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.

excellent point, brother. While Matatics is no Tertullian - who is? - the similarities are, sadly, evident. That is what makes the situation so tragic. There is a LOT to admire in Mr. Matatics

LOL I hear ya, brother. Extreme traditonalists are their own worst enemies. I know, and admire, the traditionalists on FR who remain in Communion with their Bishop and Pope and I acknowledge it isn't easy in some situations which is why I think their longanimity serves the Body of Christ well and can be thought to have positively contributed to the election of Card Ratzinger as Pope.

I am aware of at least one traditionalist on here who is a Catechist for his Indult Community. One knows he doesn't teach rancor and disunity but truth in charity and hope.

Interesting point, brother. I have read one prominent former rad-trad say repeatedly the major weakness he identifies amongst his former colleagues is the lack of spiritual reading. He advises "Dark night of the Soul" and St. Francis de Sales etc

Funny...My Mother died last year and the rural local Pauline Rite Pastor was sitting in our living room speaking with us and in responding to one question form my Uncle, the Pastor referenced "dark Night of the Soul."

I couldn't have been happier to hear that referenced

I'll never deny there are Jews who are terrorists, and I'm not one of those people for whom the State of Israel can do no wrong.

I don't throw the antisemitic label around--I use it very sparingly to define those people who have a *particular* and pronounced disgust for Jews that they can't seem to muster for anyone else.

I think it is the same with the Liturgy. It is valid if the Church says it is valid.

Well said. If, per impossibile, the Novus Ordo were in fact invalid, we would only know because it would be proclaimed such by a future Holy Father, who convened a new Council and repudiated Paul VI ala Honorius. That's what I think sedes and others don't get about the Pope ceasing to be Pope by heresy--only the Church itself can in fact tell us that that is happened.

The Church alone has the authority to declare the invalidity or invalidity of the rite, not allegiance to our own personal interpretation of tradition. Leo XIII had the authority to declare Anglican orders null and void, yet somehow his successors lost that authority to a few American laymen who know better than the Holy See.

"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."

Funny, well no it's not, but there does seem to be a lot of this name-calling going around whenever the liberals get nailed on the merits of an issue. They get away with it only because they take a moral weakness (whatever one works), in the conservative or traditional position and then pour some gasoline on it and point a blowtorch at it. Nobody is perfect. So why is it that the liberals, lacking none of it themselves, require moral perfection of their opponents?

If what you are saying is true, then Jesus was the greatest conman who ever lived.

If the very sacrifice itself has been somehow penetrated by Satan, then the Church has fallen, contrary to the promise of Christ.

If what Peter binds on earth is not bound in heaven, if "he who hears you" does NOT "hear Me", then you've gone a long way to proving that salvation history is a sham.

Congratulations.

The longanimity of the faithful traditionalists will bear fruit; eventually.

Traditionalists who maintain their allegiance to the Holy Father are an inspiration and a wonderful example of humility and grace. I think they're going to see a portion of that good fruit during the pontificate of B16.

But for the radTrads - they will answer for the souls they've led away from Rome, just as Luther answered for it. The "I know better than the Church!" attitude is a road to perdition.

There have been Popes in past history who WERE NOT clergy.

The Papacy in the middle ages was being purchased left and right by the nobility, hence the reason for the CONCLAVE.

So -this proves two things-that many here do not know anything about church history, and just as many are fooled into thinking that any Pope, especially these so called Post Vatican II popes who refuse to take a Papal Oath that goes back to the 12th century just to prevent abuses as such that were taking place when the Demedici's and German nobility were purchasing the Papacy-how it is really THEIR post Vatican II church that has GONE BACK to the Middle ages!

So sad that noone really knows their faith and are like little lemmings being told to follow some corrupt Bishop like Levada and are supposed to obtain salvation.

Sad

Claud

I will buy that, no one should be put down as we are Christians, and I agree there are "overzealous" trads as well as NO who by the way have antisemites among them as well, probably more and bigoted in many ways as they are illiterate to church doctrine.

God bless you

Many false-traditionalist types I know are too busy chasing apparitions, reading about apparitions and prophecies of doom, reading books complaining about changes to Catholic liturgical and disciplinary life, etc., etc. to actually spend time following the liturgical and disciplinary life of the Church, to join the ascetic struggle, or to undertake spiritual reading.

My Mother-in-Law, God bless her, in between taking care of a house and hardworking husband (her four children are all grown and mvoed on now), working for one of the Deaneries of the Diocese of Pittsburgh as an administrative assistant, and counseling divorced Catholics to help them maintain the faith and personal cheerfulness in their dire situation, also finds time to attend daily Mass, say the entire Divine Office daily, pray the Rosary, and engage in Spiritual reading. God love her, I've yet to meet a traditionalist even capable of half of what she does, let alone doing it.

"If what you [Bulldog Catholic] are saying is true, then Jesus was the greatest conman who ever lived. If the very sacrifice itself has been somehow penetrated by Satan, then the Church has fallen, contrary to the promise of Christ. If what Peter binds on earth is not bound in heaven, if 'he who hears you' does NOT 'hear Me', then you've gone a long way to proving that salvation history is a sham."

C.S. Lewis, an Anglican, used that sort of argument against atheists. So have I from time to time against Protestants, most recently Biker Pat. Here an NO RC is using it against a more traditional one.

The argument works as above stated by Rutles4Ever only if one identifies the Church with a particular see, in this instance Rome, under any and all circumstances. Constantinople, for example, says to be Orthodox requires union with Constantinople. Orthodox outside of that union, however, find this claim absurd.

No spiritual lineage? Interesting.

Karl Keating, self proclaimed Catholic magisterium. I think I'll go on a cruise with him to hang out with him.

He is so cool. Even if he is in error.

By the way, I am quite certain that Gerry Matatics is responsible for more conversions to Catholicism than any other Catholic alive today.

Karl Keating is obsessed, as usual. And anyone who knows the years of baggage he brings to this knows exactly what I am talking about.

Communion in the hand?

This seems to follow the command of Christ to “Take this and eat” One takes with the hand.

Sure why not. Kneel? Never!

I don’t recall anyone kneeling at the last supper.

What is the basis for your objections, other than a (lower case) tradition from the middle ages?

I keep seeing these names (Matatics, Keating, Sungenis etc etc) from time to time but I still haven't figured out who they are or why I'm supposed to get excited or pay attention to what they say.

As far as I can determine, there appears to be an insular, "apologetics" bubble, cut off from the real world and known to only a few cogniscenti where self-styled "Catholic" spokespeople duke it out among themselves for the title of heavyweight king or to determine who is the most Catholic. It all seems to get rather personal and involve a certain amount of rivalry.

Protestantism is characterized by a concern over what men (e.g. Matatics) think of the Pope.

Catholicism is characterized by a concern over what the Pope thinks (if anything) about men (e.g. Matatics).

I belong to the latter category.

I'm more concerned about the Pope's opinion of Traditionalists than vice versa.

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.