Just to clarify: there will not be a public debate between myself and Gerry Matatics over the two questions he proposed (The first being whether FSSP ordinations are valid, the second being whether Pope Benedict XVI is a validly consecrated bishop). I did not feel such a debate would accomplish anything when Gerry challenged (demanded?) it the other day, however, I thought I would wait and talk to some trusted colleagues before declining.
Since that time I have spoken to my pastor, my confessor, my best friend in the canon law world, my best friend among the FSSP's North American clergy, two professional Catholic apologists, John Pacheco, and a fellow gen-x traditionalist from my parish who is known for her sense of balance when it comes to her love for the traditional liturgy and fidelity to the Church. They were unanimous: No.
:: Pete Vere 6:38 AM
************************************ :: Thursday, July 21, 2005 ::
[Update 1.0 after speaking to Gerry
Update 2.0 below after speaking with Michael Matt and Doug Bersaw]
Concerning Gerry Matatics and His Alleged Sedevacantism A Friendly Warning to Karl Keating and My Fellow Traditionalists
While I was away in Kentucky, Karl Keating released an excellent letter in which he argues that Gerry Matatics is a functional sedevacantist. I would encourage everyone to read this letter as Karl is very logical and pretty much calls most things the way they are. With one minute exception, I agreed with Karl's analysis of the situation.
That being said, what was Karl's one point with which I initially reserved judgement? Well, it was his demonstration that Gerry must logically be a functional sedevacantist. I know this is splitting hairs, and that the hair being split is very fine, but I believed it possible that Gerry had embraced sedeprivationism rather than sedevacantism. This would mean that Gerry believes Benedict XVI is a material pope, but not a formal one.
Of course this does not bring Gerry any closer to the mainstream of traditional Catholicism. Additionally, this does not make Gerry's current trajectory any more acceptable to me as a traditional Catholic since I value my full communion with Rome. Nevertheless, I'm thinking of the interesting history between Gerry and Karl. I am thinking of how Karl is often accused of misrepresenting Gerry, and how Gerry is often accused of not being strait with his public audience.
By making this distinction between sedevacantism and sedeprivationism, Gerry can theoritically deny, without lying, that he is a sedevacantist. He can also theoritically claim that Karl is spreading false rumors about him, since Karl implies that Gerry is a functional sedevacantist. Given the seriousness of this issue, I would rather not see it resolved on a technicality -- which is exactly would the distinction between sedevacantist and sedeprivationist would be if it allowed Gerry to get out of answering the tougher questions raised by Karl. As traditionalists we must hold Gerry accountable for his latest words and actions.
Additionally, I don't think it would be fair to demonize Karl on the same technicality when he is essentially correct in my opinion. (That and the fact the distinction between sedevacantist and sedeprivationist is so subtle and as a controversy restricted to so few people that most people, including traditionalists, simply are not aware of its existence.) Therefore, I thought I should mention the possibility Gerry is not a sedevacantist in the strict sense, despite his reported position on the validity of the NOM rite of ordination.
Revision 1.0
I called Gerry and asked him whether he was a sedevacantist. I told him that I would operate on the ancient Roman legal principle (adopted by the Church's canonists) that "silence equals consent". It was a tense discussion -- I stated unapologetically that the Ecclesia Dei movement (including the FSSP) are the only true Latin Catholic traditionalists, whereas Gerry stated that he can no longer attend the FSSP in good conscience -- but Gerry stated categorically that he is not a sedevacantist.
I then attempted to ask him three questions. (Actually, I asked each of them over and over again, however, he refused to answer them directly.) Rather he raised his voice and either challenged or demanded a public debate. In other words, he sounded very serious but I am not sure whether the challenge crossed the line to a demand.
Anyway, these are the three questions that he would not directly answer:
1) Are you a sedeprivationist?
2) Is Benedict XVI is a validly ordained bishop?
3) Do you believe an individual other than Benedict XVI holds the papal throne?
For his part, he told me that he would only answer me in a public debate. He proposed one of the two following questions:
1) Is Benedict XVI a validly ordained Bishop?
2) Is a tridentine Mass offered by an FSSP priest valid?
This is the bulk of our conversation as I recall it. There was plenty of heated comments in between. If Gerry wants to add, clarify, or correct anything that I have written, I will be more than happy to do so. Nevertheless, I will not debate positions with him since he refuses to tell me what his position is other than that he is not a sedevacantist.
Update 2.0
Wanting to be fair and get their side of the story, I spoke with both Michael Matt from the Remnant and Doug Bersaw from St. Benedict Center (New Hampshire) concerning recent parting of ways between them and Gerry Matatics, as reported on Gerry's website. Their stories are similar.
