IS BENEDICT XVI JUST A LAYMAN? (The dangers of extreme Traditionalism)

"Does the Novus Ordo Mass Fulfill Our Sunday Obligation?" That is the topic of an upcoming debate between Bob Sungenis and Gerry Matatics.

The debate is scheduled for October 1 at a yet-to-be-announced location in Southern California. If the venue has not yet been decided, that can't be said for the divvying up of roles. Sungenis will argue that the Novus Ordo (the vernacular Mass attended by almost all Catholics nowadays) fulfills one's Sunday obligation, and Matatics will say that it does not.

The very prospect of the debate has generated controversy in Traditionalist circles, with many people saying it will be a lose-lose event for their movement. Nothing good can come, they say, from having a prominent Traditionalist argue that the Novus Ordo is so defective that it does not even qualify as a legitimate Mass.

Is Matatics taking the negative in the debate merely as a courtesy? Apparently not.

A few months ago he began a lecture tour focusing on the vernacular Mass and the post-Vatican II revision of the rite of ordination. At his web site he refers to "the strong stand I've taken in my April talks against the New Mass and related issues--e.g., the new (post-1968) ordination rites."

At those talks he is reported to have argued that the Novus Ordo Mass is so defective (he calls it "a monstrosity") that it is invalid and that the 1968 revisions to the rite of ordination render that rite invalid as well.

Lenin famously remarked, "Who says A must say B." If you accept certain premises, certain consequences follow. If Socrates is a man and all men are mortal, then Socrates is mortal. You can't escape that conclusion, even if you wish to.

An invalid rite cannot confer a valid sacrament, no matter how much one might wish it could. If the revised rite of ordination is invalid, then any man who attempts to be ordained a priest under it is not ordained validly. He comes out of the ordination ceremony as he came in: as a layman.

This means that, if the revised ordination rite is invalid, only men ordained prior to its introduction in 1968 are real priests. Only their ordinations "took." All the ordinations conducted since that time have failed to "take."

From what I can gather, this conforms to what Matatics has said in his public remarks. The implications are great.

For one thing, an invalid rite of ordination implies that it would be hard to find a real priest younger than about 60. The priest shortage would be immensely more extensive than it generally is understood to be. If the priest at your parish was ordained after 1968, then in fact you have no priest at all.

If the ordination of a priest under the revised rite is invalid, so too is the ordination (consecration) of a bishop.

A bishop, after all, is a man who has been given the fullness of priestly ordination and who, because of that fullness, has certain powers that a priest does not have. A bishop, for example, can ordain other men. A priest cannot. A bishop enjoys jurisdiction, while a priest does not. And so on.

Consider now a hypothetical example. Let's say that a man was ordained a priest in 1951. He would have been ordained under the old rite, and, according to Matatics, that ordination would have been valid. So far, so good.

Now let's say that the same man was ordained a bishop in 1977. That would have been under the new rite, so, if we follow Matatics's logic, that second ordination would have been invalid. In reality the man still would be a priest; he would not have been elevated to the episcopacy.

Let's take the hypothetical one step further and imagine that this man, who was ordained a priest but not a bishop, is elected pope. What happens?

By definition the pope is the bishop of Rome, not the priest or layman of Rome. No man can be pope unless he is a bishop, just as no man is married unless he has a wife. If our hypothetical man is not made a bishop, either before or just after his election, he cannot be a real pope. There is no such thing as a layman pope or a priest pope. The bishop of Rome must be a bishop.

Joseph Ratzinger was ordained to the priesthood in 1951. He was ordained archbishop of Munich-Freising in 1977. He was elected pope in 2005. If his priestly ordination was valid but his episcopal ordination was not, then he is not a true pope. He is an anti-pope, a pretender, an imposter.

He may be called the pope. He may be addressed as "Holy Father." He may wear papal white. He may live in the Apostolic Palace. He may preside at Vatican events. But, according to this logic, he is not the pope.

This is the inevitable implication of the position that Matatics is now said to promote. If the Catholic Church has not had a valid rite of ordination since 1968, then today it cannot have a true pope. This is sedevacantism.

