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.
OBers have no episcopate. So they got their priests from the ROC before the 1925. After 1925, they got them from the ROCOR.I thought there were two types, and that one of them had an episcopacy?
patent +AMDG
Great post.
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?
Every Mass said in the last 50 years would not have been invalid. But not every Mass was a Novus Ordo in the vernacular. So, every vernacular Novus Ordo could very well have been invalid. Enough of them are already manifestly invalid due to invalid matter.
Is that how obedience to those in authority works?
"Obedience" as servility is now called, is sometimes used by lazy Catholics to justify their laziness. If they don't want to fend off a subtle attack against the Church and instead only look for overt attacks, then they will suffer the consequences. The Anglicans who first allowed Cranmer's changes didn't think they were separating from the Catholic Church. They were led by the nose out of the Church and didn't even know it. Aquinas teaches that there are three kinds of obedience, perfect obedience, true obedience and false obedience.
Use our own personal opinions to disclaim the Church's actions, and claim that some day, the Church will "see the light"?
How does one know anything with certitude? Do you claim 2+2=4 as only your opinion? Do you need the Church to tell you 2+2=4 in order to know that? Is Holy Communion really Holy Communion if cupcake mix is used for matter? Was the judgement of Pope Stephen on Pope Formosus and "action of the Church?" Calling something "the Church's actions" is also a vague term. And this type of terminology is often supposed to imply (in my opinion) some kind of infallibility where there is none.
Churchmen wield alot of power. Even a Pope can attempt to destroy the Church if he were a scoundrel. He'll fail. We don't know how far he'll get before he fails but he could knock 90% of it into the dustbin before he fails.
By the way, what are you talking about with "papal infallibility and the indefectability of the Church are translated into impeccability."?
Just read this thread along with numerous other ones. Go to Envoy or EWTN or Catholic Answers and you'll see this foolish idea that anything that comes out of Rome is automatically a good thing. There is no promise from Christ that this is true. Add to that, this constant misuse of the term "Magisterium" as if it's equivalent to saying "The Congress of the United States" Too many "conservative" Catholics think the Curia is the Magisterium of the Church. It is not. The Holy Spirit does not guide every action of the Vatican. He doesn't even positively pick the Pope in the conclave. But people don't have time to learn about God's permissable will it seems.
Who ever said that I thought the Church was impeccabile?
I didn't specify you. But to probe the issue, can you speculate on just how bad can a Pope be?
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?
My premise is based on what the Church has always taught and what is de facto going on. It doesn't take a church proclamation on each case to determine that the Mass isn't happening when the priest uses bread with honey and eggs in it. The Church has already proclaimed efficiently what will cause the Mass to defect.
What we've got now, is a case where the Churchmen in the Church, won't exercise their power to clarify the issues of validity plagueing the Church. The fact is, they've made a rite that is nowhere near the exact thing that Paul VI validated. It was defective but not invalid. There is no papal guarantee that prevents the evolution of the Novus Ordo and the constant instability it promotes has led to numerous invalid masses.
"I thought there were two types, and that one of them had an episcopacy?"
No. If that were so there would be some sort of an Old Believer Synod of bishops. There is not, and never was.
OBers will eventually either die out or be reconciled to the Church.
I agree that SV ecclesiology could mesh with Orthodoxy, but SV piety does not mesh. St. John Maximovitch solved this for Old Catholic converts to Orthodoxy in France and Belgium by permitting them to keep the Tridentine liturgy, but only on a temporary basis. In the long run, Westerners coming into the Church with their Western piety learn they really have to change. It's like getting a spiritual lobotomy.
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.
I don't believe anyone is forcing you at the end of a gun to listen to or read anything they say. But the last time I checked, they had the same right as you to express their opinions and fight for their issues if they so desire.
Catholicism is characterized by a concern over what the Pope thinks (if anything) about men (e.g. Matatics).
Wrong. Catholicism is characterized by four marks. One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic. Not what any one Pope thinks about "Men" Popes can be idiots. We've had several.
The same applies to you with respect to what I write.
But the last time I checked, they had the same right as you to express their opinions and fight for their issues if they so desire.
Sowing confusion, as usual.
I'm not disputing their right to express their opinions.
I'm simply unmoved as to the gravitas of their opinions. See the difference?
Wrong. Catholicism is characterized by four marks. One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic. Not what any one Pope thinks about "Men" Popes can be idiots. We've had several.
Thanks.
The aim of what I wrote was not to define Catholicism.
I was simply contrasting the Catholic and Protestant positions, with respect to the Pope.
Yours is the latter.
