A Lack of Tact and of Delicacy

The Difficult Relations between Archbishops Sheptytsky and Twardowski of Lviv

Many publications have dealt with the relations between the Servant of God Andrei Sheptytsky and Saint Józef Bilczewski, respectively metropolitan-archbishops of the Byzantine-Ruthenian (Ukrainian) and Latin Catholic archdioceses of Lviv.  However, relatively little has been said about the relations between Sheptytsky and Bilczewski’s successor Bołesław Twardowski.  The following is a very brief sketch of some of the principal issues of contention between the two prelates, based on Vatican archival materials from 1922-1939.

The poor relations between Sheptytsky and Bilczewski were notorious.  The main cause of the conflict was the fact that both were the spiritual heads of two peoples with opposing national-political aspirations over the same territory.  Between Sheptytsky and Bilczewski there can be said to have reigned a certain equality.  Ecclesiastically speaking, there was no question of seniority between them. Both had been elected metropolitan-archbishop of Lemberg (Lwów/Lviv) in 1900.  However, civil inequalities did exist between them. Sheptytsky belonged to a noble family whereas Bilczewski came from humble origins.  In should be kept in mind, however, that, in their class system, becoming a bishop was similar to ennoblement.  In Christendom, it was accepted that the spiritual realm was superior to the temporal.  Therefore, in anciens regimes, the Premiere Estate was the clergy not the nobility. Another point of civil inequality was that, during the Austrian regime, Sheptytsky held influential state offices such as Vice-Marshall of the Galician diet and Privy Counsellor to the Emperor.  The divergence between the two ecclesiastics came to a head during the electoral reform of 1913 and, particularly, during the Polish-Ukrainian War of 1918-1920.  In both conflicts, the churchmen took opposing political sides.

When Bilczewski died in March 1923, Sheptytsky was still waiting in Rome to be allowed to return to Lviv.  Vatican officials were very careful in choosing Bilczewski’s successor, in an attempt to avoid further conflicts between the Latin and Greek Catholics.  The papal envoy for Ukrainian affairs, Father Giovanni Genocchi, attended Bilczewski on his deathbed and testified that the future saint sincerely regretted the conflict with the Ukrainians (while still placing the burden of blame upon them). Following Bilczewski’s death, the papal nuncio deputized Genocchi to be his representative at the funeral.  Noting that the event had been well attended by the Greek-Catholic clergy, Genocchi commented that “it is said that both Latins and Ruthenians would be content with the Auxiliary Twardowski”. It is likely that Metropolitan Sheptytsky had also been questioned and almost certainly posed no objection to Twardowski’s nomination.

After Twardowski assumed the Latin see of Lviv, the main occasions of contention between him and Sheptytsky were: Twardowski’s choice for his auxiliary bishop; the agreement for inter-ritual marriages; and precedence and hospitality during visits of church dignitaries. 

A diocesan bishop’s personal choice is usually given the highest consideration when and if he is granted an auxiliary or helper bishop.  But in mid-war Eastern Galicia, each episcopal nomination was wrought with political difficulties. In granting Twardowski an auxiliary, the Apostolic See took the same issues into account that it had done when nominating him.  It was vital to the ecclesial and social peace that an opponent of the Ukrainians not be selected.  However, only a few months after assuming the archbishopric, Twardowski proposed such a man to the Pope, in the person of Father Miecysław Tarnawski, professor of the University of Lviv. Tarnawski had actually been Bilczewski’s choice for auxiliary because he shared many of his views.  Twardowski, widely considered a secondary figure, sought to honour his predecessor’s wish.  But Tarnawski had a terrible reputation among the Ukrainians and had even gone on printed record against them. At the bequest of Bilczewski, he had published a pamphlet entitled “The Uniate Church in Eastern Little Poland (Galicia) during the Russian invasion and the Ukrainian coup.”  Above all, the pamphlet contained strong criticisms of Metropolitan Sheptytsky and claimed that the Ukrainian independence movement, “based on hatred, sooner or later must unite with radicalism, socialism and materialism.” 

As the nunciature’s principal consultant in Galician affairs, Jesuit Provincial Superior Sopuck, had been instrumental in Twardowski’s election and was consulted again regarding Tarnawski.  His response was not favourable, because Tarnawski was always considered the candidate of Bilczewski and the Endecja and the Ruthenians would be upset.  Given Archbishop Twardowski’s insistence, the nuncio suggested that Father Tarnawski visit Metropolitan Sheptytsky and come to an understanding.  Their meeting took place on 3 January 1924.  Although Sheptytsky sent a favourable account, he nonetheless considered Tarnawski to be the least desirable candidate precisely because of his public reputation as an opponent of the Ukrainians.  Indeed, the nuncio had already written to Tarnawski telling him as much.

Sheptytsky’s opinion was important but not decisive.  Based on others’ views, the nunciature had already concluded that Tarnawski, despite his other good qualities, was a poor choice. Archbishop Twardowski, however, blamed Sheptytsky for blocking his candidate and complained to the Bishop of Katowice, August Hlond, future primate of Poland.  Not knowing the facts, Hlond lamented to Nuncio Lauri that Archbishop Twardowski had been humiliated because the Vatican had given more weight to Sheptytsky’s opinion over his, in the matter of his own auxiliary bishop.  But the Apostolic See would not waver.

Two years later, Father Tarnawski published another pamphlet entitled “Post-war difficulties of the Uniate Church in Little Poland”, in which he reversed his earlier antagonistic position towards Greek-Catholics.  This time, even the Polish primate Cardinal Dalbor opposed the nomination because he considered the second work as insincere.  Nuncio Lauri explained to Twardowski that “The Holy See still does not approve of that choice despite the fact that heaven and earth have been moved” to achieve it.  Sheptytsky “would not say a word against Tarnawski because he knows that the Poles are convinced that he is the cause of the passed over nomination.” Twardowski then formally pleaded with Sheptytsky, who gave in and wrote directly to the Pope of Tarnawski’s good qualities.  Still, the nomination never occured.

The second conflict between Sheptytsky and Twardowski occurred over changes to the agreement on inter-ritual marriages, known as the “Concordia” of 1863.  Arguing that the 1917 Code of Canon Law had abolished the accord, Twardowski obtained an apparent relaxation.  Sheptytsky insisted that it should remain in force because the Ukrainians in Poland were now in an inequitable position. Ironically, the ‘discord’ between the bishops resulted in the ‘Concord’ being left in force; the only mutation being that permission to change in rite, hitherto reserved to the Roman Curia, was devolved to the apostolic delegates and nuncios.

The third conflict between the two archbishops of Lviv occurred during two visits to the city by Hlond, now cardinal and primate of Poland.  During the first visit of 1928, Hlond had led the Eucharistic procession and remarked on the absence of Sheptytsky and his clergy. A scandal occurred when Sheptytsky attended a civil ceremony to welcome the Cardinal but was absent from the religious function. Archbishop Twardowski claimed to have sent an invitation but Sheptytsky claimed not to have received it. 

