Gerry Matatics

[Scott_Lafrance]

Karl Keating:

My hypothetical to Gerry posited a reverently celebrated Mass, perfrectly in accord with the rubrics and done by a devout and properly-intentioned priest–thus there would be nothing “offensive to pious ears [or] to God.” But Gerry still said it would be a sin for him to receive Communion at such a Mass.

Karl, by extension then, could Gerry be materially guilty of scandal leading to heresy, if someone misconstrued his presumption of guilt for receiving the Eucharist from an properly disposed NOM celebrant as the NOM being invalid? It would seem so, hence the entire debate of this thread.

 

[marineboy]

TNT WITH AL DUE RESPECT GET ALIFE—UR CLOWN ANALOGY IS JUST STUPID!!! it was very very vclear form hat Keatng wrote and what I wrotethat the question to Matatics was a ver revernet Mass tin which the rubrics were sctrictly followed—cmon please–how could it be sinful??? its not and u cant justify it.

 

[Karl_Keating]

Scott_Lafrance:

Karl, by extension then, could Gerry be materially guilty of scandal leading to heresy, if someone misconstrued his presumption of guilt for receiving the Eucharist from an properly disposed NOM celebrant as the NOM being invalid? It would seem so, hence the entire debate of this thread.

Someone always will misconstrue something, so we need to be careful of drawing too much from that.

I think the issue boils down to this: If someone (whether Gerry or anyone else) believes that receiving Communion at a certain kind of Mass is a sin, he must be basing his opinion on some train of logic. What is that train?

Now it would be a sin for a Catholic to receive “Communion” at a Protestant “Lord’s Supper,” the reason being that that service is not a valid Mass and its “Communion” is not a real Communion. Even if the attending Protestants believe they have the Real Presence (which they do not), that doesn’t get the Catholic off the hook, since he knows better, and he will be held accountable based on what he knows, not on what they think they know.

This is an easy example, of course. It’s easy to understand why a Catholic would say it would be a sin for him to receive “Communion” at such a service. But what could be the rationale for saying receiving Communion is sinful at a rite of the Mass approved by Rome (and used almost universally in the Western Church)?

I suppose I could think up several rationales that might be used by naive or dumb Catholics, but Gerry is neither naive nor dumb. He has done a lot of reading and thinking about religious things, and clearly the Mass is something that interests him mightily, not just in the personal but in the theological sense. I keep coming back to just one real possibility.

 

[Windmill]

Karl,

Has Scott Hahn come out on the issue of Gerry Matatics, or has he chosen to stay out of the debate?

Rich

 

[Karl_Keating]

So far as I know, Scott has made no public comment.

 

[TNT]

Windmill:

Karl,

Has Scott Hahn come out on the issue of Gerry Matatics, or has he chosen to stay out of the debate?

Rich

As best I can remember, Gerry is the one that coaxed Scott to move forward on his conversion. …and vice versa. I would guess that they would be VERY hesitant to get into a full blown debate. …too much “salvation history” between them.
Read Scott’s Rome Sweet Home for the details.
I think his conversion tape also reflects this.

 

[challenger]

Sorry I haven’t read the whole thing through, if someone’s made this comment before me.

Matatics is not denying the Magisterium in his denying of the validity of the NO- he just doesn’t believe the Magisterium ever pronounced the NO to be valid. There’s a difference there.

 

[Genesis315]

challenger:

Sorry I haven’t read the whole thing through, if someone’s made this comment before me.

Matatics is not denying the Magisterium in his denying of the validity of the NO- he just doesn’t believe the Magisterium ever pronounced the NO to be valid. There’s a difference there.

Wouldn’t the Magisterium have pronounced it valid simply by promulgating it?

 

[challenger]

Genesis315:

Wouldn’t the Magisterium have pronounced it valid simply by promulgating it?

Not according to some interpretations of Vatican I. Or they say there was no official promulgation or something… in either event, Mr. Matatics is not questioning the authority of the Magisterium.

 

[marineboy]

first off the novus ordo in latin is valid no one disputes that point. the translations from latin to english is what is disputed–my point is that the translations have been approved by Rome—I dont believe God would allow a translation that would render the Mass invalid… plain and simple–so to say Rome never has prononuced the NOvus Ordo valid is stupid–obvioulsy it has—its the MIssal pf Paul VI—hello wake up!!!

 

[Windmill]

This is what I mean when I say that anti-NO people have to jump through complex legal hoops to justify their position - a position that appears as scandal to an average Catholic.

 

[EENS]

Teresita:

Theological: in neither of the cases you adduce - and in no other similar ones in my recollection - were those who challenged the Pope calling into question their teaching. Poor Gregory knew what he had to do, but he was terrified to do it (rightly, in human terms: he did die shortly after returning to Rome); St Catherine gave him backbone. Alexander was, as Ronald Knox points out, in a position to change his whole way of life, just as St Thomas Becket did when made Archbishop of Canterbury: he didn’t, and may well be suffering for it for eternity, but at no point did he teach heresy. And after all, if you believe that the Church, with the Pope at the head of the College of Bishops, teaches infallibly, and that the gates of Hell won’t prevail against her, then you have to have the courage of those convictions, and grant that the Church, necessarily including the Pope, will not teach heresy.