Ever hear of RESPECT
I bet you wear a suit and tie for work, but when you enter Gods house your in your shorts and flip flops like the rest of the Novus Ordo church goers. Novus ordo supporters love to talk about the last supper, and so on, but do you know why communion in the hand was stopped in the, if I remember correctly the 4th century? Was because the "Faithful" (if you know your mass, at one time there were two parts of the Mass, the begining for the Catechumenes and the second part for the faithful) who were taking Our Lords body home and leaving it in wood boxes, and other desecrations. Well stories surfaced of abuses to the point the box went on fire.
The church stopped communion in the hand immediately after this, so you would not have a JPII the "Great" travesty of selling our Lord on e-bay.
You see, the Novus Ordo have no respect anymore for our Lord, the mass is now "The Lords supper" and is not even called "The Sacrifice of the Mass". The Vatican flies around these tradtional notions like the "Year of Eucharist
, and so on, but most Novus Ordo attendees dont really believe in transubstantiation anymore, or they wouldnt dare risk offending the sacriliges which are allowed today.
The Novus Ordo priests and "Ministers" are the same as the Pharisies who led our Lord to crucifixion, only now it is the defamation of his name and body in the year 2005. Shame on you for even defending the notion of communion from one person with unsanitized hands (the Eucharistic Minister) to your own unsanitized hands to your mouth.
And you are even to lazy now to kneel in front of the Tabernacle! Protestants have more respect than you and the New Church-even they stood up against the hate mongers when the Passion of the Christ came out, but the Pope? He hid with his rabbi friend Abe Foxman!
The same applies to you with respect to what I write.
And vice versa. Cute cycle isn't it?
"But the last time I checked, they had the same right as you to express their opinions and fight for their issues if they so desire."
Sowing confusion, as usual.
Your confusions are your own issues. If you can't keep up, mention it and I'll explain things carefully to you.
I'm not disputing their right to express their opinions.
I didn't say you were. I'm simply making a point that they can speak whether you think you are supposed to get excited or pay attention to them or not.
I'm simply unmoved as to the gravitas of their opinions. See the difference?
That's interesting considering you don't know who they are or why you are supposed to get excited about their views.
The aim of what I wrote was not to define Catholicism. I was simply contrasting the Catholic and Protestant positions, with respect to the Pope.
Maybe you should learn about the Catholic position first. You wrote what "characterizes Catholicism and Protestantism" and you did not characterize the position of Catholics regarding the Pope. You've created a "giant world babysitter" instead of the guardian of Orthodoxy. It's simply a wrong-headed position.
Yours is the latter.
Pathetic. As usual, you don't know what you're talking about. You're in this little mode of "former" and "latter" and it seems you don't care a bit about the accuracy of what you state. Here's one: There are people that should write and speak on issues because they bring the truth to the fore with their abilities. Then, there are those who abilities make utter fools of themselves.
Yours are the latter. ;) Simply put, to put your assertions to the test would be wonderful. You'd simply fail, fail, fail. It won't happen, I know, I've asked you to back up your assertions numerous times with no reply but a cowardly dance. It's all puffery unless you want to stand up to the plate. That's the difference between Matatics, Sungenis and Derksen, and Ferarra etc. They step up to the plate. It's people like Keating and The Envoy crowd and half the posters on this forum that don't have what it takes to slug through the facts of what the Church teaches and instead rely on useless,pointless and moronic accusations.
Always so clear and to the point, G.
Who did He say that to? Ordinary people or his chosen Apostles? (ie. the ordained)
I don’t recall anyone kneeling at the last supper.
How do you know? Despite Da Vinci's painting. We don't know what the scene actually looked like at such a profound moment. If the last supper is the final criteria maybe you should have your feet washed then each week by the priest. They also ate lamb at the Last Supper, why don't we do that? The priests also didn't get paid at the last supper. We should probably remove that later tradition as well.
What is the basis for your objections, other than a (lower case) tradition from the middle ages?
It's the priests that have maintained those forms of reverence and respect that have continued to save souls and work miracles like the Apostles, not the hootenany priests gazing out with their dead eyes and hollow voices clinging for some "social" experiment to believe in.
see post 122 for the reply to your previous post. I posted it to my own by accident.
My point was simple and clear, I thought.
I look to Pope Benedict XVI for Catholic teaching. Not to Gerry (who?) Matatics, God bless him.
Is that too difficult to grasp?
""Obedience" as servility is now called, is sometimes used by lazy Catholics to justify their laziness. If they don't want to fend off a subtle attack against the Church and instead only look for overt attacks, then they will suffer the consequences"
There is a difference between thrusting yourself as the liturgical police and determine what is valid and what is not, vs. obedience to the Church's authority that they are doing what they claim to be. When a priest intends to celebrate the Mass and does not violate the canon law, he is celebrating Mass. It is Christ's action that we should focus on, not the rituals of the priest. They are a means to an end, not the end itself. The liturgy is supposed to bring you into communion with the sacrifice of the Passion being offered up to the Father. Not about putting yourself above the Church because you disagree with how they do things.
