Posted on 08/08/2005 2:41:43 AM PDT by bornacatholic
Dear Friend of Catholic Answers:
"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.
FOLLOWING THE LOGIC
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.
A HYPOTHETICAL
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.
Now let's bring this hypothetical into the real world.
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.
TALKS FOR TRADITIONALIST GROUPS CANCELED
At his web site (www.gerrymatatics.org), Matatics writes:
"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),
"as well as ALL my other summer speaking engagements."
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.
Matatics goes on to say in his online letter:
"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."
That essay has not yet appeared.
CATHOLICI SEMPER IDEM
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.
Oh just another little bit of insanity from our fun lovin' friend.
He used his native languages, Aramaic and Hebrew!!!!!!
The premier world-wide Sedevacantist site:
http://www.strobertbellarmine.net/
... run by my friend John Lane, notes this on its homepage:
"On Saturday July 6th 2002 at the Turning Stone Resort, in up-state New York, Mr. John S. Daly of France and Mr. John Lane of Australia presented two papers on the vacancy of the Holy See, followed by a short presentation by Mr. Gerry Matatics of the USA. Mr. Matatics proceeded to provide a series of objections to the "sede vacante" thesis, which the speakers answered."
Dear Hermann the Cherusker,
So, what exactly does this mean, regarding Mr. Matatics, that in 2002, he objected to the sedevacantist thesis?
Thanks,
sitetest
No, he made a presentation on Sedevacantism, then played Devil's Advocate to Messers. Lane and Daly to allow them to answer common objections to the thesis.
More to the point, he was a speaker at a Sedevacantist conference.
Dear Hermann,
Gotcha, thanks.
I was a sedevacantist for a couple of weeks back in April.
;-)
sitetest
Lingua graeca maybe, but not lingua franca. ;-)
Of course, you can't have three native tongues. A native tongue is that which you grow up speaking and thinking in.
You don't know what you are talking about, as usual.
Quite how you manage to convince yourself of this while rejecting outright several Popes in succession
Another ridiculous conclusion of yours. Obviously "rejecting" a Pope has two different meanings between you and I. I don't reject a Pope because He's a bad Pope. You obviously reject truth and common sense for your false sense of communion.
and openly supporting an organization which defies the Pope in consecrating its own bishops, is simply one more example, to go with the many others highlighted here by various posters, of the distorted Catholicism which you present.
As usual, you are stuck in this loop that you are afraid to get around. I can back up my positions with doctrine and facts. You won't address those issues. You are a broken record. The truth is the last few Popes have been systematically dismantling the Catholic Church. You wouldn't know this since you don't know the Catholic faith. But facts are facts.
"Bad"? What sort of a nebulous, ill-defined term is that?
No more nebulous and ill-defined than your use of terms like "communion" and "obedience" in reference to the Pope.
The whole thing is hopelessly subjective.
No. It's not.
You say that John Paul II was a "bad" Pope.
Based on facts.
I say he was an inspiration.
Based on nothing to do with the Catholic faith.
Neither opinion really matters.
No. Opinions based on facts are better than fantasies based on feelings.
Is this Protestantism where we each get to decide how "bad" the Pope is?
No. You use the word "Protestantism" as a dodge to avoid the word, "reason." You seem to have no trouble beleiving that Alexander VI or Pope Stephen VI were bad Popes.
As I've pointed out before, we owe the Pope customary obedience.
When the Pope behaves customarily.
The obedience due to our earthly, biological father.
If you're father is an ass, then you adjust your level of obedience accordingly.
It's not for me-or you- to decide whether the Pope is "bad".
No. It's for us to determine. I decide what I'm having for lunch. I determine that food is fresh or spoiled. We don't judge the Pope. The facts do. If you can't determine that the Pope is bad, you can't determine that he is good.
You've started with a false premise. It's our duty to humbly submit to his authority. Nothing more.
No. That is your false premise. It's our duty to submit to the truth.
At what point is it permissible to resist a Pope?
Denying or altering the deposit of faith.
You're wrong of course. Would the deacon that was ordered to provide answers for the corpse of Formosus have been wrong to refuse to participate in that abomination of a trial? Yes or No? If you answer Yes, then your premise is wrong. If you answer no. Then you have no clue about Catholicism.
Ping me when this happens.
How would you determine when it happens? What criteria will you use to determine that?
What is the requirement for knowing that a Pope is in error?
See previous response.
Not good enough. See previous rebuttal.
There seems to be a major difference in outlook, here. Most of my thoughts and spiritual reflections center on my own transgressions and unworthiness.
I doubt you even know half of your transgressions and errors in thinking. It's not your fault though, you simply do not have a Catholic formation.
The question of whether the Pope is good or "bad" is something I seldom, if ever, consider.
Well, you are contradicting yourself because you seem to be able to say JPII was an inspiration. Unless that means something other than "good". But that's part of the problem. You think everything that pops out of a Pope's mouth is automatically good. Bad Popes are a thing of the past. (pre-Vatican II) But if a modern Pope spouts out error and nebulous ill-defined doctrine and leads others into more severe error, while ignoring vast aspects of the faith. Well, he's an inspiration.
You, on the other hand, seem to think it's a topic for daily evaluation. Strange.