A ray of light shone through the clouded relations in January 1930, when Twardowski attended the celebration of Sheptytsky’s thirtieth anniversary as archbishop of Lviv. Metropolitan Andrei seemed determined to repair any hard feelings. Later that year, at the Eucharistic Congress of Poznan, Sheptytsky and his entourage made a great show of unity and his seminarians sang during the bishops’ dinner.

When Hlond returned to Lviv for a bishops’ meeting, at the end of 1930, in was the Greek-Catholic archbishop’s turn to play host. This time, the grand seigneur demonstrated the best traditions of noblesse oblige.  An account by the brillant but tormented ecclesiastic, Count Piotr Tadeusz Rzewuski (who later renamed himself Father Kreuza), described the preparation for the fête:

A three-roomed apartment complete with servants was prepared for him, prepared and adorned with precious tapestries, an abundance of flowers, and works by a famous Polish painter. The archbishop’s servants wore the special livery for this occasion. [...] Kyr Sheptytsky went to meet him at the station with Kyr Budka, the Chapter and the principal priests of the city.  The Cardinal took his place in the limousine and was received with the sacred candelabras of the oriental rite.  Accompanied by dignitaries and his suite, he visited the Cathedral of St. George’s, kissed the icon of the patron saint, adored the Blessed Sacrament and paused for a moment before the miraculous Virgin of Trembovla, patron of the Union in Lviv.

But the visit and the year that had both begun so auspiciously were to end badly. The differences between the two prelates in class and education came to the fore at the beginning of the bishops’meeting. Twardowski began to pressure Cardinal Hlond to accept his hospitality, which Rzewuski noted was “the first lack of tact on the part of a guest”.  Due to Twardowski’s insistence, the grand evening reception at the metropolitan’s palace, prepared and announced by invitation, had to be cancelled; “another lack of delicacy and an insult to the guests.” Twardowski monopolized the rest of the visit and the Cardinal ended by excusing himself thus: “I must leave or there will be a battle.”  Twardowski did not show up for the rest of the conference, to the embarrassment of his auxiliary.  In the end, Hlond departed for the airport accompanied only by the Ukrainians; the Latin archbishop had not sent his fine automobile, although this would have been proper as his counterpart had been responsible for the welcome ceremony.  Whatever his intentions, Twardowski’s comportment had been a fiasco of decorum, something which would have been felt much more keenly by Sheptytsky.

Cardinal Hlond’s visit to Lviv coincided with beginning of a violent campaign. On the very night of his arrival, the police arrested 20 young men from the metropolitan’s orphanage. The day had likely been chosen as a provocation to upset the visit.  These events preceded the political crackdown of 1931: the imprisonment and torture of Marshall Pilsudski’s political opponents; and the violent “Pacification” against the Ukrainian villages in response to the vandalism of Polish estates.  This apparent lack of solidarity caused a further rift between the Greek and Latin rite hierarchies, the Ukrainian bishops having been hurt by their Polish counterparts silence during the pogroms.  It was only Pius XI’s insistence that brought the Greek-Catholic prelates to the Polish Plenary Council, six years later.

Today it is difficult for many people from first-world societies to understand the rifts that existed in the Old Continent between the various nationalities, even among churchmen of the same faith. An objective, non-moralizing, reading helps us better comprehend such complicated events.  Reflecting on some of the earlier tensions in the Sheptytsky-Twardowski relationship will help contextualize their Second-World-War correspondence, something which historians are now evaluating more attentively.

Zofia Fredro Szeptycka - Eternal Memory

†

Le Comte JEAN de Szeptyce SZEPTYCKI, Membre de la Chambre des Paires en Autriche, député à la diète de Galicie, Chambellan de S.M. Apostolique, Chevalier de la Couronne de fer II. cl., Commandeur de l’ordre R. de St. Georges de Bavière, Chevalier de l’ordre souverain de St. Jean de Jérusalem.  Ses fils: Le Comte André Szeptycki, Métropolitain de Halicz, Archevêque de Léopol, Evêque de Kamieniec Podolski, Conseiller intime de S. M. A., Vice-maréchal de la diète de Galicie.  Le Comte Alexandre Szeptycki et sa femme la Comtesse Isa Szeptycka, née de Junosza Sobańska, avec leur enfants MARIE, SOPHIE, THÉRÉSE, ROSE, HEDVIGE.  Le Comte Stanislas Szeptycki, Chambellan de S.M.A., Capitaine de l’Etat major, attaché militaire au quartier général de l’armée russe en Extrême Orient, Chevalier de l’ordre R. de St. Georges de Bavière.  Le Comte Léon Szeptycki et sa femme la Comtesse Hedvige Szeptycka née Comtesse de Słupów Szembek avec leur fille Sophie

ont la douleur de vois faire part de la perte qu’ils viennent de faire en la personne de leur épouse, mère, belle-mère et grand-mère.

LA COMTESSE

SOPHIE SZEPTYCKA

née Comtesse de Pleszowice Fredro,

Dame de l’ordre de la Croix étoilée de la Croix “Pro Ecclesia et Pontifice”

munie des Sacrements de l’Eglise, décédée à Przyłbice le 17 Avril 1904

à l’age de 66 ans.

La dépoille mortelle reposera dans les caveaux de famille à Przyłbice.

Przyłbice le 17. Avril, 1904.

Metropolitan Andrei Sheptytsky to Cardinal Girolamo Maria Gotti:

Sans mors matris etiamsi solatio christianae spei, et dulci memoria Ejus virtutum moderatum sacrificatum gravem tamen dolorem affert filio, qui post Deum matrem summo diligebat amore- Non sine lacrimos dolores cogito, quorum defuncta saepe ipse vel in eius fui causa Ejus patientiam et firmam fidem, cum tamen mors opino malum sit ab optimo Deo datum, cujus sanctissimam voluntatem amare venerari infantem me, ipsa docuit non nisi gratiae Deo hodie agendae sunt mihi ob omnia beneficia in defunctam- easque mediante in nos Ejus filios collata. [...] Leopoli die 21/V 904

Metropolitan Andrei Sheptytsky and the Roman Curia

Despite the deep reservations of his flock, Metropolitan Andrei Sheptytsky greeted the election of Achille Ratti as Pope Pius XI with optimism and hope.  The two churchmen’s paths had first crossed in 1918, with Ratti’s appointment as papal envoy to Poland,  Russia and Ukraine. During that mission, Ratti’s ambivalence towards their independence struggle caused Ukrainian patriots to be wary of the new pope’s intentions.  True to form, in his battle against nationalism, Pius XI demanded that his ministers place stringent limits on the nationally conscious Ukrainian Greek-Catholic Church. By analogy, during Pius XI’s pontificate, the Apostolic See’s relationship with the Ukrainian nation can be seen through the Roman Curia’s relations with Metropolitan Sheptytsky, the Ukrainian Catholic primate.  [...]

