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 never said that he would not have to become bishop. I said that Karl Keating stated a man had to be a bishop PRIOR TO being elected.

Here's what Mr. Keating said:

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.

My conclusion is you are functionally illiterate and unable to understand clearly worded English sentences. What Mr. Keating wrote has no relation whatsoever to what you claim he wrote.

Impressive, and yet one constantly hears nothing but calamity and despair from so many trads while, unnoticed by them, and certainly unpraised by them, go thousands of faithful men and women acting like your MIL.

My Parish is teeming with faithful happy Christians engaged in bible studies with our brilliant Pastor and innumerable ministries both domestic and foreign - our Pastor's Mission in So. America has an impressive staff of bilingual volunteers who are accomplished surgeons, doctors, nurses, psychologists, veternarians etc, all fully funded by men and women like em and my bride.

One might get the impression from reading these threads that Christianity had devolved into misery, misanthropy, and malediction, rather than Joy and happiness (even, especially, amidst suffering and not get what one desires).

RomansFor the kingdom of God is not meat and drink: but justice and peace and joy in the Holy Ghost.

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

Coy, aren't we? Do you believe anyone here holds that "extreme" traditionalist viewpoint? What exactly is an "extreme" traditionalist? Got any definitions? Does it fit anyone here? Is this your own separate profession of Faith you made up?

It is called grace. It is spiritual. The root of "soul" is "psyche" in Greek. Did you know that?

It is called "lex orandi est lex credendi" and vice versa. Certainly you understand that, don't you?

That is why I posted earlier he has a habit of making these errors due to poor reading comprehension. Frankly, I just am going to ignore him as the pattern of his nasty posting is both long and public and he has publicly insulted and castigated brilliant and successful apologists while he himself has made egregious errors which, despite having them pointed out to him, he never corrects or apoligizes for.

I ping him only because I mentioned his name. I have no desire to have any exchange with him. Our previous exchanges, both public and his freepmails to me, have been fruitless and frustrating due to his nastiness, false accusations, errors, arrogance, and attitude.

About not needing (may de-een) kneeling, on Sundays and in the 50 days of Eastertime:

There are some people who kneel down on Sunday and during the Easter season, the fifty days from Easter Sunday to Pentecost Sunday. Therefore, it has pleased the holy Council to decree that people should offer their prayers to the Lord, standing. This is required so that in each diocese (en pase paroikia) everything will be done in harmony (omoiohs).

Canon 20 of the Council of Nicea, 325 A.D., binding on the whole Church

We consider it unlawful to fast or to pray kneeling, on the Lord's Day. We enjoy the same liberty from Easter Sunday to Pentecost Sunday.

Tertullian, De Corona Militis, s. 3, 4.

Augustine and others give the reason for this tradition. They say that we commemorate the Resurrection of Christ. Standing on Sunday and in Eastertime signifies the rest and joy of our own resurrection, assured by the Resurrection of Jesus Christ.

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.

Well said, and we're on the same page then.

May God bless you too! And May He protect and defend all of us committed to the Latin Mass from our enemies on earth and in Hell.

>>>>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.

I'm not sure you are correct that the argument only works if one identifies the Church with a particular see. If you define the Church in the sense of the Catholic Church (as do the trads we are talking about - as compared to the Orthodox), and you then state that the Mass is invalid, the quite simply the necessary characterictics of the Church, e.g., one of the necessary sacraments is lost, and the church is not truly indefectible. As he stated, if the Mass is gone, the Church has fallen. The argument only collapses if you import a different definition of Church entirely (not merely changing the association with a particular see), and define the Church to include the Orthodox, for example. However, none of the people in this debate do that.

This is, IMHO, one of the fundamental problems with sedevacantism. I consider it to fly in the face of the promises Christ made to the Church, if its carried through its logical ends.

patent

"If you define the Church in the sense of the Catholic Church (as do the trads we are talking about - as compared to the Orthodox), and you then state that the Mass is invalid, the quite simply the necessary characterictics of the Church, e.g., one of the necessary sacraments is lost, and the church is not truly indefectible. As he stated, if the Mass is gone, the Church has fallen."