Both claimed that Gerry contacted them prior to the scheduled event and expressed growing concern about the validity of FSSP ordinations as well as the Novus Ordo consecration rite of bishops. Both groups reported that Gerry offered to withdraw from his commitment to speak at their venues owing to his concerns. And both groups accepted Gerry's offer, feeling it was best for all parties involved. Thus while they felt it was better not to have Gerry speak at the event in question, they both stated the decision was not unilateral on their part but rather mutually agreed upon with Gerry.
* Wow. This is sad and tragic. Matatics knows more about the Bible than most folks. Matatics is an intelligent man. Yet, look where the path of extreme Traditionalism has led him.
Apart from the Church one can do nothing - except get ever deeper into a position where one's soul is endangered.
Pray for Mr. Matatics and other extreme traditionalists
I think the Mass should be celebrated in Latin, just as Jesus Himself did.
Oh, wait . . . .
There is one point that does need to be revisited here without the hyperness of the usual trad vs. everybody else. That is the correct translation of Mass, ordinations, Baptism, etc., of the Latin rather than what we have been using for my lifetime. Until a few bishops are no longer serving, that isn't going to change.
Although I tend to be more an an indult trad than SSPXer or independent/sede, I happened to be at a Catholic Family News conference where some of these gentlemen were speaking. Now, the conference was bugging me in many ways, not the least of which was that there were tables selling the "Protocols of the Elders of Zion" an Antisemitic piece of trash which was debunked a century ago. Matatics' speech was actually pretty good, and wasn't offensive at all that I remember.
Well, the speeches went on, and up comes one of the speakers, Fr. Somerville I believe it was, now repudiating his former career at ICEL (a good thing IMHO! :). But in the course of his announcement he makes the observation that according to the research he has been doing, the Novus Ordo MAY--he stressed MAY--be invalid.
As soon as he said this, the audience erupted. In APPLAUSE.
That reaction, to me, was far more disturbing than the original statement, and it started to really sour me on this element of traditionalism that takes perverse delight in the supposed "fall" of the Conciliar Church.
Reminds me of that old quote about the Jansenist nuns of Port Royal:
"They are as pure as angels, and as proud as devils."
July 21. Who wrote Post No. 1? I see Pete Vere's name after the initial two paragraphs, but who wrote the rest of it?
By the way, Karl Keating said: "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."
Karl Keating is wrong. Any male Catholic can theoretically be elected as Pope. He need not be a bishop to be Pope.
There are extremists at both ends of the catholic spectrum. The comparable left wing extremists include the likes of Cardinal Mahony, Bishops Hubbard and Clark and the dissident groups like Catholics for a Free Choice.
Gerry Matatics is a modern day Pharisee. If he is so unhappy with the Catholic Church, he should leave and either join another group or form his own church.
Why is Karl Keating so obsessed with traditionalists and Gerry Matatics, in particular. I think it's starting to get in the way of his doing his job effectively. How many traditionalists are their in he country, as opposed to non-practicing Catholics, those with no religion, etc. Plus, he lets this get to him and lets it effect his proper sense of charity.
Matatics used to be cool. Now he's cool no more. Behold, Tertullian!
-Theo
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. These traditionalist people are really getting on my nerves lately. I'm glad our parish priest got rid of our tradtionalist education director. We were all tired of listening to her bitch at the kids and parents during CCD.
</rant off>
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.
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
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.
Since that time I have spoken to my pastor, my confessor, my best friend in the canon law world, my best friend among the FSSP's North American clergy, two professional Catholic apologists, John Pacheco, and a fellow gen-x traditionalist from my parish who is known for her sense of balance when it comes to her love for the traditional liturgy and fidelity to the Church. They were unanimous: No.:: Pete Vere 6:38 AM
First, I doubt that Pete Vere has any love for fidelity to the Church. He' s a pretty miserable cuss if you ask me. And not too bright.
Secondly, Matatics would wipe the floor with him. He's just not in Gerry's league.
I spoke with Gerry back in early April and he qualified his arguments on the Mass as being "the translations into vernacular".
So, all this junk about denying the Holy Spirit and the Indefectibility of the Church and "Gerry's a heretic etc." is plainly wrong.
And the amatuers that can't get past their EWTN catch phrases to describe the faith erroneously should just refrain and stop spreading ignorance.
A foolish little man like Keating plays the people on this site like violins. They rely exclusively on what Keating says Gerry's positions are.
A.) Catholics accept that the Pope is infallible in matters of Faith and morals.
B.) It was a pope(Paul VI, I believe) who allowed the new mass.