Andrei Sheptytsky served as metropolitan under five popes, three secretaries of state, three prefects of the Propaganda for Oriental Affairs and another four of its successor the Oriental Congregation.  His relationship with each Pope and with each dicastery differed according to the needs of his Church, the individual policies of each pontiff and those of his officials.  Roman Curia’s ultimate verdict of Sheptytsky was undoubtedly positive.  In particular, its oriental dicastery recognized his constant fidelity and zeal amidst persecutions and hindrances, declaring him a confessor of the Faith for the Union of the Orient with the Roman Apostolic See.  While falling short of completely restoring the powers granted by Pius X,  Pius XII entrusted the entire Catholic mission in the Soviet Union to Sheptytsky’s care.  Following Kyr Andrei’s death, the same pontiff publicly manifested his esteem in two magisterial pronouncements. Although Sheptytsky’s beatification has been inordinately delayed, his name continues to appear in significant acts of the papal Magisterium into the third millennium.

(From the Conference Le governement pontificale sous Pie XI.)

The Mystery of Father Damascene Polivka

Founder of the Ukrainian Church in Winnipeg

published in: Serge Cipko ed., Ukrainians Abroad: News and Views, no. 46 (29 January 2010).

In OSBM habit c. 1895

An article entitled Winnipeg’s First Ukrainian Catholic Church has recently appeared in The Winnipeg Free Press.  The piece is a good summary of the beginnings  of the mother of all Ukrainian religious congregations in the city.  Nevertheless, it does contain a few factual errors.  One of them pertains to the founder of the congregation, Father Damascene Polivka.

The figure of Damascene Polivka is shadowed in mystery.  Concrete facts about his life history continue to evade us.  I attempted to discover more about this mysterious missionary when assisting St. Nicholas Parish compose its centennial history book, but my quest was in vain.  The principal difficulty was that key archival sources were not made available.  Thus, when St. Nicholas Ukrainian Catholic Church Celebrating 100 Years. Together for Tomorrow went to press, it left several historical details undiscovered, including the history of the parish’s own founder.

What little was known about Polivka came from publications of lesser historical value.  These contained precious few details about him, where he was mentioned at all.  His origins, details of his mission, and even the spelling of his name were not uniformly reported.  Photographs of him are extremely rare (I know of only two). He has been described as a Ruthenian missionary priest but of Slovak origin, a Basilian monk sent to Canada by the archbishop of Lviv, Cardinal Sembratovych.  Many details about his person and work appear to be contradictory, and equally mysterious seems to be his role in the foundation of a church congregation shortly before he left the city of Winnipeg one-hundred and ten years ago, never to return. 

I have been able to resolve part of the the mystery surrounding Polivka, including details of his origins and mission, by consulting his personal file in the Archives of the former Sacred Congregation de Propaganda Fide for the Affairs of the Oriental Rite, now contained in the Archives of the Congregation of the Oriental Churches. The documents contained under the rubric Monaci reveal the following:

Our missionary was born Adalbert Francisk Polivka on 4 February 1869 in the Bohemian village of Hostin u Vojkovic. His father was of Hungarian-Slavic (Slovak) origins. At the time, Bohemia (Czech), northern Hungary (Slovakia) and Eastern Galicia (Western Ukraine) were all part of a single state, the Habsburg empire of Austria-Hungary.  Even in Cyrillic, he always signed his name Polivka (Полівка) and not the Ukraininized Polyvka or Polywka (Поливка) that appears in most publications.  

In early life, Adalbert trained as a medical doctor and surgeon.  He spent a few years in the Latin-Rite congregation of the Brothers of Mercy.  In 1892, upon entering the Ruthenian Order of St. Basil the Great, he assumed the religious name John-Damascene or simply Damascene after the great Saint and Church Father.  The young Polivka had been encouraged to join this order-in-reform by his eponymous fellow Bohemian, Jesuit Father Adalbert Baudiss.  Baudiss was one of the protagonists of the Basilian reform and served as master of novices in Dobromyl, Galicia.  He looked on the young surgeon as having been sent “by Divine Providence” to minister to the medical needs of the impoverished, fledgling religious community.  But the Church law of the time did not allow the hands of priests, consecrated for the holy service of the altar, to be stained with blood, neither to fight in war, nor to practice surgery, nor even to hunt. Baudiss had to ask for a special dispensation from Propaganda Fide, which accorded his recruit permission to practice his medical arts but only within the monasteries.

In order to help the Basilian reform, Pope Leo XIII had granted the Order the right of receiving Latin-Rite candidates without any canonical dispensation.  At their final profession, the pontiff decreed that these monks were automatically to be transferred to the Byzantine Rite.  Polivka was one of several non-Ukrainians to make use of this privilege.  He professed his final vows in 1896 and was ordained a priest on 12 September of the following year.   

Although the Roman Pontiff had intended to favour the Basilians, the extraordinary privileges that he had conceded elicited fierce criticism from Ruthenian-Ukrainian society, which saw the Order as one of its few national institutions.  It was feared the Jesuits would attempt to Polonize the Order and, through it, Ukrainian society. By seconding such criticisms, Metropolitan Josyf Sembratovych was forced to resign his see.  Rome and Vienna thought that the Byzantine-Rite Ruthenians could not reform their church without outside help.  And thus, in the first years of the Basilian reform, the Jesuits allowed the Basilian communities to become cosmopolitan, in typically Austro-Hungarian fashion. 

As long as the Jesuits governed the Order, ethnic conflicts were kept at bay.  However, nationalistic tensions were brewing within the empire.  The Polish-Ukrainian truce (the New Era) had come to an end in 1895 and the Basilians began to take sides.  The Jesuits had already begun to entrust the governance of individual monasteries to reformed Basilians but several young Ukrainian fathers felt this was not enough. They began to call for the Jesuits to relinquish the governance of their Order altogether.  Seeing that they were unwanted, the Jesuits asked to be relieved but the Apostolic See would not permit them to abandon the reform until 1904.  Father Baudiss was among those who believed that the young community was not yet ready to govern itself.  Amid such tensions, those who appeared to take the Jesuits’ side began to experience discrimination from their confreres.  Those who were not Ukrainian ethnics, like Damascene Polivka, began to feel out of place in a community which was becoming increasingly nationalistic.