"Even a Pope can attempt to destroy the Church if he were a scoundrel. He'll fail. We don't know how far he'll get before he fails but he could knock 90% of it into the dustbin before he fails."
So can so-called liturgical movements that claim that the vast majority of Masses offered up were invalid. All this does is scandalize other Catholics. Nothing good can come from this dissent. Rather than trying to rationalize your fomenting of rebellion against God's Church, perhaps it would be wiser to approach this with a more pastoral view.
Petition your bishop to get an indult Mass.
"Just read this thread along with numerous other ones. Go to Envoy or EWTN or Catholic Answers and you'll see this foolish idea that anything that comes out of Rome is automatically a good thing. There is no promise from Christ that this is true. Add to that, this constant misuse of the term "Magisterium" as if it's equivalent to saying "The Congress of the United States" Too many "conservative" Catholics think the Curia is the Magisterium of the Church."
Certainly. Does this justify causing dissent? What does our Bible say about this? Are there other ways to approach this without claiming that all Masses are invalid? Which, by the way, means nothing, as the Church must declare that, not you.
"I didn't specify you. But to probe the issue, can you speculate on just how bad can a Pope be?"
Despite how bad a pope can be, God will not abandon His Church. Even during the Medieval popes, we didn't see any false dogmas promulgated. And another thing, I think you are giving the Pope to much power to his credit.
"My premise is based on what the Church has always taught and what is de facto going on. It doesn't take a church proclamation on each case to determine that the Mass isn't happening when the priest uses bread with honey and eggs in it. The Church has already proclaimed efficiently what will cause the Mass to defect."
Well, here we agree. But how many such "Masses" have been said? This goes beyond "every vernacular NO" Mass, don't you think. The Church has already said that the host must be made of wheat. They have said that any substitution is invalid. They say it is not a valid Mass said this in this manner. They have ruled on the matter. You are worrying too much on what "might" happen. Don't you think it is being a bit paranoid? I'll trust that God is not going to allow the Eucharist to be so destroyed within the Church.
Regards
"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."
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.
I look to Pope Benedict XVI for Catholic teaching. Not to Gerry (who?) Matatics, God bless him. Is that too difficult to grasp?
It's not too difficult to grasp. It's too simplistic to be rational. And it's not a Catholic way to learn Catholic teaching. It's the Protestant notion of papal impeccability once again. Gerry Matatics does nothing but parrot what the Magisterium of the Church has stated and the Catholic Church has always taught. As he has said many times, "Don't believe anything because Gerry Matatics says it. Here's the source: if you have a problem with that. You have a problem with the Church and with Our Lord himself."
The Pope is not automatically THE Theologian of the Church. Popes like John XXII were and can be wrong at any time not covered under the stringent marks of magisterial teaching. For example a Pope can't say that transubstantiation is no longer a valid understanding of the consecration of the bread and wine. The magisterium has already ruled on that. But he can come up with his own lame-brained version of teaching that can foster error. Whether it's magisterial or even his own error will depend on the signs of the authentic, the ordinary or extraordinary magisterium being invoked.
If Pope Benedict declares everything JPII ever did as invalid and then the next Pope reverses that. What are you going to do? At some point, you are going to have to face Catholic truth and abandon this cartoon that is promoted by Catholic Answers and EWTN. God left a lot of room for the screwing around of the human men he left in charge of his Church. Popes are not excluded from being disasters. Councils are not positively called by the Holy Spirit. And Councils are not promised good fruits.
That is strange. I can say that the "other" Easterners (i.e. Orthodox) do not believe any of what you posted the Maronite priest stated -- and I don't belive the Maronites believe it either. I am pinging a Maronite freeper for an insider comment.
Unless I am sadly mistaken, this Maronite priest you mention is on a fringe and does not relefct what the Maronite Church teaches as a full member of the Vatican community.
"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."
You know, when you write something like that, you do no harm to Pete Vere's reputation but you make yourself look like a dunce. For your own sake, please wise up.
"Secondly, Matatics would wipe the floor with him. He's just not in Gerry's league."
Pete does not claim to be a debater. On the other hand, he prepares his public presentations diligently. As often as not, Gerry walks into his debates cold. At some of them he even has told the audience, in his opening remarks, that he failed to prepare--and, by evening's end, it showed.
I wouldn't be surprised if "non-debater" Pete outshown Gerry in a debate. James White has.
"I spoke with Gerry back in early April and he qualified his arguments on the Mass as being the 'translations into vernacular'."
In the June 30 letter posted at his web site, Gerry promised that in one week he would post another letter that would explain his position on the vernacular Mass and the revised ordination rite. It has been six weeks, and still no follow-up.
On July 12 James White said on his radio program that he doubted that Gerry would have the next letter posted "before December, if ever." We will have to see if White turns out to be correct.