"Many of you have inquired about my summer speaking schedule, since, until today, my web site had only listed engagements up through April 16! Here's the scoop: due to the strong stand I've taken in my April talks against the New Mass and related issues--e.g., the new (post-1968) ordination rites (about which I'll be writing in my next essay, which I hope to post here next week)--all but one of my 2005 speaking engagements have been canceled, including:

"1) the Chartres pilgrimage in May I was to have once again (as in the previous 9 years) joined 'The Remnant' for,

"2) the Dietrich von Hildebrand Institute in Lake Gardone, Italy, in June [actually, June 30 through July 10] for which I was to deliver several lectures on the doctrinal controversies in the early Church and the formation of the New Testament canon,

"3) the annual St. Benedict Center Conference in Fitchburg MA in July (at which I've also spoke for nearly ten years now),

In an e-mail to me, Michael Matt, editor of "The Remnant," confirmed that Matatics withdrew from participation in this year's pilgrimage because he doubted that priests associated with it, including those in the Vatican-sanctioned Fraternity of St. Pter, had been ordained validly.

I did not reach Prof. John Rao, who oversees the Dietrich von Hildebrand Institute conference, because the conference was underway in Italy just this last week.

I telephoned the St. Benedict Center and spoke with a representative who confirmed that Matatics was not invited to speak at the group's conference this year precisely because of talks he had given in March and April, talks in which he denied the validity of the vernacular Mass and the present rite of ordination.

"Although these cancellations (more about which I will write in my next 'Gerry's Word' essay) entail a devastating loss of income (so donations to help us through these next several weeks will be gratefully appreciated!), I refuse to compromise, or to be intellectually dishonest, on these issues. I will be giving a full defense of my positions on these matters, quoting the authoritative teachings of the Catholic Church, in my next essay."

This brings me to something mentioned in my E-Letter of last week. Matatics says that "all but one of my 2005 speaking engagements have been canceled." The one that has not seems to be the "Australia-New Zealand speaking tour" that is listed in the "Upcoming Events" section of his web site.

But something else is mentioned there too: "CSI (Catholici Semper Idem) conference in France."

I was not familiar with an organization by that name, so I did a Google search on "Catholici Semper Idem." The search turned up several hits.

Some were to the French site I mentioned in last week's E-Letter. That is the site of "Pope Peter II," an elderly Frenchman who imagines he is the real pope. The site is titled "Catholici Semper Idem" ("Catholics Always the Same") and includes a long essay arguing that John Paul II was not a real pope and another saying that men ordained by the Catholic Church since 1968 remain just laymen.

Is this the group putting on the conference that Matatics will attend? I suspect not. Although his argument about the revised ordination rite leads to the conclusion that Benedict XVI is not a real pope, I find it hard to believe that Matatics would give credence to the claims of "Peter II," even if the latter has published arguments that Matatics finds congenial.

No, I suspect the conference is being sponsored by a different though like-thinking group. This one is called Les Amis du Christ Roi de France (The Friends of Christ King of France) and uses as its subtitle "Catholici Semper Idem," the same phrase used by "Peter II." In fact, arguments on the ACRF site are made use of at the "Peter II" site.

The ACRF site (www.a-c-r-f.com) is more extensive and, seemingly, more serious-minded than the other site, but both rely on the argument that Matatics has taken up: The revised ordination rite is so flawed that today we have no valid ordinations.

ACRF claims that the recent conclave contained no real bishops, since all the voting cardinals were ordained to the episcopacy under the post-1968 ordination rite. All the attendees were either priests or laymen: "Fr. Ratzinger, ordained in the new rite of [Giovanni Battista] Montini [Pope Paul VI, who authorized the 1968 revision], is not a Catholic bishop." If true, this means that Benedict XVI is not a real pope.

The October debate is to be about the Novus Ordo Mass, not about the revised rite of ordination. But the two go together, because if there are no valid priests, it makes no difference whether the Novus Ordo Mass fulfills one's Sunday obligation. A Mass celebrated by a non-priest is a non-Mass.

Communion with the Pope and the Church is a one-way street.

No. The Pope must be in Communion with the perennial magisterium of the Church.