In March 1899, Polivka wrote to Propaganda Fide explaining that the negative, divisive atmosphere in the monasteries had broken his spirit.  He asked for permission to work outside the order for five or six years, perhaps as a missionary in Brazil.  When Cardinal Ledóchowski, Propaganda’s prefect, consulted provincial superior Father Mycielski, the latter attempted to have Polivka dismissed from the Order. The Cardinal rejected the Jesuit’s proposal and on 15 April 1899 granted Polivka permission to work outside his community for three years, under the jurisdiction of his local bishop, Cardinal Sembratovych.  A month later, on 16 April, Polivka had changed his mind about Brazil and asked instead for permission to become a missionary in Canada, informing the Congregation that he had written to the Canadian bishops.  In June he obtained the blessing of the Ukrainian bishops of Galicia and the funds necessary for the journey.  On 27 July, Bishop Legal of St. Albert, Alberta informed Cardinal Ledóchowski that he and his fellow bishops would be very happy to receive another Ukrainian priest, especially since the previous one, Paul Tymkevych, had become a renegade.  The Congregation duly granted permission for the mission on 20 August.  Just before leaving for Canada, Polivka wrote to Archbishop Langevin of St. Boniface asking for particulars about the mission and itemized the liturgical items that each Greek-Rite missionary needed to purchase.  

There was some confusion on the part of the Canadian hierarchy as to what kind of missionary was being sent.  Legal had written to Ledóchowski that he hoped a Basilian monk would do better where secular priests had failed.  On the contrary, the Basilian Order had not yet accepted a mission to Canada and Polivka was being sent not under the auspices of the Order, but as a secular missionary under the authority of his eparchial bishop.

Damascene Polivka had been instructed to go to St. Albert, Alberta, but instead he remained in Winnipeg.  Upon his arrival, on 21 October 1899, he immediately presented himself to the archbishop of St. Boniface who conferred jurisdiction upon him.  Langevin then left for Montreal where he remained for four months. Polivka wrote to Propaganda Fide explaining that he had chosen to remain where the largest group of Ukrainians had settled, as it was impossible to serve in all three western Canadian dioceses.  The Congregation did not appear to be satisfied with Polivka’s explanations as several question marks were penciled-in next to them in the margins of his letter.  

In the meantime, the missionary was given liturgical hospitality at Holy Ghost Parish, administered by the Polish Oblate Fathers.  Father Damascene insisted on the integral practice of the Byzantine Rite and soon caused a scandal by administering the Sacrament of Chrysmation (Confirmation) to Ukrainian infants. Since these had already been baptized by the Polish Oblates, the Latin faithful concluded that Polivka was re-baptizing them.  The  result was that Polivka was soon forbidden to celebrate Mass at Holy Ghost.  

In the meantime, the Ukrainians had formed a committee. On 8 December they invited Polivka to attend a meeting at which they resolved to buy land for the construction of their own church. In what is probably the earliest Ukrainian church document in Winnipeg, Polivka redacted a petition in both old Ukrainian and Latin to Archbishop Langevin, asking him to bless the project.  This undated petition (December 1899) was countersigned by 27 of the members of the church committee (as they appear on the document): 

Андрей Зайло, Николай Маковецкі, Thеоdorus Stephanik, Прокоп Скіба, Wasyl Rudko, Ілько Бабій, Anton Czerkas. Jan Spizak, Alek. Książyk, Гриць Прокопишин, Julian Bohońko, Michał Lenczak, Стефан Волошиньский. Wasyl Tankowсky, Aleksa Roszko, Іван Сидор, Василій Турчинюк, Petro Krasiuk, Юрко Паніщак, Stefan Cinnyk, Jan Piskosz, Michal Doda, Юрко Кобітикъ, Nicholas Małachowski, Mikołaj Powawoznyk, Jełyjacz Kostiuk, Olexa Haluszczak, Michał Palamar, о. Дамаскин Полівка.

Under pressure from the committee, Father Damascene telegraphed the archbishop in Montreal, asking for his blessing.  Langevin replied that the diocese was already heavily in debt, especially with the newly-constructed Holy Ghost Church which was to serve several nationalities. He further suggested that Polivka’s services were not needed in the city of Winnipeg but in rural Manitoba, where a larger number of the Ukrainians were without the services of any priest.  In the end, Langevin ordered Polivka to assume the mission in Alberta for which he had been commissioned and for which Bishop Legal continued to plead.

Instead of going to Alberta, in the first days of the new century Polivka left Winnipeg for Chicago and thence to New York where he was reported to have come under the influence of the clergy responsible for Svoboda, a newspaper which staunchly opposed the Roman Catholic hierarchy’s jurisdiction over the Eastern-Rite Catholics.  From the US and later from Montreal, Polivka wrote to his Winnipeg flock asking for donations and offering to return to serve them on two conditions: that they would support him financially and that they would not place the church property under the control of the Latin bishop. 

Disappointed with his lack of cooperation, Langevin petitioned Propaganda to recall Polivka to Europe.  At the same time, the prelate penned a courteous letter to Vasyl Rudko of the Ukrainian church committee, explaining the reasons for opposing their project.  In this letter, the archbishop asked the Ukrainians to be patient and not to have any further contact with Polivka, whose jurisdiction he had withdrawn for disobedience.  On 9 February 1900, Cardinal Ledóchowski wrote to Father Mycielski asking him to recall Polivka to the monastery but Mycielski replied that he would be a bad influence in the reformed communities. Mycielski nevertheless promised to ask the superior of the unreformed Basilians if he could assign Polivka to the empty monastery-parish of Krasnopuschna.  Polivka, however, refused this proposal.  He argued that his three-year leave had not yet expired and that his congregation in Plymouth, Pennsylvania would be in danger of falling into schism if he abandoned them.

In Windbeer about 1905.

In June 1900, Polivka wrote to Propaganda’s Prefect from Plymouth, explaining his side of what had happened in Winnipeg.  He placed the blame on the Oblates who were worried about their church debt, and on the Ukrainian committee that had rebelled against the Roman Catholic authorities.  On 3 May 1901, this time writing from Northampton, Pennsylvania, Polivka informed Cardinal Ledóchowski that he could not find a European bishop to accept him so he asked to remain in the United States.  On 16 September 1903, Bishop Garvey of Altoona asked for Polivka to remain in his diocese and continue to minister at the Greek-Rite Church in Windbeer.  The same day, Polivka petitioned Ledóchowski’s successor, Cardinal Gotti, to become a diocesan priest.  Bishop Garvey confirmed that he was willing to accept Polivka as one of his priests in a letter to Cardinal Gotti dated 18 January 1904.

