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.
That faith they claim to have has the indefectability of the papacy as its element. I understand that an Orthodox or a Protestant might interpret Mt. 16:18 the way that suits their worldviews, but a Catholic has no such liberty. Sedevacantism maintains its connection to Catholicity as long as, while claiming that a particular Pope is not really a Pope, it adheres to these two truths: (1) Valid Mass is offered by those priests whose ordination traces to true Popes and (2) Masses invalid due to improper line of ordination remain an exception. Denial of (1) means denial of papacy altogether, and denial of (2) means that the gates of Hell have prevailed.
For example, if a sedevacantist states that Novus Ordo masses are invalid because they are Novus Ordo, he crosses over from sedevacantism, which question apostolicity, into a general schism with Rome on ecclesiological grounds.
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.
Exactly the distinction I was trying to make in my 101, thank you.
"The Church alone has the authority to declare the invalidity or invalidity of the rite, not allegiance to our own personal interpretation of tradition."
Yup. What makes such people any different then the Montanists, Donatists, and Jansenists, all who thought that the Church wasn't "tough" enough or holy enough, and went their own way. This shows little reliance on the working of the Holy Spirit - Who seems to think in different terms then men.
Regards
"For example, if a sedevacantist states that Novus Ordo masses are invalid because they are Novus Ordo, he crosses over from sedevacantism, which question apostolicity, into a general schism with Rome on ecclesiological grounds."
As with Protestant ecclesiology, there are inherent problems with the SV position, given the papist position of the SVers. I personally think this can only be resolved by SVers going to either an Old Catholic position or to Orthodoxy. As Old Catholicism is imbued with a heavy dose of Jansenism, however, I don't see SVers going there. And if they go to Orthodoxy, they'll have to dump a lot of 19th century RC piety. In other words, the SV position, as it is now, is not tenable. They have to go somewhere and when they do, they'll have to dump something. My guess is they'll go wherever they don't have to dump as much. Off hand, I can think of two Orthodox synods they might fit into.
Or maybe they'll become the Western equivalent of the Russian Old Believers?
Well described. A tangled web they've woven.
"...Sedevacantism in the first form given above is properly a theological error."
Actually, the funny thing is that many Eastern Orthodox most sympathetic to Rome are functional sedevacantists. "We'd recognized the Pope if only he'd recant X, Y, and Z".
Dear Hermann the Cherusker,
"Actually, the funny thing is that many Eastern Orthodox most sympathetic to Rome are functional sedevacantists. 'We'd recognized the Pope if only he'd recant X, Y, and Z'."
LOL!!
Although, not quite, in that they are sedevacantists from a significantly different papacy than to which we give allegiance.
sitetest
Educate me. What is the Old Believers theology? I know about the two fingers, not much beyond that.
"... recant X, Y, and Z"
Only X, Y, and Z? Must be new calendar GOC. LOL
Whoops. Hope I didn't hurt anyone's feelings. Just a goofy personal opinion.
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.
"The Church alone has the authority to declare the invalidity or invalidity of the rite, not allegiance to our own personal interpretation of tradition."
Yup. What makes such people any different then the Montanists, Donatists, and Jansenists, all who thought that the Church wasn't "tough" enough or holy enough, and went their own way. This shows little reliance on the working of the Holy Spirit - Who seems to think in different terms then men.
No, no no. That's not it at all. It constantly suprises me how many people don't have the slightest clue about what Church Authority is and more importantly "when it is being exercised".
As I've stated before, when Pope Stephen declared all the ordinations and functions of his predecessor Pope Formosus, null and invalid. He was flat out wrong. His successor reversed him on that ruling.
A "Catholic Answers" type would have to conclude (if they were to try) that "Well, they were valid when Formosus ruled and when "the Magisterium declared them invalid, they became invalid and they were only valid again when "the Church" ruled them valid again."
The above comments are indicative of the current ultramontanist attitude where papal infallibility and the indefectability of the Church are translated into impeccability.
OB theology is Orthodox.
OBers have no episcopate. So they got their priests from the ROC before the 1925. After 1925, they got them from the ROCOR.
OBers rejected the 18th (?) century liturgical reforms in the ROC, but they did not reject the ROC as such.
Communities that still exist, exist without benefit of clergy. They have saved some of the consecrated Holy Mysteries, but only the Body, and manage to consume just a few Crumbs to make It last. I have heard a community in Erie, PA finally became reconciled to the ROCOR some years ago. Other communities exist in Siberia and Alaska.
Because of the lack of clergy, some of the communities have gotten a little goofy, so I hear. According to Thurston and Attwater, for example, some OBers believe in the Immaculate Conception.
OBers are greatly respected by the Orthodox and their icons are prized.
How terribly sad. Yes, this is the logical road of radical (as opposed to accidental) sedevacantism.
I wrote "...Is it me, or does the extreme Traditional viewpoint against the N.O. smack of an understanding of the liturgy as magic?"
