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.
Presumably you refer to the Decree on the Sacraments in General:
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 indeed necessary for every individual; let him be anathema.
I reply with the words of St. Thomas:
Necessity of end, of which we speak now, is twofold. First, a thing may be necessary so that without it the end cannot be attained; thus food is necessary for human life. And this is simple necessity of end. Secondly, a thing is said to be necessary, if, without it, the end cannot be attained so becomingly: thus a horse is necessary for a journey. But this is not simple necessity of end.In the first way, three sacraments are necessary for salvation. Two of them are necessary to the individual; Baptism, simply and absolutely; Penance, in the case of mortal sin committed after Baptism; while the sacrament of order is necessary to the Church, since "where there is no governor the people shall fall" (Prov. 11:14). (Summa Theologiae, III q. 65 a. 4)
As then without Baptism, in which the Passion of Christ works, there can be no salvation for men, -- whether the Baptism be actually received, or purposed in desire, when necessity, not contempt, sets the Sacrament aside; so for sinners after Baptism there can be no salvation unless they submit themselves to the keys of the Church either by actual Confession and undergoing of the judgement of the ministers of the Church, or at least by purposing so to do with a purpose to be fulfilled in seasonable time: because there is no other name under heaven given to men, whereby we are to be saved (Acts iv, 12). (Summa Contra Gentiles, IV, 72)
Note that the equivalence of the type of necessity attached to the Sacraments of Baptism and Penance by St. Thomas was confirmed by Trent: "And this sacrament of Penance is, for those who have fallen after baptism, necessary unto salvation; as baptism itself is for those who have not as yet been regenerated." (Decree on Penance, Cap. 2)
So, the fact that some sacraments are necessary for salvation does not prove your point - they are necessary at least in desire, as St. Thomas says: "without Baptism, in which the Passion of Christ works, there can be no salvation for men, -- whether the Baptism be actually received, or purposed in desire".
St. Cyprian defended it too:
"If the Baptism of public witness and of blood cannot profit a heretic unto salvation, because there is no salvation outside the Church, (extra ecclesiam nulla salus) how much the more worthless is it for him, in secret places in the caves of robbers, dipped in the contagion of adulterous water, not merely not to have put off his former sins, but even to have added new and greater ones!" (Letter 73 to Jubanaius).
The Baptism of Public Witness is Baptism of Desire.
Hmmm...since my posts have started to be deleted and I've quietly endured this onslaught of distortions, misrepresentations, stupidty etc. it seems that I'm not going to be allowed a fair chance for a proper rebuttal.
I originally started a tit for tat and went back and reported abuse on a post that was on of the many personal attacks that I was man enough to not bother with.
But prudence would dictate that it is pointless for me to continue on a mined battle field.
So, I've copied the entire thread and I'm going to re-post the topic on Angelqueen.
I'll sift through this soup and get to the nitty gritty of it over the next few days.
And, I'll at least be able to express my positions on a level playing field.
See you over there. I'm pretty much done on FR.
Manfully and silently hast thou endured the calumny of thy enemies.
Well done, good and faithful servant! Go thou forth to Angelqueen where a rich reward awaits thee!!
Your posts got deleted because you developed a gutter mouth and started using profanity to describe the beliefs of other people here. If you stay out of the gutter, your posts get to stay up.
Remember the rules? No personal attacks, no profanity? Pretty basic.
No. My posts got deleted because you didn't like "tit for tat".
And I don't use profanity. You are liar.
You reference my posts as "idiocy" and "lunacy" you refer to another Apologist with more credentials than you as a "drunk" etc. and when someone beats you back you go running to the biased moderators.
Come over to Angelqueen coward. I'll deal with you over there where the game isn't fixed.
Yes you did.
You reference my posts as "idiocy" and "lunacy"
I'm sorry that I lashed out in frustration thusly at your quotations of wild assertions of heresy from the SBC. That was a poor choice of words on my part. The words were directed at the material of the SBC, and not your person.
you refer to another Apologist with more credentials than you as a "drunk" etc.
Messer. Coulombe is welcome to come on here and assure us that when he refers frequently to his great love for drinking, and when his personal friends such as Pete Vere tell me of his great propensity for drink and his periodic overindulgence, that he is despite all that not actually a drunk.
Come over to Angelqueen coward. I'll deal with you over there where the game isn't fixed.
