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.
See, you cannot even fabricate my position very well. I didn't say no one had speculated on the topic.
It's amazing to watch you try and fabricate your own position after the fact.
"wild speculation" is what you actually stated. So either way, St. Thomas is guilty of "wild" speculations.
I said, "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."
You said, "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)
So to clarify, I said my view was that an Angel could be sent to administer the sacrament of Baptism (that is the speculation)
You said,
1) It's not clear to you that Angels can administer Sacraments
2) There is nothing in history of theology that lends credence (belief) to the "wild" speculation that an Angel might be sent to instruct and Baptise.
I pointed to the fact that St. Thomas did "wildly" speculate on whether Angels can administer Sacraments. Baptism by the way, is one of the 7 Sacraments and the only sacrament that virtually anyone can perform because it is necessary for salvation.
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."
This is so simple, it's amazing that you just won't admit it. Are ordained ministers the only persons capable of baptizing? Let me save you the trouble of looking it up. Answer: No.
Aquinas's "on the contrary" as I explained before and you didn't want to deal with it was in reply to the objections which made a corollary between the heirarchical state of Angels and the ordained state of priests.
His official answer by the way is right below that with "I answer that..."
In which he says.
As stated above (3; 62, 5), the whole power of the sacraments flows from Christ's Passion, which belongs to Him as man. And Him in their very nature men, not angels, resemble; indeed, in respect of His Passion, He is described as being "a little lower than the angels" (Heb. 2:9). Consequently, it belongs to men, but not to angels, to dispense the sacraments and to take part in their administration.
But it must be observed that as God did not bind His power to the sacraments, so as to be unable to bestow the sacramental effect without conferring the sacrament; SO NEITHER DID HE BIND HIS POWER TO THE MINISTERS OF THE CHURCH SO AS TO BE UNABLE TO GIVE ANGELS POWER TO ADMINISTER THE SACRAMENTS. AND SINCE GOOD ANGELS ARE MESSENGERS OF TRUTH; IF ANY SACRAMENTAL RITE WERE PERFORMED BY GOOD ANGELS, IT SHOULD BE CONSIDERED VALID, because it ought to be evident that this is being done by the will of God: for instance, certain churches are said to have been consecrated by the ministry of the angels [See Acta S.S., September 29]. But if demons, who are "lying spirits," were to perform a sacramental rite, it should be pronounced as invalid.
So, in black and white Aquinas has wildly speculated that Angels might administer Sacraments validly. Contrary to your misleading statement. He has not flatly rejected the idea. He has even appealed to history.
So, in Aquinas alone we have an instance of theology and history which "wildly speculates" that an Angel might administer a sacraments validly.
Ironically, you can't disagree with Aquinas on this because he rests it on his argument for Baptism of Desire and Blood as well.
On the other hand, I can disagree with Aquinas on BOD and BOB because my point is only that the administration of Sacraments by Angels has been speculated on in theology and history. My own position rests on the fact that a Baptizer only need be a "person".
And consequently St. Thomas lends credence to my "wild" speculation because he did the same thing centuries before me.
The administration of Holy Communion is not the confection or performance of a sacrament.
But we are talking about the administration of a sacrament not the confection or "performance???" of a sacrament.
Is Holy Communion a Sacrament or not? Is the administration of Holy Communion the administration of a Sacrament or not? We aren't talking about confecting the Sacrament. And it's irrelevant to Baptism which does not require ordination.
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.
So that is not an Angel administering a Sacrament? Administering, not confecting. which is exclusive to ordination.
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.
So, sanctifying grace is not imparted in the reception of communion? I don't think so.
Also, in the events of Fatima the only physical occurance (possibly, this isn't necessarily proven) was the granting of Holy Communion.
It's not rejected by the Church and the Church leans towards the physicality of the event in its approval.
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,
Not necessarily. They may have seen the actual images from circa 34 ad. through some kind of window in time. Since that spiritual reality is Eternal, the visions they saw may have been the reality.
nor does God call physical objects into and out of existence to perform miracles.
On what do you base this? Manna from Heaven, loaves an fishes, images on tilmas, organs appearing, tumors disappearing etc.
Since the chalice vanished after the vision, it is clear it was not a material object.
Not necessarily. It could very well have been a true chalice transported by the Angel from somewhere else.
It may have also been the case that they received a spiritual vision of receiving Holy Communion, and not a physical reality.