Please don’t bring up St Robert Bellarmine at this point: he tackled the hypothetical question of whether a pope could be a heretic, and answered in the affirmative - but since we know, by the Vatican I dogmatic definition, that a pope is protected from teaching heresy when speaking ex cathedra, presumably a pope’s heretical teaching, like that of John XXII on the Beatific Vision, which can only take place when he acts as a private teacher, will never impact permanently on the faith of the whole church. This means that (for instance) the 1969 rite of Mass, while one may believe that it’s not a patch on the TLM, cannot be invalid. Indeed Archbishop Lefebvre taught that quite emphatically in the early days: he said a lot of very nasty things about it, but always maintained that it was valid. The SSPX still say that, though they hedge it around with so many qualifications (the last thing I read from - I think - Richard Williamson said that it was valid but objectively evil, though I can’t remember how he reached that conclusion) that this means very little.

To sum up: it is possible to be holier than a pope; it is possible to have far more of a sense of the faith than a pope; it is even possible to teach more acceptably than a pope. It isn’t, however, possible to be more Catholic than a pope in his role of infallible decision-maker.

Sue

Sue,

You left out St. Athanasius, who was excommunicated for not being an Arian (by the POPE!), and you also left out Honorius, who as Pope TAUGHT HERESY and was CONDEMNED by the 6th General Council of the Church as heretic. St. Robert Bellarmine was standing on solid groud: the Pope can teach as a heretic so long as it is not infallibly. His public decrees can also be heretical, e.g., John XXII, which you glossed over by saying that such statements “will never impact permanently on the faith of the whole church”. That is completely false, however. Had the next Pope not condemned the belief as heresy, then people probably would have been believing it (even at that time when people didn’t contradict infallible Tradition simply because the Pope said something–in fact, during the sermon in which John XXII espoused the heretical belief that there was no particular judgment, many of the Faithful stood up, pointed at him and shouted, “Heretic!”). Today, when there are so many liberals just looking for an excuse to believe as they do, the Pope’s own words certainly could “impact the faith of the whole Church” (at least for today’s time, not permenantly, since surely a Pope will eventually condemn the nonsense we see today in false ecumenism and the like). In any event, you neglect the fact that two Popes formally taugh heresy (just not in an infallible way, of course). This is possible; it has been upheld by history since at least Pope Honorius. I suggest you look more into that particular case.

Matthew

 

[EENS]

Windmill:

This is what I mean when I say that anti-NO people have to jump through complex legal hoops to justify their position - a position that appears as scandal to an average Catholic.

Non sequiter… just because it “appears” as scandal to the “average” Catholic (keeping in mind the average Catholic does not believe in the Real Pressence nor attend Mass), it does not follow that it is therefore wrong… not to mention the words of the Council of Florence indicate that the Words of Christ (the Words of Consecration found in the Canon are the FORM of the Sacrament, i.e. the necessary words).

 

[EENS]

Genesis315:

Wouldn’t the Magisterium have pronounced it valid simply by promulgating it?

As mentioned, some say this is not found in Vat. I’s definition of infallibility (though this seems a bit far-fetched–I must admit, however, that I have not really looked into this).

A more convincing argument is that the NO was never validly or actually promulgated. Even if an attempted promulgation was made (I think this was not even done until John Paul II), it was not done so correctly in such a way as to make it valid. And if something is not validly promulgated, then it would certainly not fall under infallibility.

Catholic Family News had a good piece on this in a recent issue, but it is not available online at this time. You can check back here: cfnews.org/cfn.htm to see if it gets posted online.

 

[Windmill]

sorry, but that still sounds like legal hoops you’re jumping through.

Who would look at the Mass in its current form as spelled out by the GIRM FROM THE VATICAN and say, “Well, obviously they don’t intend this to be promulgated”.

Saying it was invalidly promulgated, too, sounds like you are trying to backpedal.

 

[Scott_Lafrance]

Windmill:

sorry, but that still sounds like legal hoops you’re jumping through.

Who would look at the Mass in its current form as spelled out by the GIRM FROM THE VATICAN and say, “Well, obviously they don’t intend this to be promulgated”.

Saying it was invalidly promulgated, too, sounds like you are trying to backpedal.

Good point, why would the Magisterium promulgate and promote an invalid Mass?

 

[TNT]

challenger:

Sorry I haven’t read the whole thing through, if someone’s made this comment before me.

Matatics is not denying the Magisterium in his denying of the validity of the NO- he just doesn’t believe the Magisterium ever pronounced the NO to be valid. There’s a difference there.

He did no such thing. Yes, you’ll have to read Karl’s question to Gerry earlier.