Previously, in December 1903, the Austro-Hungarian chargé d’affaires to the Holy See sent a curious document to Propaganda Fide.  This document contained a  list of Ruthenian Greek-Catholic priests residing in the USA that his government wanted to see recalled, undoubtedly for political reasons.  The first name that appears on the list is “Damascene Polivka, parish priest in Windbeer, Pennsylvania”.  Two other priests who had served in Winnipeg appear: Nestor Dymytriv in Northampton and Nicholas Strytynsky in Olyphant, Pennsylvania.  These priests had one thing in common: they were all connected with Svoboda and had, at one time or another, functioned as independents, essentially Greek-Catholics who did not want to become Orthodox but who had difficulties with the local Latin hierarchy.  Even though Polivka had agreed to serve at The First Slavish [Slavic] United St. Mary’s Greek-Rite Catholic Church in Windbeer, Bishop Garvey’s good dispositions towards him demonstrate that Father Damascene had never broken communion with the Catholic Church.  In this, his explanation to Cardinal Ledóchowski rings true: “it was a rebellion not on my part but on the part of the people... It was rather the people, but not me!”

On 8 October 1905, Polivka sent a petition to Pope Pius X asking to return to the Latin Rite, giving the reason that the married clergy and Ukrainian nationalists were persecuting him. On 16 January 1906, Propaganda released Polivka from his monastic vows, transferring him to the diocesan clergy.  On 29 February 1906, Bishop Garvey wrote to Cardinal Gotti that he had given permission to Polivka to return to his native Bohemia for health reasons.  The last letter in the file was written by Polivka from Krpy-Vrutic, Bohemia on 13 March 1906 asking for the indult to return to the Latin Rite because he had no way of supporting himself financially and all his money had gone to medical cures.  How ironic that a physician who had volunteered to heal and to alleviate the financial burden of a religious order was himself reduced to sickness and poverty.

After this letter, Polivka vanishes from history.  Even the renowned collector of historical data, Father Dmytro Blažejovskyj, was not able to obtain accurate information about Polivka and his whereabouts.  In his Ukrainian Catholic Clergy in Diaspora, Blažejovskyj erroneously listed Polivka as having been born in Subcarpathia instead of Bohemia, as having been stationed in Northampton from 1899 to 1900 and as having been in Galicia from 1901 to 1903.  No mention was made of his service in Plymouth or Windbeer. The last accurate news we have of Polivka places him in Bohemia in March 1906, but what happened to him subsequently?  After leaving the Basilians and returning to his native rite he no longer fell under the jurisdiction of Propaganda Fide for the Oriental Rites. Thus all further trace of him is lost in this Congregation’s archives.  Did he remain in active ministry? Did he serve as a Latin-Rite priest in his native land?  Where did he die and when?  Hopefully further research will solve these mysteries.

      Some of the mystery surrounding Polivka appears to be man-made. Perhaps embarrassed by the fact that Polivka had left their ranks and had fallen out with the Catholic bishops, Basilian chronologists have tended to play down, if not ignore, his role in the founding of their Winnipeg parish.  Facts pertaining to him have been glossed-over, as in a passage by the late Dr. Modeste Gnesko reproduced in St. Nicholas’ centenntial history, which was taken from the 1966 booklet commemorating the opening of the present church.  An English translation of the passage in question reads: “Residing far away from the Winnipeg congregation, he often wrote to it, encouraging it and supporting it spiritually and morally. In addition, he sent monetary offerings for the future church. Impressed by his advice and example, the people resolved to finish the work [that had been] initiated.” Vatican archival sources contradict this account, so the question arises: did Father Gnesko have access to primary sources which were not made available for the composition of the parish centennial history, or was this simply an well-meaning attempt to whitewash inconvenient facts?  

Polivka’s unsuccessful mission made Archbishop Langevin swear that he would never accept another Greek-Catholic priest.  However, following a meeting between his vicar general Father Lacombe and Metropolitan Sheptytsky, and the Vatican’s appointment of a Greek-Catholic apostolic visitor for Canada, the prelate was induced to change his mind. Propaganda Fide had been after the Basilians to assume the mission in the US and Canada since 1893, but the Order’s superiors had always refused.  Finally, in 1902, three Basilian missionaries were sent to Alberta, and two more arrived in Winnipeg the following year.

   And what about the church congregation that Polivka helped found?  In 1901, two years after his departure from Winnipeg, a tiny chapel dedicated to St. Nicholas was constructed on property acquired by the committee. Historical sources demonstrate that the congregation identified itself as Greek-Catholic, even though they did not accept Archbishop Langevin’s jurisdiction.  Despite this fact, clergy of various religious allegiances were permitted to use the chapel until the arrival of two Basilian Fathers in November 1903.  At that time, the congregation asked the Basilians to assume the direction of their church.  Archbishop Langevin paid for the construction of a larger temple (velyka tservka) which was opened in January 1905 and located directly across the street from the original chapel.

But not all segments of that single Ukrainian congregation agreed with the Basilians, nor did they like the fact that their church had been brought under the authority of the Latin archbishop.  Consequently, part of the congregation left to found Holy Trinity Russian Orthodox Cathedral, which was consecrated by future Russian Orthodox Patriarch St. Tikhon in 1905.  Two years later, in 1907, a more nationalistic portion returned to the first tiny chapel (mala tserkva) and renamed it Sts. Vladimir and Olga, the future Ukrainian Catholic cathedral.  Another part of the flock formed the Greek-Independent Church and in 1917, a further segment helped create the Ukrainian Greek-Orthodox Church of Canada.  

The Basilians were far from alone in attempting to "remake" history.  In 1936, Father Vasyl Kushnir, the parish priest of Sts. Vladimir and Olga, published a commemorative Almanach that contains a fictional account of the beginings of his parish.  Orthodox publications went so far as to claim that the first church was not even Catholic or that the Uniates separated later.  It seemed to have been important that each successor church lay exclusive claim to the first church, just as their brethren in Ukraine fought over Hagia Sophia in Kyiv.  What is certain is that many if not all of the leaders of these churches were part of the original St. Nicholas congregation, co-founded and served by the mysterious missionary, the Bohemian-Slovak Greek-Catholic onetime Basilian Father Damascene Adalbert Francisk Polivka.

Abbé Quoëx and the Liturgy

On 2 January 2007, a man of great virtue, Father Franck Marie Quoëx, passed to his eternal reward in God.   Each year, those who had the great privilege of his friendship observe this day quietly, modestly but religiously.  And so it is fitting, as Abbé Quoëx was a modest man, a hidden soul.  His scholarly works, of great scientific value, are not yet known.  And still, many who did not know him in life have come to admire him and cherish his memory.  The power of his personality, the nobility of his character, the goodness of his heart continue to attract people who never met him.

An worthy reflection on Father Quoëx's life and work has recently appeared on New Liturgical Movement.  To this excellent article, I can only add that, as an authentic Christian liturgist, Abbé Quoëx did not limit his interest to his own rite; he also studied in the Eastern Liturgies, especially the Byzantine Rite and its various usages. He would often attend Byzantine Divine liturgies in Rome and examined the parallels between different rites and their authentic differences.  His scholarship was pure, motivated by the highest human and religious values, devoid of dependence on fashion or conformity based on self-interest.  He cultivated knowledge because it is man's purpose; it belongs to his natural and spiritual destiny. Quoëx's liturgy, whether studied or celebrated, was a participation in God's Beauty and mankind's desire to share and live that beauty.  