"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."
First of all, I'm not little. I'm 6'2". How tall are you? (Whether I am foolish I must leave for others to decide.)
Second, if Gerry were forthright about his positions and stated them without equivocation or hedging, people would not have to rely on others to learn about them.
It's the mistake made by every Protestant reformer.
What Catholic of sound mind would turn his back on the Roman Pontiff as a source of authentic Catholicism and turn instead to a layman on the lecture circuit?
You know, when you write something like that, you do no harm to Pete Vere's reputation but you make yourself look like a dunce. For your own sake, please wise up.
Pete does more harm to himself and his reputation than anyone else could. I have my own history with Pete and his lies. Specifically his article about Bishop Williamson titled "Bishop Williamson's zingers" You won't find it online anymore. After I exposed Vere's lies of omission it was mysteriously removed. I'd asked Pete to be a man about it but after about two years of his games, I realized that he's not going to change.
"Secondly, Matatics would wipe the floor with him. He's just not in Gerry's league."
Pete does not claim to be a debater. On the other hand, he prepares his public presentations diligently. As often as not, Gerry walks into his debates cold. At some of them he even has told the audience, in his opening remarks, that he failed to prepare--and, by evening's end, it showed.
Ultimately, it boils down to this: Pete didn't want to step up to the plate. It seemed he had his best opportunity and Gerry could've gone in cold and unprepared and stuttered and fumbled around like an awkward teenager. But as usual, the neos don't want to walk the talk. (or even talk the talk when it comes to debates)
I've been in Gerry's audiences for his talks. He's often fleshing out his statements to answer the questions of many in the audience and usually he has volumes of material and not enough time to get it all in. Often he gives books and tapes away as gifts under the promise that they will be read/listened to in order to fully understand the topic. My experiences say you are wrong.
I wouldn't be surprised if "non-debater" Pete outshown Gerry in a debate. James White has.
Well, I would be surprised. And it's all speculation since Pete wouldn't be a stand up guy now right? You can safely speculate that since it's never going to happen. How do you think Pete would do against White?
Gerry made a poor showing against White when he was a neo-Catholic on the Marian issues. He later cleaned White's clock on Sola Scriptura. Pete's writing is usually so riddled with illogical conclusions, I can't imagine a sudden burst of clarity while live. He had great difficulty explaining simple matters to Monica Crowley on MSNBC. So awkward did he look that they gave him about 25 seconds and had to keep going to Mark Shea. It was painful to watch.
"I spoke with Gerry back in early April and he qualified his arguments on the Mass as being the 'translations into vernacular'."
In the June 30 letter posted at his web site, Gerry promised that in one week he would post another letter that would explain his position on the vernacular Mass and the revised ordination rite. It has been six weeks, and still no follow-up.
You have to be more careful in what you read Gerry said he "hoped" to post next week. He made no promise. If Gerry feels he needs more time to care for his family or clarify his thoughts in print so as to avoid confusion. I'll give him as much time as he needs. Better for him to be clear and give his best efforts over a time period than to send something that will need much revision.
On July 12 James White said on his radio program that he doubted that Gerry would have the next letter posted "before December, if ever." We will have to see if White turns out to be correct.
Again, White sets the agenda for Gerry and You it seems. "A lie can get halfway around the world before the truth has gotten it's boots on." White can set any time limit he wants. He's superflous and not a good debator in print. I bounced him around myself in an e-mail exchange over St. Augustine and your flub about "Roma Locuta Est." in one of your books.
Cleaning up after the damage caused by the neo-Catholic lay magisterium is more damaging than the outright foolishness of the Protestant anti-Catholic apologists.
"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."
First of all, I'm not little. I'm 6'2". How tall are you? (Whether I am foolish I must leave for others to decide.)
I won't divulge that kind of personal information since you have a history of spilling personal info on websites. But let's just say I'm bigger than a bread box. ( I can light my cigars on the Sun, stride the oceans with ease, crush diamonds from their anthracite if that helps) How tall is Gerry by the way? :)
Second, if Gerry were forthright about his positions and stated them without equivocation or hedging, people would not have to rely on others to learn about them.
Nonsense. Gerry is forthright about his positions. He doesn't equivocate or hedge. I know about his positions. I simply listened to him and referred to his citations for proof of what he states. The reason you never actually quote him or invite him to actually express his positions in an unedited way is simply that they are airtight. It's the same modus operandi that EWTN employs and any other host of propagandistic neo-Catholic organizations. "I'll tell you what he said, don't actually go and see for yourself." If you call into EWTN and point out that Fr. Groeschel is a heretic, (see July 24ths Sunday Night Live with Fr. Benedict Groeschel) they won't put your question up. But if you call and ask a really stupid simpleton's question. They want you in the front of the line. Catholicism be damned.
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.