You are not in Communion with the Church because you protest that you are Catholic. You are in Communion by being in Communion with legitimate Pastors accepted by the Pope. "Communion ... is not understood as some kind of vague disposition, but as an organic reality which requires a juridical form and is animated by charity." (Vatican II, Lumen Gentium, Nota Previa)

You are ignoring the entire Arian heresy of the Church then. The followers of St. Athanasius were not out of Communion. To resist the declarations of Pope Stephen against the ordinations of Pope Formosus did not separate one from Communion with the Church or the See of Peter despite the best efforts of Stephen.

To reject the ordination of all priests and bishops since 1968, and thus not hold communion with them, is to be at least in defacto schism, especially when one of them has been elected Pope.

It's perfectly legitimate to depend on priests that are outside of the "norm" when the "approved" priests are presenting themselves as a danger to the faith and attempting to destroy the Church. Many priests and bishops have been conditionally, secretly re-ordained. This is a constant practice of the Church. Should the ordinations of many or the majority of priests since the changes in the sacraments be shown to be invalid, that would not be a rejection of communion. Just as rejecting donuts as a valid matter for the Eucharist would not be rejecting communion.

"You and nearly everyone else from the drained pond known as the FR religion forum will see this, so please don't pretend that you didn't."

I'm still trying to figure out how you parse that to get anything like "Loyal minions! I command you to visit another site and harrass one or more persons!" Seems to me that he is: 1. recognizing the fact that many Traditional Catholic posters have been banned from FR in recent weeks and months; 2. opining that many of those remaining also either post or lurk at Angelqueen; and 3. that items 1 and 2 are common knowledge. Seems pretty straightforward to me.

You're right. I was wrong. You are a newbie. My apologies.

Apologie(s) accepted. Last Fall does seem like a long time ago in many respects, doesn't it?

Robert Drobot doesn't agree with you.

Oh, my heavens! Robert Drobot doesn't agree with me! Whatever will I do? Disagreement with Robert Drobot is the ultimate sign that whatever your position is MUST be wrong! /sarcasm I'm sure Mister Drobot would be gratified to learn that you hold his opinions in such high regard. I have enjoyed many of his posts, but I hesitate to burden him with infallibility.

If you don't like it here, then leave. We don't need to post a breakup thread.

Who said I didn't like it here? I don't agree with management in every instance, but I NEVER agree with management in every instance. It's one of my character flaws.

"What is a grave misjudgement is your assumption that resisting Peter to his face when he is wrong is being apart from him. And even if mistaken like St. Vincent Ferrer, it is not necessarily grave."

"Resisting Peter to his face when he is wrong?". Hahahahaha......which is almost all the time, right? You're a real comedian. C'mon, seriously.

It's obvious you are out of gas again. You didn't even respond to the example of St. Vincent. You imagine some scenario where Popes can't be wrong frequently.

We're not talking about infrequent differences of opinion over minor matters. We're talking about rejecting, in toto, the papacy of not one, not two, not three, not four but five Popes.

So what? Where is the promise of Christ saying that "I'll never give you more than two consecutive bad Popes." ? Answer: There is none. So, you're shooting blanks on that one.

If that is not being apart from the Pope, nothing is. And it most certainly is grave.

Nah. You are just relying on your "fantasy" version of what communion is. It always comes back to lazy, servile Catholicism.

"Those are false options. You don't have to turn your back on the Roman Pontiff to listen to a layman read the Pope's own words and then read another Pope saying the opposite. The Roman Pontiff is not a "source" of authentic Catholicism. He's supposed to be the authentic guardian of the Deposit of Faith."

As indeed he is. That's precisely why we want to hear his teaching. Straight from the horse's mouth.

And if he's silent on important issue? And if he won't speak clearly as JPII often refused to do? Listen to what he says, of course. If he speaks with Peter's voice then we have nothing to worry about but if he speaks as Peter denying Christ then, it's best to rebuke him. Best to talk to Cardinal Mahoney about not even listening to the Popes.

What goes on in the wannabee world of the lecture circuit doesn't concern us.

Nothing concerns those in the Disneyland version of the Catholic Church.

It matters to you though. We've all noticed what a hopeless name-dropper you are...(" I was speaking to Gerry back in April"......"I had Patrick Madrid screaming at me.".....etc, etc...). Big deal.

Well schnookems, because I actually took the time to seek these people out and interact with them, I have a little more firsthand knowledge of them than you do. Being accurate matters to me. If you don't like it that's tough. Your personal attacks don't matter, they are just more evidence of the hopelessness of your positions.

