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.
*Sigh. Why did I correctly anticipate a third error? :)
Now. I am done with you on this thread - and, likely, any future threads.
Whether our exchange is the open or whether I receive freepmail from you I can always count upon your errors, your poor reading comprehension and what appears to me to be the desire to draw me into a fight.
Defend Matatics all you like. That speaks volumes about the qualtiy of your "traditonalism."
I say he needs our prayers far more than he needs your "defense."
Dear Mershon,
"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."
What errors did I spread?
I agree that any Catholic male may be elected pope. That's why I replied to your statement, "But upon being elected pope, it would be necessary to consecrate him a bishop."
If you had thought about it for a moment, you'd realize that I wouldn't say that it would be necessary to consecrate the new pope if I thought it were impossible to elect a pope who was not already a bishop.
Electing popes who were not already bishops has happened before (although I don't know if it will happen again). I note that Gregory XVI was elected pope on Feb 2, 1831, but was not consecrated a bishop until four days later, on Feb 6, 1831. Thus, election to the papacy and episcopal consecration (if needed) are not one in the same action.
When non-bishops have been elected pope, they are nearly immediately consecrated to the episcopacy. The actual election to the pontificate does not substitute for consecration as a bishop.
My questions still pertain - if a non-bishop were elected pope, and for some reason, he was not consecrated bishop, what would be the effect of that?
If you don't know the answers, just say so. I'd been under the impression that you were knowledgeable about these matters, but perhaps I am in error regarding my impression.
"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."
You are so quick to take offense, so quick to think ugly things about we evil "Neos" that you totally missed that I was sincerely asking a hypothetical question - what would happen if a man who was not already a bishop were elected pope, but then he was not consecrated bishop?
I really have no interest in the war between Karl Keating and Gerry Matatics, and offered no opinion one way or other about it.
But you are so overworked by your fervor to condemn "Neos" that you missed that entirely.
Well, thank you very much.
I'll find the answers to my questions from someone who actually knows something and isn't so caught up in finding fault with those who might not share his every point of view.
sitetest
Chapter 11
God hath not cast off all Israel. The Gentiles must not be proud but stand in faith and fear.
1 I say then: Hath God cast away his people? God forbid! For I also am an Israelite of the seed of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin.
2 God hath not cast away his people which he foreknew. Know you not what the scripture saith of Elias, how he calleth on God against Israel?
3 Lord, they have slain thy prophets, they have dug down thy altars. And I am left alone: and they seek my life.
4 But what saith the divine answer to him? I have left me seven thousand men that have not bowed their knees to Baal.
5 Even so then, at this present time also, there is a remnant saved according to the election of grace.
6 And if by grace, it is not now by works: otherwise grace is no more grace.
7 What then? That which Israel sought, he hath not obtained: but the election hath obtained it. And the rest have been blinded.
8 As it is written: God hath given them the spirit of insensibility; eyes that they should not see and ears that they should not hear, until this present day.
9 And David saith: Let their table be made a snare and a trap and a stumbling block and a recompense unto them.
10 Let their eyes be darkened, that they may not see: and bow down their back always.
11 I say then: Have they so stumbled, that they should fall? God forbid! But by their offence salvation is come to the Gentiles, that they may be emulous of them.
12 Now if the offence of them be the riches of the world and the diminution of them the riches of the Gentiles: how much more the fulness of them?
13 For I say to you, Gentiles: As long indeed as I am the apostle of the Gentiles, I will honour my ministry,
14 If, by any means, I may provoke to emulation them who are my flesh and may save some of them.
15 For if the loss of them be the reconciliation of the world, what shall the receiving of them be, but life from the dead?
16 For if the firstfruit be holy, so is the lump also: and if the root be holy, so are the branches.
17 And if some of the branches be broken and thou, being a wild olive, art ingrafted in them and art made partaker of the root and of the fatness of the olive tree:
18 Boast not against the branches. But if thou boast, thou bearest not the root: but the root thee.
19 Thou wilt say then: The branches were broken off that I might be grafted in.
20 Well: because of unbelief they were broken off. But thou standest by faith. Be not highminded, but fear.
21 For if God hath not spared the natural branches, fear lest perhaps also he spare not thee.
22 See then the goodness and the severity of God: towards them indeed that are fallen, the severity; but towards thee, the goodness of God, if thou abide in goodness. Otherwise thou also shalt be cut off.
