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.
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.
:-).
Earth to Planet Zongo ...
Jesus offered the Last Supper/First Mass/Sacrifice of the New Covenant using the King's English (see the KJV) so it couldn't have been Latin.
For what it is worth, I don't think anyone worth their salt, whatever their label (as if any identifying modifier is neceesary to append to Christian Catholic), would disagree that translations from the Latin into the vernacular must be authentic.
Those of us who subscribe to The Wanderer and who read WDTPRS by Fr. John Zuhlsdorf are only too aware of the problems; none of those problems, however, justify severing communion with one's Bishop or the Pope.
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."
So your answer to this is to continue attending a Novus Ordo mass that does not offer the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass (please find the words for me in the original Missae) and without a sacrifice it is not a mass as I am sure you know
The Mass itself whether or not it is valid is really not the question-it is the form of worship we choose as catholics and those who are ordained in the likeness of the Apostles to hold forth the Apostolic Traditions handed down
Does the church still hold the "4 Marks" anymore? Is it still holy? Can it be recognized anywhere and everywhere with its form of worship and doctrine? Not in your lifetime
You dont need to be a 30 yr theologian to realize there are some serious doubts with Vatican II and the Mass.
As far at them being "happy"-have you ever considered how these so called "rad trads" feel? Being casted out as so called "schismatics" by JPII who would hold a conference or a meeting with any false faith on this planet in the name of Love Love and Ecumenism-but if you are a traditional catholic they treat you like the plague and push you out, they dont want you to tell the other parishoners of this deep dark secret they are pulling over the innocent person in the pew who does not have the time to read what you and I read. They are afraid of the truth being revealed -and you have to see the disgust when I questioned the priests in the Novus Ordo parishes where I used to attend when I asked about the merits of the new mass, altar girls, Eucharistic ministers, etc. They, the church of Love are the ones filled with Hate, they would rather see no one in the pews than admit they made a mistake.
As far as the trads being "nasty" as you say and calling them "devils", they should not be acting nasty, but they have a right to feel pushed out and played by the Vatican. As far as clapping-what is the big deal, the Mass has serious flaws, from the mass itself, to the simple translation of it. So what is your point then?
Say what?
He used his native languages, Aramaic and Hebrew!!!!!!
The whole Matatics thing is sad and depressing. I have heard many of his tapes and he is undoubtedly a biblical expert and he is undoubtedly very bright and he is undoubtedly highly motivated - but to what end?
What does it profit a man to gain great biblical knowledge and, apparently, triumph over the Church and garner a great reputation as a "traditionalist" if in the process he loses his soul?
Among the extreme traditionalists there exists a limited, and limiting, understanding of Extra Ecclesia Nulla Salus (along the lines of Feenyism)which makes their own position vis a vis the Church so dangerous yet they never seem to dwell on that, or even notice it.
The problem appears, for many, to be in their Will, not their intellect. Arguements don't seem to penetrate their intellect. Probably only prayer can penetrate the Will - which, in many traditionalists, is zealously guarded by the sentinel of Pride. And so I pray for Mr. Matatics. What good works he could accomplish were he to put on the cincture of obedience and the sack cloth of penetential humility.
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.
Were I elected Pope (I have a list of those I would formally excommunicate) I would be ordained a Bishop.
"What does it profit a man to gain great biblical knowledge and, apparently, triumph over the Church and garner a great reputation as a "traditionalist" if in the process he loses his soul?"
So Gerry Matatics has lost his soul, according to you? The sin of rash judgment and detraction can also be mortal. Perhaps an evaluation is in order???
What Keating wrote as he wrote it was incorrect. Why rely upon him as a source for anything?
*Sir. You were wrong about the Pope; and you are wrong in your insinuation. Please read my posts more carefully.
I know you are a Trinitarian, however, there is no need for you to post three errors. Stop before you make a third :)
Dear Mershon,
"Karl Keating is wrong. Any male Catholic can theoretically be elected as Pope. He need not be a bishop to be Pope."
But upon being elected pope, it would be necessary to consecrate him a bishop. If Pope Benedict XVI had not been Cardinal (and Archbishop) Ratzinger prior to his election, it would have been necessary to consecrate him at that time. In that he was not then consecrated, and in that, according to this line of thinking, there were no validly-consecrated bishops present to consecrate him, then he would be the elected pope, but would not have any way to become the actual Bishop of Rome.
What would be the result of that anomaly?
Would a man elected pope, but who remained unconsecrated as a bishop, continue to be the pope? If he did, what ill effects would his lack of episcopal consecration would exist?
I'd think that he would be even theoretically unable to consecrate any other bishops, or ordain priests. Are there other authorities, responsibilities, rights, prerogatives, privileges or powers that inhere to the pope because of or through his episcopal ordination?
If you have some insight, I'm asking these questions straight, and would appreciate any answers you might have.
sitetest
* Nope. Keating writes for knowledgeable Christians who know that even were a layman to be elected Pope, he would be ordained a Bishop.
Why rely upon him as a source for anything?
* He knows what he is talking about.
Good bye, sir. I sense you are spoiling for a fight with me and I am far too happy a Christian to accomodate you.
Any male Catholic can be elected as Pope. As usual, Karl Keating, neo-Catholic apologist, plays loose with the facts. He is wrong. Thanks for assisting in spreading his errors.
This was the only point I wast trying to make while all of you Neos bash a Catholic father with 10 children due to Karl's "investigative" journalism, which he knows nothing about.
Don't suppose he tried to interview Gerry, did he?
How come any time you are proven to post erroneous information, you back out and say "you are 'spoiling for a fight.'"
Keating never said anything about getting consecrated a bishop after election. He said one must be a Priest or Bishop PRIOR to being elected. Otherwise, he could not be elected as Pope.
This is the plain meaning of his words. Can you read them? If so, how can you say he knows what he is talking about?
Oh yes, I forgot, the self-proclaimed "lay magisterium." Silly me...
Don't let facts or truth get in the way of your agenda.
Are you for real-blanketing the antisemitism label on those that hold fast to tradition and dont subscribe to the notion that those that reject our Lord as savior are on the same footing as we are? Just because one denounces one who denies our Lord-and did lead him to his death (I know all of the PC sanitized Vatican II version, and the "elder brother" line JPII threw out), but the fundamental fact is we are supposed to spread the good news of Christ and those that deny him-Can not and WILL not be saved. And there are those that are ZIONISTS to this day that hate anything that is Christian and if those who are traditional stand up to these people, and not bend over to them as the Novus Ordo do-are they "anti semitic"? No-they are courageous defenders of the faith, something the Novus Ordo know nothing about allowing sacrilige after sacrilige to take place. Sell our Lords body on e-bay? Sure why not. Communion in the hand? Sure why not. Kneel? Never!
It is the Novus Ordo who are full of pride and are the wolf in sheeps clothing. The traditionalist only practices Catholicism as it once was always taught and not a watered down version that is pleasing to these false faiths
God bless
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.