You soundlike you're the religious equivalent of the guy in the soap commercial who's frustrated because Spielberg won't call him.

Not really. If you're analogy were to stand it would be the guy in the soap commercial who does know Spielberg. You sound like the jealous guy that waits tables and didn't bother to try.

My own view is ultimately, God will save whom He wants and would more likely send an Angel to instruct and baptize before allowing such a loose interpretation of his doctrine to be true.

It does not seem clear to me that Angels can administer the Sacraments, nor is there anything in history or theology to lend credence to such wild speculation.

Charles Coulombe addresses your position on what Trent actually stated very accurately.

My position? No, the literal words of Trent. Not the heretical speculations of Messer. Coulombe.

"Justification ... since the promulgation of the Gospel, cannot be effected, without the laver of regeneration, or the desire thereof, as it is written; unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God." (Council of Trent, Session 6, Decree on Justification, Chapter 4)
CANON IV.-If any one saith, that the sacraments of the New Law are not necessary unto salvation, but superfluous; and that, without them, or without the desire thereof, men obtain of God, through faith alone, the grace of justification;-though all (the sacraments) are not ineed necessary for every individual; let him be anathema. (Council of Trent, Session 7, Canons on the Sacraments)

The above decree provides the definition of the meaning of St. John 3.5, which excludes what Messer Coulombe makes of it below.

The proof of this is that Trent anathematises anyone who would "make a metaphor" of Our Lord's words, "Unless a man be born again..." That means we must take that phrase----a phrase which does not permit exceptions---literally.

Moreover, such an interpretation of Trent as Messer. Coulombe makes above is itself highly tenditious. The Canon he refers to says:

CANON II.-If any one saith, that true and natural water is not of necessity for baptism, and, on that account, wrests, to some sort of metaphor, those words of our Lord Jesus Christ; Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost; let him be anathema.(Council of Trent, Session 7, Canons on Baptism)

The metaphor is not that the Sacrament of Baptism may be had by desire, which has just been clearly explained twice by the Council, but that water is not necessary for the Sacrament of Baptism, but is merely metaphorical - i.e. the Protestant doctrine of invisible Baptism of the Holy Spirit, water Baptism being merely a symbolic rite and not a substantive Sacrament.

Continuing with Trent, since we've clearly established that Justification is possible apart from actual Baptism by Water by the desired intention to recieve it. No lets adress this comment by Messer. Coulombe by continuing further with Trent:

It declares that the "Votum" (vow, NOT mere desire) to baptised can justify one. But it does not say that one can be saved that way. Justification is the state of being pleasing to God, of having one's sins forgiven---such as you and I are when we step out of the confessional. But that is certainly not the same as being saved.

"For, whereas Jesus Christ Himself continually infuses his virtue into the said justified,-as the head into the members, and the vine into the branches,-and this virtue always precedes and accompanies and follows their good works, which without it could not in any wise be pleasing and meritorious before God,-we must believe that nothing further is wanting to the justified, to prevent their being accounted to have, by those very works which have been done in God, fully satisfied the divine law according to the state of this life, and to have truly merited eternal life, to be obtained also in its (due) time, if so be, however, that they depart in grace: seeing that Christ, our Saviour, saith: If any one shall drink of the water that I will give him, he shall not thirst for ever; but it shall become in him a fountain of water springing up unto life everlasting." (Council of Trent, Session 6, Decree on Justification, Chapter 15)

This section clearly contradicts Messer. Coulombe's heresy. He reemphasizes his heresy in what is below just to make sure everyone understands his position clearly:

An individual who is in the state of justification but has not received these other effects, is like one of the just of the Old Testament. Their sins were forgiven them; but they could not ascend to Heaven precisely because they were sons of Adam. ... For those of us in the New Law, that can only happen through Baptism.

But, Trent is very clear that a man who is justified will be saved if he dies in that state. It says emphatically "we must believe" this and it says nothing further is wanting to him once he is justified but to persevere by grace in that state.

You quite clearly don't believe that, yet an ecumenical council said you must. Ergo, you are spouting heresy.