It's treated as the official first Holy Communion for one of the children. So, it's considered real.
It certainly seems difficult to understand how the actual precious blood would be held in a chalice that is nothing but a mental vision.
That's a faith problem. If Angels can physically heal people, move solid objects, destroy cities. They can certainly find a way to transport a real chalice.
Concede what?
Concede that there are examples in history and theology speculating that Angels can administer sacraments validly.
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.
I don't need to. That wasn't what I stated. My first words were...."My own view is..." I guess you didn't get that part.
That was your wild claim entirely unheard of before you to avoid admitting the truth of Baptism of Desire and Baptism of Blood.
I have admitted the truth about Baptism of Blood and Desire. They are speculations never defined by the Church, their are variants and contradictions on the speculations from multiple Fathers and Doctors and ultimately it leads to Rahner's "anonymous Christian".
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.
As I pointed out St. Thomas speculated on the possibility of it. I'm doing the same. Actually St. Thomas was more liberal than I'm willing to be on the matter. You are making the pointless statement that an Angel will catechize when there is no impediment to him also Baptizing. You are stating after all of the things that St. Raphael did, that he can't Baptize someone. It's utterly silly. Baptism is the most accessible of all the Sacraments in terms of administering because it is the most necessary. But that's not good enough, some want to make it an option and a metaphor. Trent: true and natural water is necessary.
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.
As I pointed out, I can speculate. St. Thomas speculates two possibilities on the Baptism of the Apostles. There is no historical proof for either of them. So therefore, the Apostles weren't Baptized? C'mon. You are just embarassing yourself.
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.
Why didn't the Angels just tell them to wish for it? Why bother the missionaries? It might be too far for them. If a man is in the vicinity and the Angel can lead him or transport him there, that would be the greater good, since the Baptizer would share in the merit of his act of baptizing. The Angel would not, already being in the presence of the beatific vision. So, the Angels would act accordingly. In the case of no saint or missionary being appropriately placed in God's providence, the Angel would act alone. This would be reasonable in the instance that the presence of the Angel's act may provide the impetus for the will of the person to be Baptized to accept the Baptism whereas he may reject a human's instruction. As in the case of St. Paul's conversion. He needed extraordinary measures to convert.
You have seven days to decide whether you like Angelqueen better than FR. If you come back, knock of the personal insults. If Angelqueen is so much better to your liking, and you are unable to modify your behavior, give serious thought to staying over there.
This personal fight with Gerard.P has gone on long enough; it's over. Drop it.
I''ll thrown in $100.00 on "the under" 48 hours :)
With immense pleasure!
Most people would realize that my comments were directed to Gerard.P, understand that I am not talking to them, and go on with their business. I've no doubt that Gerard.P knows exactly what I meant; everyone else remains unaffected.
Please forgive me if I'm dense or something, but I had to ask for clarification sake:
I read the post to which your warning refers (402) and could not find any "personal insults," as I understand the term. I saw "You are just embarrassing yourself," and "it's utterly silly" (what he said, not what he is). Are these the "insults" that got your attention (or that irritated someone else so much that they complained to you unnecessarily or whatever)?
Therefore, I have to wonder what kind of comments are construed as such, in order that I might be aware of what offends your sense of appropriate material for FR. Are reasoned discussions somehow prohibited? Could you please identify the "personal insults" to which you refer?
The offending post was pulled. Drop it.
can't all catholics just get along?
From the outside looking in, it might seem that Catholics having a heated discussion are not "getting along." But if they are truly Catholic, they are having something like an intellectual skirmish, not disagreeing over anything really essential to the Faith. When the overseer of such discussions is truly Catholic, he is able to correct the specific error and peace immediately settles on the scene. When he is not, all he can do is pronounce an end to the discussion, because he does not perceive the cause of the discord, nor is he likely to care about correcting error. For doing so would eventually bring him to the point of correcting his own error. People generally don't like to face their own shortcomings.
What you are seeing sometimes, is a heated exchange peppered with assertions of someone or someone else who does not know the Faith well enough, and is confused. There is a lot of confusion going around these days.
Some of those confused souls spread poison in their words because they believe they are an authority, but they are mistaken. The devil has sown his seed far and wide, and the good grain grows mixed with the other stuff. It takes a skilled farmer to know the difference and how to deal with the problem. At some point divine intervention is necessary to separate the good grain from the bad...
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.