Father's Quoëx was not given the consolation to see his work recognized in this life.  He was, however, granted the grace to see the accession of Pope Benedict XVI, who shares his love and appreciation of the liturgy's culture. 

I encourage everyone to read the article in question in order to know him whose memory endures.  May he continue to challenge and encourage us to follow in his footsteps.

The Title of "Excellency" for Bishops

Throughout the ages, Catholic clergy have been styled by various titles.  The most common title is Reverendus.  In addition to the superlative degree thereof (Reverendissimus), clerical dignitaries also were styled with various secular titles such as Dominus (Lordship), Illustrissimus, and Amplitudinis (Grandeur).  Into the twentieth century, bishops continued to be addressed as Most Reverend and Illustrious Lordship, while, in the English speaking world, archbishops were  addressed, in the style of dukes, Your Grace.  Cardinals were and are styled Eminence after the highest officials of the Byzantine court, and the Pope is called Sanctitas (Holiness) or Beatissimus Pater (Most Blessed or Holy Father).

The title of Excellency is secular in origin and began to be given to civil officials such as ambassadors in the eighteenth century.  Thus apostolic nuncios (papal ambassadors) and other dignitaries of the papal court acquired the title Excellentia with the addition of Reverendissima to distinguish it from secular excellencies. Diocesan bishops began to acquire the title with greater frequency in the nineteenth century.  For example, Metropolitan Sheptytsky, who held various state offices in the Austrian Imperial system, was addressed as Excellency inside Austria but as Illustrissimus ac Reverendissimus Dominus by the Roman Curia or Amplitudo Vestra/Votre Grandeur by other clergy.

With the fall of the continental empires  at the end of the First World War, noble titles lost the universal legal force they once possessed and their use began to wane somewhat in civic circles.  The ambassadorial title of Excellency began to be attributed to bishops with greater frequency.  The solemn concordats concluded between the Apostolic See and new European regimes had force of law in both civil and ecclesiastical spheres, and granted state recognition to the Catholic Church and its structures.  Thus, following the conclusion of  the 1925 concordat with Poland, the Roman Curia began to address Polish bishops with the title of Excellency as opposed to Lordship.  Throughout the British Empire, however, the ducal style of Grace for archbishops and Lordship for bishops was recognized in civil law for Anglican hierarchs, the lords spiritual, each of which was a parliamentary peer of the realm. The same titles were used out of courtesy for Catholic bishops of the Empire.

Following the conclusion of the Concordat with Italy and the Lateran Treaty, the Holy See gained international legal recognition.  The Pope, as spiritual and temporal sovereign, was thus able to grant an internationally recognized legal title to all Catholic bishops throughout the world.  In the audience given to the Prefect of the Sacred Congregation of Ceremonial on 11 December 1930, Pope Pius XI decreed that, henceforth, the title of Excellentia Reverendissima (Most Reverend Excellency) was to be used to style both Latin and Oriental patriarchs, apostolic nuncios, archbishops and bishops, and certain  dignitaries of the Roman Curia.  The decree enacting this decision was issued by the Prefect, Cardinal Gennaro Granito Pignatelli di Belmonte on 31 December 1930 and was subsequently published in the Osservatore Romano issue of 24 January and on page 22 of the 1931 Acta Apostolicae Sedis.

Immediately, the problem of the Eastern Catholic Patriarchs arose.  As spiritual heads of their Churches they had been styled Beatitude in order to raise them above other metropolitans and bishops.  Since the mainstream Catholic theology and canon law did not yet understand the concept of Particular Churches, many Roman curialists considered the title Beatitude to be abusive, and proper only to the Roman Pontiff because it had been addressed by St. Jerome to Pope St. Damasus in 384.  Such was the tenure of the previous decree of the Ceremonial Dicastery (June 1893) and was the verdict of an article in the Catholic Encyclopedia of 1913.

It appears, however, that the Vatican Congregation for the Oriental Church(es) had not been consulted on the matter.  Regarding the new title of Excellency, Monsignor Amletto Cicogniani, assessor of the Oriental, sent a formal thank you to Ceremonial on 22 January 1931.  Nevertheless, only two months later, the dicastery’s head, Cardinal Luigi Sincero, brought the matter to the attention of the Pope in an audience of 14 March.  He explained that the Cardinals of the Ceremonial Congregation had ignored the preparatory studies for the codification of Oriental Canon Law which had recommended that patriarchs retain a title distinct from bishops.  Perhaps not wanting to provoke further conflicts in the other curial departments, the  Pope ordered that, henceforth, the Oriental Congregation address Eastern Catholic patriarchs as Beatitude so that “in this way, this qualification would be introduced without issuing, for the moment, a special decree.”

In January 1938, papal secretary of state Cardinal Pacelli consulted the Oriental Congregation regarding letters to be sent to the Melchite Patriarch. The drafts in question had been addressed to “His Excellency”, at which Sincero’s successor, Cardinal Eugène Tisserant, remarked: “Why withold the title Beatitude for the Melchite Patriarch?  Is it someone from the Secreteriat of State?”  Pacelli, upon becoming Pope Pius XII, would  correct this oversight definitively for with his motu proprio Cleri Sanctitati in 1957, he finally granted the title Beatitude to Eastern Catholic patriarchs by full force of the law (canon 273, 10).

The Episcopal Conference of 1932

  The Synod of the Hierarchy of the Ukrainian Greek-Catholic Church is scheduled to begin next week.  Before Pope John Paul II granted a synodal structure to our Church (in 1980), instead of synods the bishops held semi-annual episcopal conferences.  What follows is a translation of the opening paragraph of the decree issued by the bishops at the close of such a conference, which took place in Rome from 9-15 November 1932: 

“We the undersigned Ruthenian Bishops, congregated in this Alma Urbe [Mother Rome] express our utmost gratitude to the Supreme Pontiff for the kingly, nay magnificent Seminary building of St. Josaphat, the very building in which our Conference was held.  Besides those present, His Excellency the Metropolitan of Halych, afflicted by a grave illness, was absent from our midst, and also our bishops from America and Canada were impeded and could not come to Rome nor take part in our Conference.  Although absent, some bishops made their presence felt by telegraph and by sending delegates to the Holy Father, to the Sacred Congregation [of the Oriental Church] and also to the same Conference, for which they were deputized to cast their votes.”

The 1932 conference was significant, particularly for the drafting of a statute to be observed at all future conferences.   Following its conclusion, the Oriental Congregation asked the Apostolic Nuncio in Warsaw to comment on the Ukrainian bishops’ resolutions.  Writing to Cardinal Sincero on 22 December 1933, Nuncio Marmaggi observed that “the Conference was very occupied with matters of lesser importance, all the while leaving aside issues which should have merited the consideration of their Excellencies." The absence of Sheptytsky, their primate, might have been a factor in their inability to focus on more essential points.