From the Roman Catechism (Catechism of the Council of Trent for Parish Priests) issued by order of Pope Pius V:

"The Third Degree Of Prayer: The Prayer Of Unbelievers: A third degree of prayer is that which is offered by those who have not as yet been illumined with the light of faith; but who, when the divine goodness illumines in their souls the feeble natural light, are strongly moved to the desire and pursuit of truth and most earnestly pray for a knowledge of it.

"If they persevere in such dispositions, God, in His mercy, will not neglect their earnest endeavours, as we see verified by the example of Cornelius the centurion. The doors of the divine mercy are closed against none who sincerely ask for mercy."

From the Encyclical Quanto Conficiamur Moerore (Encyclical of the notorious modernist Pope Pius IX) August 10, 1863:

7. Here, too, our beloved sons and venerable brothers, it is again necessary to mention and censure a very grave error entrapping some Catholics who believe that it is possible to arrive at eternal salvation although living in error and alienated from the true faith and Catholic unity. Such belief is certainly opposed to Catholic teaching.

There are, of course, those who are struggling with invincible ignorance about our most holy religion. Sincerely observing the natural law and its precepts inscribed by God on all hearts and ready to obey God, they live honest lives and are able to attain eternal life by the efficacious virtue of divine light and grace. Because God knows, searches and clearly understands the minds, hearts, thoughts, and nature of all, his supreme kindness and clemency do not permit anyone at all who is not guilty of deliberate sin to suffer eternal punishments.

From Singulari Quidem, also by Pius IX:

“The Church clearly declares that the only hope of salvation for mankind is placed in the Christian faith, which teaches the truth, scatters the darkness of ignorance by the splendor of its light, and works through love. This hope of salvation is placed in the Catholic Church which, in preserving the true worship, is the solid home of this faith and the temple of God. Outside of the Church, nobody can hope for life or salvation unless he is excused through ignorance beyond his control.”

I should also call your attention to highly relevant comments in the same pope’s allocution Singulari Quadam (note the almost identical name), dated December 9, 1854:

"It must, of course, be held as a matter of faith that outside the Apostolic Roman Church no one can be saved, that the Church is the only ark of salvation, and that whoever does not enter it will perish in the flood. On the other hand, it must likewise be held as certain that those who are affected by ignorance of the true religion, if it is invincible ignorance, are not subject to any guilt in this matter before the eyes of the Lord. Now, then, who could presume in himself an ability to set the boundaries of such ignorance, taking into consideration the natural differences of peoples, lands, native talents, and so many other factors? Only when we have been released from the bonds of this body and see God just as He is [1Jn 3:2] shall we really understand how close and beautiful a bond joins divine mercy with divine justice. Nevertheless, as charity demands, let us pray continually for the conversion to Christ of all nations everywhere. Let us devote ourselves to the salvation of all men as far as we can, for the hand of the Lord is not shortened [Is 59:1]. The gifts of heavenly grace will assuredly not be denied to those who sincerely want and pray for refreshment by the divine light. These truths need to be fixed deeply in the minds of the faithful so that they cannot be infected with doctrines tending to foster the religious indifferentism which We see spreading widely, with growing strength, and with destructive effect upon souls."

Hope this helps.

The Pope must be in Communion with the perennial magisterium of the Church.

The Pope in his official teaching is the perennial Magisterium. Even a Pope who is privately in error, like John XXII was, must be obeyed and held in communion.

You are ignoring the entire Arian heresy of the Church then. The followers of St. Athanasius were not out of Communion.

St. Athanasius was never out of communion with Rome, nor did Pope St. Liberius "fall". Perhaps you are relying far too much on lying histories trying to justify schism, instead of the decrees of his successors on his person.

To resist the declarations of Pope Stephen against the ordinations of Pope Formosus did not separate one from Communion with the Church or the See of Peter despite the best efforts of Stephen.

Pope Stephen VI effectively excommunicated himself from the Church by refusing to have communion with those ordained by Pope Formosus. The situation was quite humorous in a way, since Pope Stephen VI had himself been raised to the Episcopate as Bishop of Anagni by his predecessor Formosus, whose ordinations he condemned in synod. One needn't trouble oneself about the fulminations of an imbecile on Peter's Seat who condemns himself in his condemnations.

I don't see any parallel from the madness of Stephen VI to any acts of Paul VI or John Paul II, whose pontificates obviously upset you.