We live in strange times with strange Popes popping out strange statements on a daily basis. Maybe you should stop worrying about Me "on the other hand." You seem a bit obsessed with judging my interior disposition.
Hermann,
I'll get to your "Trent" citations a little later, I don't have time to deal with a "shot-gun" blast of citations and with your loosey goosey conclusions.
But I have to say this one made me laugh.
"None of these points address what Fr. Groeschel may or may not have said, which I cannot fully address."
You don't know what Groeschel said and you can't fully address them. But you know that none of them apply.
That is a howler!
God Bless.
No, your relation of what he was trying to say does not indicate any applicability of the points from the Syllabus.
You, sir, are an idiot. You know nothing about me but you know what I wear to work and Church, and call me names in response to a simple question.
Ever hear of RESPECT?
So only priests are to receive the Eucharist?
How do you know?
We do know how the traditional passover meal was eaten.
It's the priests that have maintained those forms of reverence
It is the Church that maintains the Traditions. It is the priests who create their own traditions.
So only priests are to receive the Eucharist?
No. But only priests were taught how to consecrate at that Last Supper.
We do know how the traditional passover meal was eaten.
That Last Supper wasn't finished traditionally. Jesus put the cup of consummation down and would not drink from it until he was on the cross. It was then that he finished it.
"It's the priests that have maintained those forms of reverence..."
It is the Church that maintains the Traditions. It is the priests who create their own traditions.
I'm not sure what you mean by that. The original comment was about priests who have exhibited supernatural piety and miraculous events.
No, your relation of what he was trying to say does not indicate any applicability of the points from the Syllabus.
Groeschel said that people are saved by believing in their own religion sincerely. He doesn't want people to convert. He wants Jews to be good Jews, Moslems to be good Moslems, Protestants to be good Protestants. etc.
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
He did not distinguish even Christianity as an exclusive way to salvation. Basically a Jew can be saved by being a good Jew.
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
He is positive that people are saved who are not in the Catholic Church.
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
Ya know, when I sit and read your posts, I see very little of substance. Strip away the customary condescending "I'm so smart, your so dumb" schtick, such as that above, and there's nothing there. Honestly.
The truth is the last few Popes have been systematically dismantling the Catholic Church. You wouldn't know this since you don't know the Catholic faith. But facts are facts.
This is a good example of what I'm talking about.
The "truth"? Really?
Let's be a little more honest with words, shall we?
You say it's the truth, right? It's the truth according to Gerard, right? And in my world, that makes it nothing more than an opinion, yes? Your opinion.
It's 150 miles from Augusta to Atlanta. That is a fact. "The last few Popes have been systematically dismantling the Church" is an opinion, dufus. A crazy one. Oh.....in my opinion, of course. Mustn't forget that.
Then, of course, to try and cover this smokescreen and confer a little false gravitas on this bluster, you throw in a little more of the usual "you're so dumb schtick"..... "You wouldn't know this since you don't know the Catholic faith."
In other words, don't question me because you don't know anything and can't be right.
We've all read your BS about the Council of Trent on this thread.
You're an empty suit, pal.
Guess what?
When the Pope is trashed unrelentingly, Catholics get angry.
What a shocker! Who new?
A significant amount of what has been posted here over the past months and years, under the guise of "tradition" has been aimed precisely at achieving this. Whether you in particular have been a party to this, I'm unsure.
Many of the main offenders have since been shown the door and the tone of the boards has improved appreciably, in my opinion.
However, it's a little unrealistic to expect that the forum can be spammed relentlessly with negative material about the Pope without eliciting some sort of reaction, wouldn't you say?
I have re-read your post #190. While I sympathise with your sentiment -- that trads have been disregarded and abused for 40 years -- I have to concede there's some truth in bornacatholic's post. Just as I've seen insolent rebellion, schismatic contempt for authority, and an insidious will to discard Tradition in preference for a man-made church on the AmChurch side, I've seen ignorance, pride, disobedience, and (in extreme cases) heresy amongst many ultra-trads. I don't recall much if any trad anti-semitism (blinkered triumphalism and a disordered grasp of EENS should not be taken as such). Neither side appears to have any use for obedience.
Game. Set. Match. :)
Brilliant and succinct summary of the situation, Diva--you're 100% right. I dunno if you caught my comment earlier, but I go to a wonderful indult parish, and only attend the N.O. when I have to.
No. The facts don't judge the Pope. You do.
That's because there's a subjective element involved in drawing conclusions from facts. Any given "fact" can be interpreted in different ways by different individuals.
Here's what I mean.
Two men wait 5 minutes for a burger in a fast food outlet. There's your fact right there.
Now the conclusions drawn from that fact differ between the two men. One man decides that 5 minutes is too long to wait, the service is far too slow for his liking, becomes totally disatisfied and complains. The second concludes that this is nothing more than the normal ebb and flow of business and waits patiently for his order.
The subjective dispositions of the respective indiviuals determine how the "fact" is processed.
It's the same with your so called "facts" about the last five Popes. There's a subjective element involved in processing these facts.
If you can't determine that the Pope is bad, you can't determine that he is good.
True.
But that's only half of the story.
There's a default position for Catholics, of customary obedience. This assumes that the Pope is good. Second guessing his every move and deciding whether he is good or bad is not a part of this process. He's the Pope.
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.