No thank you. I prefer civilized discourse, something you clearly are not able to perform, as your continued insults show. Why are you so afraid of having to have a rational discussion without personal insults?
Yes you did.
No. I didn't.
”You reference my posts as ‘idiocy’ and ‘lunacy’”
I'm sorry that I lashed out in frustration thusly at your quotations of wild assertions of heresy from the SBC.
Nothing about establishing whether Baptism of Blood and Desire is speculative theology or Dogma is wild.
That was a poor choice of words on my part.
Which I was man enough to not try and have deleted.
The words were directed at the material of the SBC, and not your person.
Really? "Certainly they would have, but in your lunacy, you fail to note that the guard who joined...."
you refer to another Apologist with more credentials than you as a "drunk" etc.
Messer. Coulombe is welcome to come on here and assure us that when he refers frequently to his great love for drinking, and when his personal friends such as Pete Vere tell me of his great propensity for drink and his periodic overindulgence, that he is despite all that not actually a drunk.
Funny how you now defend your combination dodge and personal attack. I never brought up any of Coulombe’s personal hobbies, habits or appetites and you did for some undisclosed reason. Nice civil discourse.
Maybe someone will post a series of accusations about you over on Anglequeen or a few other forums. Then you are welcome to come over to them and assure everybody which things you wrote were "poor choices of words" or light-hearted writings taken out of context. Until then, I suppose anyone posting about you has no duty in charity and justice to be accurate or fair.
"Come over to Angelqueen coward. I'll deal with you over there where the game isn't fixed."
No thank you. I prefer civilized discourse, something you clearly are not able to perform, as your continued insults show.
That is easy to put the lie to. Here’s what will happen at Angelqueen, you will be given equal opportunity to conduct civil dialogue according to Catholic principals.
Your behavior indicates you prefer civil discourse but your posts indicate that you are willing to forego it when you’ve found yourself in an uncomfortable position.
Why are you so afraid of having to have a rational discussion without personal insults?
I’m not. Looking over the thread I’m far more well-behaved than you have been in our dialogue. In fact I’m encouraging you to continue this discussion on a forum for Catholics and run by Catholics. What is it that you are afraid of?
A a proof of what I’m stating let’s take a little review of the early parts of this dialogue:
I wrote in response to Karl Keating: “As far as Pope Benedict's opinion being the standard for considering someone truly in the fold, that would not be objective criteria.”
You replied with a wild accusation: “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.”
In my reply to Keating I wrote: If by wider definition you mean one that allows error. Such as someone believing in Salvation outside the Catholic Church as Fr. Groeschel blatantly does, ( "I never bought into that" were his exact words.) then they and he are in denial of the Catholic faith (with Groeschel being the more culpable). Why not widen the definition of Catholics to include Protestants?
You replied in order to provoke: “Why do you need to distort the words of the Fathers on this doctrine? St. Cyprian and Origen and Lactantius and St. Augustine are clear enough that it refers to those who have left the bonds of the Church, not those who never heard the Gospel.
Which I replied with the "clear" quote from Cantate Domino which overrides any Church Father on those who’ve never been in the Church. You ignored it.
Another provocative accusation: “Do you believe Baptism of Desire is salvific, as defined at the Council of Trent? It doesn't appear so. Wouldn't that make you a heretic in obstinate denial of clearly stated truth?”
Another provocative statement that was addressed: “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. Again this was addressed and when it was demonstrated that St.Thomas "wildly speculated" you dropped it and failed to concede. This shows that you are interested only in confrontation and not dialogue.
Again, you can’t resist attacking my reference personally as a first step. “My position? No, the literal words of Trent. Not the heretical speculations of Messer. Coulombe.”
Another provocation: Perhaps you are relying far too much on lying histories trying to justify schism, instead of the decrees of his successors on his person.
Another accusation of motives: “It is moreover quite deceptive of you to excise the very words of St. Thomas which contradict your theorem.” This accusation was addressed and you failed to concede or even respond.
Another personal attack on my character: “I know this will mean nothing to you, but so that others are not decieved:”
Then you started to ramp it up: “Real Catholics let Rome teach and give heed to those men Rome honors with the title of Doctor, especially those Doctors who the Popes declare that their works are free of all errors. You know, errors like claiming Baptism of Desire is a doctrine that is De Fide if it were really just erroneous speculative theology.”