Sorry, you disagree with Robert Drobot that the following is a type of Holocaust denial post similar to the earlier ones? (snip)

If Mr. Drobot believes that any questioning of the extent of Jewish civilians killed by the Nazi's in WWII is per se antisemitic, then I disagree with him.

He tolerated the remainder of the thread and only weakly suggested that FR not be linked from his site, and that was (so he stated) out of fear that some of his traffic would be siphoned over here. Come on, I thought all Catholics knew the defense of the soldiers who killed St. Thomas à Becket?

Your original charge was, and I quote: "several messengers came over here and posted to NYer on this thread at the request of that site's owner". There's an enormous difference between your original accusation and "tolerated the remainder of the thread". If you'd like to back off gracefully at this juncture, feel free to do so.

Well, I certainly have no problem with you staying.

This is me, just basking in the love...

I'm not distorting the words of the Fathers for one thing.

Yes you are. They are very explicit on this point.

"Let no one, then, be persuaded otherwise, nor let anyone deceive himself: Outside of this house, that is, outside of the Church, no one is saved; for, if anyone should go out of it, he is guilty of his own death" (Origen, Homilies on Joshua, 3.5, AD 250)
"Whoever is separated from the Church and is joined to an adulteress is separated from the promises of the Church, nor will he that forsakes the Church of Christ attain to the rewards of Christ. He is an alien, a worldling, and an enemy. He cannot have God for his Father who has not the Church for his mother" (St. Cyprian of Carthage, The Unity of the Catholic Church, 6, AD 251)

Augustine for one never held those outside the Church who were never in the Church are saved.

It was St. Augustine who among the Fathers most clearly describes the idea of Baptism of Desire, and the non-assignment of heresy to those raised in false opinions. For example:

"The apostle Paul said, ‘As for a man that is a heretic, after admonishing him once or twice, have nothing more to do with him’ [Titus 3:10]. But those who maintain their own opinion, however false and perverted, without obstinate ill will, especially those who have not originated the error of bold presumption, but have received it from parents who had been led astray and had lapsed ... those who seek the truth with careful industry and are ready to be corrected when they have found it, are not to be rated among heretics" (St. Augustine of Hippo, Letters, 43.1, AD 412)

We must certainly confess that little children Baptised among the sects who die in infancy or early childhood are saved by virtue of their Baptism. They were never formally in the Church.

And then of course the usual quotes from you.

The Council of Florence consigns everyone who has not been joined to the Church prior to death to hell, quoting St. Fulgentius. St. Fulgentius explicitly held to Baptism of Blood (and thus of Desire) as joining a person to the Church apart from the Sacrament of Baptism. The Council does not outright condemn all non-Catholics, but only condemns them if before death they have not been joined to the Church, not specifying exactly how this must take place.

essentially what he stated was that people who are not Catholic are saved because they sincerely believe that the religion that they follow is true. As you can see that is condemned by Pius IX's Syllabus of errors.

15. Every man is free to embrace and profess that religion which, guided by the light of reason, he shall consider true.—Allocution "Maxima quidem," June 9, 1862; Damnatio "Multiplices inter," June 10, 1851.--CONDEMNED
16. Man may, in the observance of any religion whatever, find the way of eternal salvation, and arrive at eternal salvation.—Encyclical "Qui pluribus," Nov. 9, 1846..--CONDEMNED
17. Good hope at least is to be entertained of the eternal salvation of all those who are not at all in the true Church of Christ.—Encyclical "Quanto conficiamur," Aug. 10, 1863, etc..--CONDEMNED

None of these points address what Fr. Groeschel may or may not have said, which I cannot fully address.

Point 15 condemns the notion of free choice of religion, 16 condemns the idea that all religions without exception are salvific, and 17 condemns the idea that we should be hopeful regarding the eternal fate of non-Catholics. From what I can tell of what Fr. Groeschel said given your report of it, he didn't maintain any of these positions, but said instead that someone sincerely in error concerning their religion could possibly be saved. This can be true provided that what the person believes is compatible with the basics of the Catholic Faith contained for example in the Athanasian Creed, which conforms to the decrees of the Holy Office to the Bishop of Quebec on this topic - i.e. explicit belief in the Trinity and Incarnation.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.