Not quite. I presume SVs would say that as they have kept the Faith, they constitute the Church. NOs would say that as the SVs are not united to Rome, they are outside of the Church. Am I not right?

We have the same thing going on in the East as to the see of Constantinople, something one may have noticed if one has seen some of the posts responding to traditional Orthodox views posted at FR. In the East, however, it's harder for papism to flourish as there are several patriarchal sees, some of them very ancient.

I spent three hours in theological discussion with a Maronite rite priest a little less than a week and a half ago.

He was one of the most hopelessly modernistic lost souls I've ever encountered. An absolute, obstinate heretic and Apostate.

By the time he was done:

The Filioque is wrong.

There are no Angels.

There is no Devil.

Everyone is saved.

Transubstantiation is incorrect as a term to describe the Sacrament/Mystery.

The Resurrection of Christ wasn't a physical event.

We won't have a physical resurrection of the body.

That's just a taste.

So, I don't believe that the Maronites and probably the other Easterns are free from the Satanic Corruption of the Neo-Modernism of the day.

"Matatics has been a technical Sedevacantist for years."

So you must be close to him, then, huh? You his spiritual director.

No, I can engage in something called reading, where you read a man's words and take them at face value for what he is saying, and ascribe to him as beliefs what he confesses openly among men as what he thinks.

Judge, lest ye may be judged...

"But the sensual man perceiveth not these things that are of the Spirit of God. For it is foolishness to him: and he cannot understand, because it is spiritually examined. But the spiritual man judgeth all things: and he himself is judged of no man. For who hath known the mind of the Lord, that he may instruct him? But we have the mind of Christ." (1 Corinthians 2.14-16, quoted from the Specially Bolded and Amplified Version of the Douai Rhiems Bible)

You wish not to judge. Good, the sensual man should not do so, as St. Paul clearly says. The rest of us wish to "Judge not according to the appearance: but judge just judgment." (St. John 7.24) For if we do that, "with what judgment you judge, you shall be judged." (St. Matthew 7.2).

Christ never invited us to take leave of our critical faculties and cease discerning what is good and bad, right and wrong.

Not quite. I presume SVs would say that as they have kept the Faith, they constitute the Church.

The Church is a visible entity of members professing the same faith, receiving the same sacraments, and united under the same head; not an invisible union of the faithful, nor a union without things to unite - the sacraments.

NOs would say that as the SVs are not united to Rome, they are outside of the Church. Am I not right?

Well, one should look at it as to whether they are pertinacious in their error. There are some SV's who sincerely believe there is no Pope because of some defect, or that the Pope is only Pope materially by occupying the office and not yet being deposed by the Church, but not formally, by actually being Pope. And that if these things were corrected, either a proper Pope could be elected, or the "material" incumbent could be retrovalidated. There are other SV's who believe that the Papacy has been swept away and the heirarchy and priesthood apostacized, and thus no valid sacraments, and that the Church is dissolved as a proper visible entity and will not be reconstituted short of a formal intervention of heavenly powers. This latter position is outright heresy. The former position is an error of theological fact which can cause schism depending upon the actions taken by the adherents. I've known holders of the former position who were outright schismatics and only would go to independent chapels, and others who held communion with the rest of the Church and attended the indult Mass, for example.

Of interest, one example of Theological Notes attached to teachings is the one below:

http://www.the-pope.com/theolnotes.html

It cites:

Theological Note: Theologically certain.
Explanation: A truth logically following from one proposition which is Divinely revealed and another which is historically certain.
Example: Legitimacy of Pope Pius XI.
Censure attached to contradictory proposition: Error (in theology).
Effects of denial: Mortal sin against faith.

Sedevacantism in the first form given above is properly a theological error.

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.