You replied "...Coy, aren't we? Do you believe anyone here holds that "extreme" traditionalist viewpoint? What exactly is an "extreme" traditionalist?"
This was written in response to the article, not to you or anyone on this thread. Why, does it fit anyone here?
Regards
"How terribly sad. Yes, this is the logical road of radical (as opposed to accidental) sedevacantism."
This bishops-less situation nearly happened to the true(aka genuine) Orthodox Church of Greece. The true Orthodox in Greece, known for their asceticism and sanctity (e.g. St. Nicholas Planas of Athens and Protomartyr of the Old Calendar, St. Catherine of Attica), began without bishops. By the Grace of God, they barely managed to get bishops. But then the episcopate could not manage to stay united. Today, the Greek Old Calendar Orthodox are terribly fractured. It's a sad situation. The definitive history, to this date, is still THE STRUGGLE AGAINST ECUMENISM. It's available in a numnber of libraries as well as from the HTM and the St. Nectarios Press in Seattle.
"No, no no. That's not it at all. It constantly suprises me how many people don't have the slightest clue about what Church Authority is and more importantly "when it is being exercised"."
Does your post mean that you are waiting for the "inevitable" declaration that every Mass said in the last 50 years under the N.O. was invalid? Is that how obedience to those in authority works? Use our own personal opinions to disclaim the Church's actions, and claim that some day, the Church will "see the light"?
By the way, what are you talking about with "papal infallibility and the indefectability of the Church are translated into impeccability."? Who ever said that I thought the Church was impeccabile? Again, you are basing your premise on the idea that you are right, and it is only a matter of time before the Church gets on board with your proclamation. Is that what you are saying?
Regards
He spoke the language of the region which was Hebrew.
Not quite. I presume SVs would say that as they have kept the Faith, they constitute the Church.They can say all kinds of things, but it makes no sense theologically. Depending on how they want to define their "Church," Catholicism simply does not teach that sort of tiny knot of believers or that kind of non hierarchal invisible union of believers.
To say there is no Pope, and that there are only a few folks who even have the Mass, that is to effectively state that the visible Church has fallen, and all that’s left now is a loose collection of faithful that aren’t united under much of any banner (as the sedevacantists have no real organization). There is absolutely no way for the sedevacantists to satisfy the “One” aspect of the four marks of the Church, they are so fractured and divided, that the only way to even remotely argue that the “one” mark would be for one tiny group to say that they are it alone, and that every other sedevacantist group is just another bunch of protestants.
This of course leaves out the fact that, if the sedevacantists are correct, then the Church’s Bishops and Pope – where were once valid Bishops – at some point changed doctrines to get to the present positions. This would also violate the “one” mark. It isn’t even worth getting into the “universal”or “apostolic” marks here. Catholic teaching is that Christ promised that His Church received the gift of indefectibility. This means that the Church will persist to the end of time, but also means that it will preserve unimpaired its essential characteristics. What are those? Apostolic hierarchy, obviously, is included, as are the Sacraments. So, contending the Church has lost the Mass would violate teaching on indefectibility. Contending that there is no Pope and that the hierarchy has disappeared because the Rite is invalid would as well. So, in an attempt to get around these facts they contend that they are all that’s left of the Church, a remnant if you will, and that they preserve these characteristics. This despite the fact that the Sedevacantis Episcopal ordinations are of very dubious validity. Can these tiny groups of believers really satisfy the four marks of the Church? No.
There is simply no argument consistent with Catholic doctrine that these tiny sedevantist groups could be all that’s left of the Church.
NOs would say that as the SVs are not united to Rome, they are outside of the Church. Am I not right?Case by case basis. You can make a judgment that on the surface, yes, sedevacantism is outside the Church, but you cannot judge each man’s heart that way, any more than you can say that everyone who attends a Catholic Church on Sunday is inside the Church.
As with Protestant ecclesiology, there are inherent problems with the SV position, given the papist position of the SVers. I personally think this can only be resolved by SVers going to either an Old Catholic position or to OrthodoxyOnly Orthodoxy would really work for them. I don’t think the Old Catholics could fit them at all. Anyway, this thought demonstrates that your earlier question about the SVs contending that they are the Church isn’t correct theologically.
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.Yes, I’ve noticed that. Given some of the Patriarchs I’m not surprised its an issue.
In other words, the SV position, as it is now, is not tenable. They have to go somewhere and when they do, they'll have to dump something.I’ll put $20 down that they go nowhere. To join with the Orthodox would be to subject themselves to someone else’s authority. The bishops there now will not, by and large, give up their authority and autonomy. Old Catholicism could have worked once upon a time, but no longer. In the Countries with lots of sedevacantists strikes me as not a good option for them at all, as they seem to share little at all with the current Old Catholics (at least here in America).
I see lots of similarities with the Old Believers.
patent
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.