anglican, notion that schism is worse than heresy.
The PNCC continued to banish erroneous doctrine and strange teaching and
Rather than withdraw from the Old Catholic Communion, however, the PNCC chose to redefine its relationship with such churches as one of “a very real, although imperfect, communion.” The reasons for this are varied, and included a desire to avoid being thought to be isolated within the wider Christian community, a rather sentimental attachment to Old Catholic history, and a belief that continued membership in the Utrecht Union perhaps could save the storm-tossed ship from sinking or, at least, delay its descent. Then, too, the PNCC’s leadership held that the onus for any decision on its membership rested with the proponents of change, not those who saw themselves as upholders of classic Old Catholicism.http://www.touchstonemag.com/archives/article.php?id=17-04-056-r
Joris Vercammen, the Old Catholic Archbishop of Utrecht and IBC President, implausibly argued that the PNCC could and should restore full communion even though it did not recognize Old Catholic female clergy. In other words, the touchstone of what it meant to be “Old Catholic” was to be in full communion rather than to share the same beliefs in faith, order, and morals. The PNCC’s representatives remained adamant that they could not endorse a restoration of full communion, for this would imply an acceptance of West European innovations.
The West Europeans thereupon resorted to a sleight of hand in order to break the impasse and to rid themselves of their conservative colleagues. According to the IBC’s Statute, the only offenses for which a bishop and, by extension, his church can be excluded from the Utrecht Union are serious errors in faith or morals or violations of the Statute itself. In light of their own conduct, the West Europeans realized that they would look ridiculous if they invoked one or more of these. Instead, they falsely claimed that the IBC’s 1997 decision required a restoration of full communion by 2003. Because the PNCC refused to do so, they argued, it had created a “separation.”
When put to a vote, this position was adopted by a vote of six to four, with one abstention. Ironically, but perhaps providentially, one of the affirmative votes came from a PNCC bishop, not because he shared its presuppositions but because he had long opposed continued membership in the Union. Immediately after the vote, the PNCC delegation withdrew from the conference, and the West Europeans made no effort to encourage its return.
The so called Union of Utrecht sums this up in a footnote:
 As the IBC declaration of July 14, 1997, states, the full communion of the member churches of the Union of Utrecht does not presently exist, due to the lack of universal recognition of the ordination of women to the priestly ministry. [As the Polish National Catholic Church left the Union of Utrecht in 2003, this footnote is not valid any more.]http://www.utrechter-union.org/pagina/148/a_preamble:_the_ecclesiological_
Rather, the Union of Utrecht is not valid any more, and as an institution has ceased to exist. As such, the present institution has no authority to speak for it. Even they have all but admitted that:
Art. 1 http://www.utrechter-union.org/pagina/151/d_concluding_provisionshttp://www.utrechter-union.org/pagina/146/declaration_of_the_ibc_on_the_pa
This “Statute of the Old Catholic Bishops United in the Union of Utrecht” supersedes the “Agreement between the Old Catholic Bishops United in the Union of Utrecht” and the “Regulations of the International Old Catholic Bishops’ Conference of the Union of Utrecht” of September 12, 1974, as well as its supplements of 1983, 1991, and 1994. It comes into effect on January 1, 2001.
As a result of the Bonn Agreement (1931), bishops of the Old Catholic Union of Utrecht have participated in the consecration of Anglican bishops. In recent years, several Anglican churches have established full communion with other churches or ecclesial communities (e.g. the 1992 Porvoo Common Statement). In the light of this development, the Old Catholic International Bishops’ Conference (IBC) declares the following:
1. To the extent that the Bonn Agreement governs the relations between individual Old Catholic and Anglican churches, participation by Old Catholic bishops in Anglican consecrations will continue, including those consecrations in which non-Anglican bishops take part in the laying on of hands.
2. The participation of Old Catholic bishops in such consecrations does not imply that either the Union of Utrecht as a whole or individual Old Catholic churches are in full communion with the churches represented by those non-Anglican bishops who also will take part in the laying on of hands.
3. The IBC expresses the hope that the churches of the Anglican Communion will consult with the Old Catholic Communion as part of the process of concluding and implementing agreements on full communion between Anglican churches and other churches and ecclesial communities.
Prague, November 2003
bishop of the undivided Church of the first millenium subscribe to such rubbish?
It is not necessary to accompany every historical statement with a polemic.
You assertion that your statement is historical is a polemic.