23 And they also, if they abide not still in unbelief, shall be grafted in: for God is able to graft them in again.
24 For if thou were cut out of the wild olive tree, which is natural to thee; and, contrary to nature, wert grafted into the good olive tree: how much more shall they that are the natural branches be grafted into their own olive tree?
25 For I would not have you ignorant, brethren, of this mystery (lest you should be wise in your own conceits) that blindness in part has happened in Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles should come in.
26 And so all Israel should be saved, as it is written: There shall come out of Sion, he that shall deliver and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob.
27 And this is to them my covenant: when I shall take away their sins.
28 As concerning the gospel, indeed, they are enemies for your sake: but as touching the election, they are most dear for the sake of the fathers.
29 For the gifts and the calling of God are without repentance.
30 For as you also in times past did not believe God, but now have obtained mercy, through their unbelief:
31 So these also now have not believed, for your mercy, that they also may obtain mercy.
32 For God hath concluded all in unbelief, that he may have mercy on all.
33 O the depth of the riches of the wisdom and of the knowledge of God! How incomprehensible are his judgments, and how unsearchable his ways!
34 For who hath known the mind of the Lord? Or who hath been his counsellor?
35 Or who hath first given to him, and recompense shall be made him?
36 For of him, and by him, and in him, are all things: to him be glory for ever. Amen.
..........................
26 And so all Israel should be saved, as it is written: There shall come out of Sion, he that shall deliver and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob.
27 And this is to them my covenant: when I shall take away their sins.
28 As concerning the gospel, indeed, they are enemies for your sake: but as touching the election, they are most dear for the sake of the fathers.
29 For the gifts and the calling of God are without repentance.<
I was wondering... Does anyone else have a Bible that has the passages bolded that Bornacatholic has bolded here. I have noticed this tendency to bold the things he/she wants to emphasize, which of course, provides its own kind of "commentary" on the more important sections.
Anyone else have a bolded Bible like this?
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.
The Chaldean and Maronite Churches retain the words and language of our Lord in their Consecration. This is as close as any liturgy can come to Christ's words at the Last Supper, in his native tongue, Aramaic.
Aramaic Consecration
Byow mo how daq dom ha sho dee leh
ma' bed hy eh
nsa bel lah mo be dow qa dee sho to.
Ou ba rekh
ou qa desh
waq so
ou ya bel tal mee dow kad o mar:
Sab a khool meh neh kul khoon:
Ho no den ee tow faghro deel
day lo fy koun wah lof sagee hey
meh teq seh ou meh tee heb
lhoo so yo dhow beh was ha yeh dal 'o lam
'ol meen.
English Translation
On the day before his life-giving passion,
Jesus took bread in his holy hands.
He blessed,
sanctified,
broke,
and gave it to his disciples, saying:
Take and eat it, all of you:
This is my body
which is broken and delivered for you
and for many,
for the forgiveness of sins and eternal life.
Bravo Salvation!!! (see my post #26). Since there is a Maronite Church not too far away, you really should plan on attending it at least once, if for no other reason than to hear those words of Consecration chanted in the language of Christ. Close your eyes and you are there .... at the Last Supper!
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.
I don't go the Novus Ordo unless I have to. And I find it singularly unpleasant when I do, to the point of almost breaking my heart. But I find your comments about sacrifice a little odd considering that the Roman Canon was preserved intact in the N.O.
Bulldog, my point is that some aspects of the traditionalist movement have fallen in love with being in schism. They like being on the outside, and they are losing any desire to be reunited with Rome under any circumstance. I don't attack the SSPX or anyone else, because those guys were fighting the good fight preserving the Latin Mass when I was deciding that the Catholic Church just wasn't "cool" enough for my life. Their blessed liturgical intransigence is the very reason I even have a Latin Mass to go to, because if it were up to conciliatory people like me, I'm not sure if it would still be around. But even if they have resorted to drastic measures in the past, they have to recognize that impaired communion with the Apostolic See is an "emergency measure" that should be rectified as soon as possible. Disobedience is something to be agonized over, not something to be fondled, cooed at, and applauded.