Blessed of a Previous Pandemic

" I lay sick for a month with a cough and rheumatism, at the time when influenza was spreading through Canada."    

  

- Blessed Bishop Nykyta Budka to Metropolitan Andrei Sheptytsky, Winnipeg, 22 November 1918.

The 1925 Concordat with Poland

It is time to lay to rest the claim that the 1925 Concordat between Poland and the Holy See granted practical autonomy to the Greek-Catholic Church.  This claim continues to be repeated by various authors. However, if we examine the historical evidence we discover that although the concordat granted legal status to the Greek-Catholic Church in interwar Poland, it also deprived it of several rights and freedoms.

Following the ideals of the Enlightenment and the French Revolution, nation states in the nineteenth century delineated their rights and responsibilities by written constitutions.  After the First World War, the Catholic Church negotiated written concordats with the new states, each of which also sought diplomatic recognition for itself.  In this historical context, the Holy See considered the concordat arrangement to be the best way to secure the Church’s independence and to establish a working relationship with new regimes.

Several years of preparation went into the Concordat with Poland.  The first soundings for this treaty came in July 1918 from the Regency Government of Austro-German-occupied Poland. However, negotiations had to be put on hold due to the fall of the Regency that November.  Its successor regime, the Second Republic, appeared to be unstable so the Vatican waited to see if a durable government would emerge with which it could negotiate a lasting agreement.

The Holy See began negotiations with the Polish government in 1919 but ran into opposition from a group of Polish bishops (Teodorowicz, Sapieha, and Dalbor) which wanted to negotiate directly with the government.  A compromise was reached whereby members of the Polish episcopate and religious superiors were appointed to negotiate a draft text with government representatives.  The Polish parliament adopted a federal constitution on 21 March 1921, article 114 of which stated that “relations between the state and the Church will be fixed based on an agreement with the Holy See, which must be ratified by parliament”. 

Historically, Poland is looked upon as a bastion of Catholicism but the government of the interwar Second Republic often pursued policies detrimental to the Catholic Church. Many of its politicians, who were ostensibly Catholics, had been educated in the liberal or Josephist ideologies of Austria and Germany.  They made sure that Catholicism was not declared the official religion in the March Constitution, but merely the religion of the majority.  They also sought to reproduce in the concordat, clauses favourable to the type of state interference that had existed during the previous imperial regimes.  They were surprised that the Apostolic See was reluctant to give their ostensibly Catholic state the rights which had been previously accorded to the Lutheran kaiser and the Orthodox tsar. 

It is interesting to examine the Greek-Catholics’ issues that were discussed in the concordat negotiations and how much initiative Vatican representatives took to ensure the protection of Greek-Catholic rights. The Russian regime had confiscated a large  number of churches and large portions of revenue-producing lands, especially those belonging to Eastern Catholics.  When he was nuncio in Poland, Pope Pius XI had appointed two Greek-Catholic representatives to a committee charged with drafting a proposal for the parceling of church properties.  Perhaps the most intricate question, the land reform issue, took years to negotiate, further  prolonged by the frequent changing of governments, each with  its own views  on the issue. Finally, in 1924, a draft concordat was agreed upon by church and state delegates in Poland, following which the government sent its envoy, Stanislas Grabski, to Rome to make the final negotiations with Monsignor Francesco Borgongini Duca of the Holy See. 

Before the Vatican negotiations began, Francesco Marmaggi, the apostolic nuncio to Poland, sent the draft text to both Latin and Greek-Catholic bishops and major superiors, asking for their comments and concerns.  The Ukrainian bishops expressed two principal concerns.  The first pertained to government interference in church appointments.  The bishops proposed that the church be freed of any interference in these matters, and that bishops be appointed directly by the Pope.  The second concern  related to the Eastern Catholic faithful residing in the Kholm, Pidlasia and Volyn regions. Eastern Catholic eparchies had been forcibly supressed in these regions by the Russian Empire, and the Polish regime had not permitted them to be restored, hoping that the Eastern faithful would thus come to adopt the Latin Rite. 

Bishop Przezdziecki of Lutsk pointed out that the first draft of the constutition had not mentioned the Eastern Rites, except in the context of their obligations towards the state.  He suggested that more emphasis be placed on the equality of all rites of the Catholic Church.  Przezdziecki was also concerned that the Eastern Catholics in the former uniate eparchies not be deprived of any pastoral care, as the first draft of the concordat text seemed to imply by prohibiting Greek-Catholic bishops from exercising jurisdiction outside their eparchies. His solution was for the Latin bishops of those regions to coordinate the Eastern Rite missions outside of Galicia.

Marmaggi's report to the Vatican took into account this feedback from the episcopate, giving special concern to the Greek-Catholic issues. All of his suggestions were incorporated into the Vatican’s proposals during the first phase of negotiations. These took place at the Vatican over 17 sessions between 1 October and 5 November 1924.  The Holy See was able to obtain concessions for Greek-Catholics but in some cases the government imposed restrictions.  Let us look at some of the details in the Articles of the proposed Concordat.  This will reveal where concessions by the Polish Government to the Greek Catholic Rites were sought, and where restrictions against the latter were still to continue in force. 

Article 1  was changed to read:  “The Catholic Church in all its rites will enjoy complete liberty”. Article 9 stipulated that diocesan boundaries had to be readjusted so that no bishop outside Poland had jurisdiction within the republic and that religious superiors had to be Polish citizens.  Article 11,  while stating in principal that episcopal appointments were the prerogative of the Holy See, nevertheless conceded a veto to the president of the Republic for any candidate considered politically dangerous to Poland’s interests. Article 12 enjoined that all bishops would swear before the President an oath of allegiance to the Republic.  Although Article 13 required the use of the Polish language, Grabski  promised that the government would also ensure education in the mother tongue for elementary schools.  Article 14 protected Church property from state expropriation. Article 18 stated that Oriental Catholics outside their diocesan boundaries would be placed under the jurisdiction of Latin ordinaries, a restriction that brought some debate before being included.  Article 19 stated that those dangerous to security be excluded from parochial benefices. A clause was added that, if the government did not present objections within a 30 day period, the church could proceed with parochial nominations.  Article 20 mandated that conflicts between the government and the church over appointments had to be resolved within 3 months, after which the matter would go before a commission..  To article 22, on the use of the Polish language, the Holy See added the words “in the latin rite”, so as to avoid the government mixing into Greek-Catholic affairs. 