Then after I pointed out that Coulombe was given a title by the Pope (something I thought that you would find a convincing credential since you rely on those given the title of “Doctor” so much) You really got steamed because JPII disagreed with your assessment of Coulombe as a heretic... “Yes it is. A drunk Knight dabbling in the occult and writing for an openly Gnostic publication is quite a unholy spectacle as a "defender of the Papacy".
I must say that it is an exotic flavor of "civil discourse" that you believe in.
You're still here.
Ten bucks says you can't leave this thread alone.
I've no interest in rehashing points you already could not maintain.
Let me know when Messer. Coulombe is canonized and declared a doctor of the Church, as St. Alphonsus and St. Thomas have been.
Oh. You mean like how you made a fool of yourself when you said there was no precedent for speculating that Angels could administer sacraments?
My point is made concretely. I'll be dealing with this over at Angelqueen shortly. You're invited to attend if you want.
Let me know when your Knighthood is given to you from the Pope. Try for once not to show up drunk.
Careful Marshy, If you get on the wrong side of someone in the future, He'll call you a gambling addict.
Let me know when you find an example in history of Angels performing a Baptism or saying Mass.
I'll be dealing with this over at Angelqueen shortly. You're invited to attend if you want.
Feel free to spout off to your heart's content. I won't be joining you.
Let me know when your Knighthood is given to you from the Pope. Try for once not to show up drunk.
Whatever.
Apparently not.
It's nice for you to move the marker so often. You said there were no examples of anyone in Church history speculating on administering Sacraments. As I demonstrated, St. Thomas Aquinas did. I also showed how the Angel of Fatima is believed to have administered Holy Communion to the three children. It's as plain as day and you still won't concede. Interesting.
That's why I said, "pretty much". I knew I'd have to monitor this thing if I gave you a free pass for the last word.
That's why I made the wager.
On second thoughts, I think I'll raise it to 500 bucks.
I'd also like to make a second one that says if you ever do leave you'll be back within 48 hours.
See, you cannot even fabricate my position very well. I didn't say no one had speculated on the topic. I said that none of the speculation lent credence to angels being able to perform ministerial sacramental acts. I said very clearly: "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." (#170)
St. Thomas Aquinas flatly rejects the supposition that God allows angels to perform sacramental rites: "Therefore they are not ordained ministers in the things that appertain to God, i.e. in the sacraments."
I also showed how the Angel of Fatima is believed to have administered Holy Communion to the three children.
The administration of Holy Communion is not the confection or performance of a sacrament. Holy Communion is the only sacrament which can be given apart from a complete sacramental rite which confects a sacrament, because it is the only sacrament which is an objective object that may be put in a place and reserved or carried about. Therefore, it is not surprising to find Angels able to administer it, as at Fatima. Nothing was (or is) accomplished in giving Holy Communion other than the Angel giving a thing to a person. The Angel did not bless or perform an act which imparted grace from the very operation of the act. Also, in the events of Fatima the only physical occurance (possibly, this isn't necessarily proven) was the granting of Holy Communion. The image of the chalice and the dripping of blood were mental visions impressed on the soul of the seers to impart spiritual truths and not physical realities - Our Lord is not bleeding in heaven, therefore the seers certainly did not see real blood from the wounds of Christ, nor does God call physical objects into and out of existence to perform miracles. Since the chalice vanished after the vision, it is clear it was not a material object. It may have also been the case that they received a spiritual vision of receiving Holy Communion, and not a physical reality. It certainly seems difficult to understand how the actual precious blood would be held in a chalice that is nothing but a mental vision.
It's as plain as day and you still won't concede. Interesting.
Concede what? You failed to provide an example of any theologian or doctor who says that Angels will come an minister Baptism to a person to whom it is wanting by remediless necessity. That was your wild claim entirely unheard of before you to avoid admitting the truth of Baptism of Desire and Baptism of Blood. You also failed to povide an example of any theologian or doctor who teaches that Angels will come to men of Good Will not only to instruct them in truths of the faith but also to baptize them. Lastly, you still fail to admit as a proof against your wild assertion that in every single historical instance of angels catechizing the unevangelized in a preparation for the Gospel, there are no known instances of them administering sacramental Baptism. Instead, as in the well known examples in the annals of the mission such as that of Bl. Junipero Serra and his bell-ringing call, the angels always direct those they catechize to await the coming of the missionaries so that they might receive actual Baptism.
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.