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.

I have heard about this "Protocol". But Protocol or not- ARE YOU GOING TO DENY THERE ARE NOT ZIONISTS PRESENT-ESPECIALLY TODAY? HAVE YOU SEEN THE NEWS WITH THE ZIONISTS THRETENING TO KILL THE ISRAELI SOLDIERS IF THEY ARE REMOVED FROM THE WEST BANK? WAS IT NOT THE ZIONISTS WHO WERE THE ORIGINAL "TERRORISTS" AFTER WWII, KILLING AND BLOWING UP THE BRITISH WHO WERE TRYING TO LEAVE PALESTINE IN SOME SORT OF A SEMBLANCE OF A DEMOCRACY-BUT WERE KILLED AND MAIMED BY THE RADICAL JEWS IN THE 30'S AND 40'S?

You should really learn your history before tagging names and labels around, as is the usual liberal way of getting anyone who is "Conservative" to back down. The Democrats use the "Racist" label on Conservative Republicans-and lose every time, and now you have the Novus Ordo Catholics, who really cant debate the issue on merit as they have nothing of substance to fall back on, throwing the antisemitic label around.

What Does The Prayer Really Say?

Took a quick look - it's amazing how closely the old Book of Common Prayer (Episcopal 1928 and earlier) followed the Latin. To-wit, the Sursum Corda:

The Lord be with you.
And with thy Spirit.
Lift up your hearts.
We lift them up unto the Lord.
Let us give thanks to the Lord our God.
It is meet and right so to do.

It is very meet, right and our bounden duty, that we should in all times and in all places give thanks unto thee, O Lord, Holy Father, Almighty, Everlasting God.

[preface changeable by liturgical season], e.g. the preface for Easter:
But chiefly are we bound to praise thee for the glorious Resurrection of thy Son Jesus Christ our Lord: for he is the very Paschal Lamb, which was offered for us, and hath taken away the sin of the world; who by his death hath destroyed death, and by his rising to life again hath restored to us everlasting life.

Therefore with Angels and Archangels, and with all the company of heaven, we laud and magnify thy glorious Name; evermore praising thee, and saying,
HOLY, HOLY, HOLY, Lord God of hosts, Heaven and earth are full of thy glory: Glory be to thee, O Lord Most High. Amen.

The Pope is by definition the Bishop of Rome. Ergo, no man upon being elected to the Papacy, can become Pope without also becoming a Bishop. And if he does not become Bishop, he does not become Pope, but must at least tacitly resign the election.

But this is quite silly. The election of the Pope belongs by right to the Clergy of the City of Rome. It is not necessary for any of the Cardinals, who hold the office of the titual Churches of Rome to be Bishops for the Pope-elect to become Pope.

I don't know who Gerry Matatics is but its awfully damn presumptious on his part to insinuate that the Holy Spirit guides him and flew right by the meetings during Vatican II.

Well, certainly some sort of Spirit guides Gerry. It remains to be demonstrated that it is the Holy Spirit. Usually those who are convinced the Holy Spirit is personally guiding them are under the malignant influence of Spirit of Darkness that is flattering their fancies of themselves.

Gerry needs to read a lot of the Sayings of the Desert Fathers. Maybe if he spent some years in ascetical struggle and penance for his previous criminal life as a Protestant, he would gain some real insight and actual Theology.

Dear Hermann the Cherusker,

"But this is quite silly. The election of the Pope belongs by right to the Clergy of the City of Rome. It is not necessary for any of the Cardinals, who hold the office of the titual Churches of Rome to be Bishops for the Pope-elect to become Pope."

I think that the issue is not whether there were folks who could elect him, but whether he had been validly consecrated a bishop.

It's wearying.

sitetest

Anyone else have a bolded Bible like this?

I've never seen one. Ever.

You need to check out the "Sola Scriptura When It Suits My Purpose" edition. Very handy when citing to the "Spirit of the Council" fails you. ;-)

Are you implying that angelqueen.org is an anti-semitic site? If so, you could not be more wrong. Management there has the same attitude against antisemitism that is official policy here, and if anything is even more vigilant than FR in policing any antisemitic garbage. If you had spent any time at that site, you would know that. If you HAVE spent time there and still posted this, you should be ashamed!

Are you implying that angelqueen.org is an anti-semitic site?

Sure looks like it to me. I can't imagine why anyone who thinks a site is anti semitic would post there like you do NYer.

Let's see NYer, you've called Gerry Matatics a pharisee and Angel Queen anti semitic in this one thread, what a glorious witness to the fruit of charity bursting forth from the New Spring Time!

Your friends at Angel Queen would like you to back up your accusations:

Angel Queen

Is it me, or does the extreme Traditional viewpoint against the N.O. smack of an understanding of the liturgy as magic?

In other words, unless one says things a certain way, using certain movements and in a certain language, the sacrament is an invalid action. To my understanding, this makes the liturgy appear as dependent on the actions of the priest - magic.

If Catholics believe that the Church has been given the power to bind and loosen, authority given by God Himself, then it shouldn't be a problem that when the Church proclaims that it is doing x or y, (despite the actual form and matter, etc) then it really is doing it. GOD is providing grace through the sacrament. Thus, once the Church has established a general form of conducting a sacrament, and is legitimately followed, we understand God as acting. Otherwise, we treat the sacraments as magic.

An example that I believe Traditionalists would agree with is emergency Baptism. Is it valid? I think it is the same with the Liturgy. It is valid if the Church says it is valid. And the Church proclaims the N.O. as valid in its ordinary teaching. What is important is that God is working, and the congregation understands that, not that only particular rituals can call down God.

Regards

Why do you chose to slight John, and those of us who find Angelqueen.org a place to exchange interests and concerns which are befalling His Church. How have you been accosted on that site, or what have you seen posted on that site to lead you to speak ill of those who revere the Holy Father as you claim to do? What you have written isn't only unfair, it is evil, because know the truth, and have witnessed against it. Seek His forgiveness, NYer, and seek forgiveness from those you have harmed.

I don't think Mr. Keating's interest in Mr. Matatic's activities qqualify as an obsession. He rarely writes about him. You can subscribe to his newsletter to find that out for yourself.

As to why Mr. Keating is interested in "traditionalists" I think he expresses those reasons when he charitably writes about them

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.