The nuncio sent these negotiated wordings to certain bishops and clergy in Poland for comments. A second set of 8 sessions of negotiations began on 5 January and ended 2 February, 1925.  During these sessions, changes to the text included the following: In Article 2, the Holy See insisted on emphasising the complete freedom for clerics to communicate with Rome and the freedom from government censure of episcopal letters (government officials had blocked Metropolitan Sheptytsky’s pastoral letter in 1923 and would do so again in 1938).  The Holy See had been asking for the Peremysl Eparchy to be divided in two.  In this regard, Grabski signed a secret note to article 9, promising that after parliamentary ratification of the concordat one Greek and one Latin diocese would be established in Galicia.  (These promises were never fulfilled).  A comment on article 12 stated that any further concessions for the Greek-Catholic bishops regarding the oath of allegiance to the republic could not be obtained.  At the last session on 5 February, an agreement was reached on article 18 regarding Latin patronage appointments.  Cardinal Dalbor’s proposal was accepted whereby the patron of the benefice or parish had to choose one of three candidates selected by the bishop.  Despite flexibility towards the Latin Church, the Government refused to concede any liberty on this point to the Greek-Catholics.

Bishop Szelazek had been sent to Rome as a delegate of the Polish episcopate, to assist in the final negotiations.  He wrote several letters to Nuncio Marmaggi, informing him of the final phases of the work.  Szelazek stated that the last days of talks had been very difficult and he was in great fear of the outcome. He nevertheless believed that the Holy See had obtained all possible concessions from the government.  While 2 February had been scheduled as the last session, Vatican representatives insisted on returning to the table, to further negotiate “grave issues”.  Interestingly, at the very last minute (6 February), Nuncio Marmaggi asked Szelazek to lobby for the division of the Peremysl Eparchy and submitted information regarding state persecution of Ukrainian schoolteachers. These interventions did not enter into the discussion, which were concluded on 8 February.  The final draft was signed by both parties on 10 February in the evening.  Following a single-session examination by a commission of cardinals, Pope Pius XI promulgated the concordat on 18t February. As had been stipulated in the Polish Constitution, the agreement was put before parliament, which duly ratified it on 23 April 1925.  The Concordat between the Holy See and Poland entered into effect as church and civil law on 3 August 1925.

Those authors who claim that the concordat granted autonomy to the Greek Catholic Church are likely following quasi-official publications which came out shortly after the ratification of the treaty.  Monsignor Olexander Bachynsky was probably asked by Metropolitan Sheptytsky to publish an officially positive pamphlet entitled “Konkordat”.  Bachynsky noted, among other things, that the state recognized the equality of all Catholics without distinction of rites, the state is not competent in Church affairs, and the Church had the right to govern its own internal affairs. 

Despite such publications, the Ukrainian reaction to the concordat was not favourable.  Even the nuncio noted that: “The Ruthenian Catholics are not satisfied with their situation resulting from the recent Concordat.”  In July 1925, the head of the ZUNR in exile, Jevhen Petrushevych, wrote to the Holy See protesting the subjugation of the Ukrainians in Poland.  Father Let Gillet also noted Ukrainian discontent in his journal entry of 26 August 1925.

The concordat had immediate repercussions for the Greek-Catholic Church.  First, all the bishops had to swear an oath of loyalty to the Polish state and abandon any official support for a Ukrainian separatist movement.  The liturgical prayers for the head of state in the Liturgy were modifed. In the first issue of his diocesan bulletin for 1926, Metropolitan Sheptytsky decreed: “In virtue of Article VIII of the Concordat of the Holy Apostolic See with the Republic of Poland and the decision of the Polish episcopate in Warsaw (1925), it is prescribed that, in future, on all Sundays and on 3 May, during the Holy Mass, after the dismissal during the prayer “ad multos annos” which begins with the words “through their holy prayers”, leaving aside the words: “to our most faithful emperor”, after the expression: “all of our fathers and brothers”, the following words must be said: “save, O Lord, our state and its president (N.N.)”, together with the words following to the end of the prayer. In all other places in the Liturgy, only the church authorities are to be commemorated.”

Perhaps the most disappointing feature  of the concordat for the Greek-Catholic Church was  the restriction of pastoral activities to the three eparchies of Galicia (renamed Little Poland). This meant that Bishop Josyf Botsian, who had been secretly consecrated in 1914, had to refrain from the public use of his title as bishop of Lutsk because it was not recognized by the concordat.  Although there was no specific mention of this eparchy in the negotiations, it was clear that the government was unwilling to lift its moratorium on Greek-Catholic clergy ministering in the borderlands of Poland,  fearing the people in such regions region would come to support Ukrainian nationalism. 

The Ukrainian bishops had warned the Holy See that a concordat would likely be used against the Greek-Catholics by government officials because in Poland the laws were not applied equitably.  This became more and more the case in the 1930’s as Poland’s ethnic minorities began to rebel and because, in the words of Bishop Szelazek, of the government’s “tendency towards totalitarianism”.

Except for a single school, Ukrainian-language elementary education was abolished at the beginning of the 1930s's. At the end of the decade, the Ministry of Religion began to refuse consent to the appointment of certain Greek-Catholic pastors and, without providing specific charges, ordered their removal from border zones. The Nuncio drew the attention of the ministry of foreign affairs to such arbitrary procedures, which were in violation of the concordat.  In turn, the government complained that the Ukrainian clergy were openly violating the concordat’s loyalty clauses. 

The veto for residential bishops began to be used against candidates who had disagreed with the regime over any issue.  The military regime was opposed to the the Eastern-Rite missions in Poland. In 1934, the president vetoed the candidacy of Auxillary-Bishop Cieslaw Sokolowski for the vacant Sandomierz diocese, simply because his bishop had placed him in charge of the Byzantine-Rite in Podlachia.  Nuncio Marmaggi informed the government that the Holy See could not even enter into a discussion regarding the existence of the Eastern-Catholics.  When the nuncio suggested another candidate, Pius XI replied that abandoning a worthy candidate would "bring shame on the Holy See". Even after local Polish notables testified to the worthiness of Sokolowski, the foreign minister told the nuncio that questioning the president's reasons was an offense against the dignity of the head of state.  After all negotiations failed, the Nuncio was instructed simply to inform the foreign minister of that the pope had appointed an interim apostolic administrator.

By 1937, the accord between the Vatican and Warsaw had become a burden to the ruling regime's anti-Catholic and totalitarian policies.  The state moved to grant similar legal status to non-Catholic confessions which were heavily under state control.  The concordat ceased to have any legal status with the German and Soviet invasions of 1939, following which the Holy See proceeded to appoint Polish bishops without the consent of any government. Perhaps the most significant was the appointment of Josyf Slipyj, secretly named archbishop-coadjutor to Metropolitan Sheptytsky in 1939.  This elicited a protest from the government-in-exile when it was finally informed of the appointment, after the war.  However, With the establishment of a communist republic in 1945, it was in the interest of both Church and State to declare the concordat as having been voided in 1940.