Don't you just LOVE Fr. Zuhlsdorf's weekly column! He has a web site set up for the express purpose of understanding and comparing the orignal Latin and English texts.
Bingo. I know good trads who you can't even talk to on this issue. You bring up St. Emerentiana, the holy Martyr catechumen who was never baptized--"Oh, but she *must have been baptized* before death!! Someone must have done it before she died!"
*Sigh*. Very sad.
Very well stated. And worth repeating. There exists a *will* to schism among some of us, and that I find far far more insidious than any academic discussion on the validity of the New Mass.
It is a danger all we sons of Adam subject to, liberal and trad alike.
Matatics used to be cool. Now he's cool no more. Behold, Tertullian!
-Theo
No blanketing at all. I think we're just observing that certain strains of traditionalism are quite contented in their antisemitism. To wit, those that trumpet the notorious forgeries called the "Protocols of the Elders of Zion" despite the fact that everyone else has know they've been fake for about a century.
By the way, you should know that many of the folks at the Association of Hebrew Catholics and other similar organizations are the ones who have been most strident in criticizing this nonsense that Jews somehow don't need to convert.
See my #35.
Now, would you humble us in providing the mounds of evidence to support your most researched and professional opinion?
For those still listening ....
Most of the prophecies in the Bible that describe the end times make it clear that the Jews will continue as an identifiable, distinct people until the end of the world - in christian terms, until the Second Coming. There are specific prophecies that appear to say that in the last days, the Jews will be gathered in from the four corners of the world and brought back to their own homeland in and around Jerusalem.
Salvation is from the Jews.
Meant to bump you to #37. Sorry.
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>
Bornacatholic-you should have led into with Chapter 10, which clearly shows Gods disatisfaction with the Jews, once his chosen people. If I remember Apocolypse, there shall be 144,000 Jews left at the end of time, which all shall be converted. Does not scripture say that only through Jesus will one get to the Father? So what does that mean for the Jews, the Moslems, the Hindus and all of these other false faiths that the Vatican II documents glorify, and the Novus Ordo church reaches out. JPII getting the sign of "shiva" on his forehead, kissing the Koran. Disgusting!!!!!!
CHAPTER 10.
1 BRETHREN, the will of my heart, indeed, and my prayer to God, is for them unto salvation.
2 For I bear them witness, that they have a zeal of God, but not according to knowledge.
3 For they, not knowing the justice of God, and seeking to establish their own, have not submitted themselves to the justice of God.
4 For the end of the law is Christ, unto justice to every one that believeth.
5 For Moses wrote, that the justice which is of the law, the man that shall do it, shall live by it.
6 But the justice which is of faith, speaketh thus: Say not in thy heart, Who shall ascend into heaven? that is, to bring Christ down;
7 Or who shall descend into the deep? that is, to bring up Christ again from the dead.
8 But what saith the scripture? The word is nigh thee, even in thy mouth, and in thy heart. This is the word of faith, which we preach.
9 For if thou confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and believe in thy heart that God hath raised him up from the dead, thou shalt be saved.
10 For, with the heart, we believe unto justice; but, with the mouth, confession is made unto salvation.
11 For the scripture saith: Whosoever believeth in him, shall not be confounded.
12 For there is no distinction of the Jew and the Greek: for the same is Lord over all, rich unto all that call upon him.
13 For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord, shall be saved.
14 How then shall they call on him, in whom they have not believed? Or how shall they believe him, of whom they have not heard? And how shall they hear, without a preacher?
15 And how shall they preach unless they be sent, as it is written: How beautiful are the feet of them that preach the gospel of peace, of them that bring glad tidings of good things!
16 But all do not obey the gospel. For Isaias saith: Lord, who hath believed our report?
17 Faith then cometh by hearing; and hearing by the word of Christ.
18 But I say: Have they not heard? Yes, verily, their sound hath gone forth into all the earth, and their words unto the ends of the whole world.
19 But I say: Hath not Israel known? First, Moses saith: I will provoke you to jealousy by that which is not a nation; by a foolish nation I will anger you.
20 But Isaias is bold, and saith: I was found by them that did not seek me: I appeared openly to them that asked not after me.
21 But to Israel he saith: All the day long have I spread my hands to a people that believeth not, and contradicteth me.
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.