 

[Teresita]

EENS:

Sue,

You left out St. Athanasius, who was excommunicated for not being an Arian (by the POPE!), and you also left out Honorius, who as Pope TAUGHT HERESY and was CONDEMNED by the 6th General Council of the Church as heretic. St. Robert Bellarmine was standing on solid groud: the Pope can teach as a heretic so long as it is not infallibly. His public decrees can also be heretical, e.g., John XXII, which you glossed over by saying that such statements “will never impact permanently on the faith of the whole church”. That is completely false, however. Had the next Pope not condemned the belief as heresy, then people probably would have been believing it (even at that time when people didn’t contradict infallible Tradition simply because the Pope said something–in fact, during the sermon in which John XXII espoused the heretical belief that there was no particular judgment, many of the Faithful stood up, pointed at him and shouted, “Heretic!”). Today, when there are so many liberals just looking for an excuse to believe as they do, the Pope’s own words certainly could “impact the faith of the whole Church” (at least for today’s time, not permenantly, since surely a Pope will eventually condemn the nonsense we see today in false ecumenism and the like). In any event, you neglect the fact that two Popes formally taugh heresy (just not in an infallible way, of course). This is possible; it has been upheld by history since at least Pope Honorius. I suggest you look more into that particular case.

Matthew

Briefly and hurriedly (I have to make family dinner):

You’re absolutely right, TNT (why that monniker, BTW? Is it because you feel explosive about some of the ghastly things that go on in the Church?) - and I realised this the moment I’d posted the original mail. So I clicked ‘edit’, and started to re-do the reply, taking St Athanasius and Pope Honorius into account. Well, looking up bits and pieces to check my facts took longer than it should have done, and when I tried to send the edited post, I was told in a sniffy automated message that I’d exceeded the 20 minutes I was allowed to edit, and the original post stood. Since I haven’t had time since then to write anything lengthy, it stands still - and probably will do for a bit!

So just to say that I haven’t forgotten that I’ve got to reply to the second part of your mail, and will do ASAP.

Sue

 

[Kurt_G]

EENS:

Sue,

You left out St. Athanasius, who was excommunicated for not being an Arian (by the POPE!), and you also left out Honorius, who as Pope TAUGHT HERESY and was CONDEMNED by the 6th General Council of the Church as heretic. St. Robert Bellarmine was standing on solid groud: the Pope can teach as a heretic so long as it is not infallibly. His public decrees can also be heretical, e.g., John XXII, which you glossed over by saying that such statements “will never impact permanently on the faith of the whole church”. That is completely false, however. Had the next Pope not condemned the belief as heresy, then people probably would have been believing it (even at that time when people didn’t contradict infallible Tradition simply because the Pope said something–in fact, during the sermon in which John XXII espoused the heretical belief that there was no particular judgment, many of the Faithful stood up, pointed at him and shouted, “Heretic!”). Today, when there are so many liberals just looking for an excuse to believe as they do, the Pope’s own words certainly could “impact the faith of the whole Church” (at least for today’s time, not permenantly, since surely a Pope will eventually condemn the nonsense we see today in false ecumenism and the like). In any event, you neglect the fact that two Popes formally taugh heresy (just not in an infallible way, of course). This is possible; it has been upheld by history since at least Pope Honorius. I suggest you look more into that particular case.

Matthew

Hello, EENS. I believe what Sue hopes to counter to you (about alleged heretical popes) involves heavy, detailed histories of at least 3 of the cases you mentioned.

Staples did this a few seasons ago on tape (for those of us who learn quicker listening than reading). I believe the series was something like “A Close Look at the Controversial Popes”.
If Tim is delivering accurate information, we can safely conclude:

1. There is no heresy evident with Liberius (re: Arian problem/Athanasius&Hillary).
2. There is no heresy evident with Honorius (monothelitism ca 620-630 ad)
3. There is no heresy evident (came close though) with John XXII.

Sue was right about the time involved to properly answer these, as its lengthy. BUT… if we want to dig for the real truth, it’s often not quick or easy!

I would suggest to EENS that, if you have not already done so, you study the counter arguments to your allegations, and judge them yourself. If you still feel the same way about those guys, then go ahead on your course. But, in case you didn’t know that there are some good counter arguments against your position, I felt we needed to say it…

GOD BLESS US ALL!

 

[TNT]

marineboy:

first off the novus ordo in latin is valid no one disputes that point. the translations from latin to english is what is disputed–my point is that the translations have been approved by Rome—I dont believe God would allow a translation that would render the Mass invalid… plain and simple–so to say Rome never has prononuced the NOvus Ordo valid is stupid–obvioulsy it has—its the MIssal pf Paul VI—hello wake up!!!

I came across this scheduled debate with Gerry and Bob Sungenis.
Now a debate does not demand the belief by a person holding each side, BUT the debate is about the Validity of the NOM and Gerry is taking the (Negative), NOM invalid side.
So, by the middle of October, you will have all of Gerry’s points on the Invalidity of the NOM, and Bob’s on the validity.

http://www.catholicintl.com/promos/showdowna1.jpg