:: The Lidless Eye Inquisition ::

:: Sunday, November 20, 2005 ::

Break From Blogging and Canon Law Course

Even our prime minister has admitted that Canada's government will likely fall within the next month, if not weeks. I've been asked to take on some pretty heavy local responsibilities in this election. This comes as I am putting the final polish on lectures for a distance education course on canon law that Catholic Distance University invited me to write (and for those who are interested, teach this January -- there are still some open spots, but you need to sign up by December 1st).

Therefore, I would ask you to please spare any prayers you can send Canada's way. Additionally, this also means a leave from blogging as well as day-to-day private emails over the next couple of months. Thanks for your understanding.

:: Pete Vere 6:45 AM [+] | ::

************************************

Open Forum:

As I have done in months past, this is a continuation of the open forum idea where people can talk about whatever they want and have a bit of a free-for-all without as much concern for being congruent to the post they comment on. The only real rules are the usual ones for conduct (including avoiding name calling) and avoiding posting spam (do not even think about it) or lengthy tracts from others. Other than that, have at it!!!

:: Shawn 6:03 PM [+] | ::

************************************

Surprised by EWTN

For all those who wonder just how geeky I really am (name one other northerner who would set up his indoor firing range next to his computer so that he can target practice while writing articles about canon law), please check out EWTN Bookmark this week.  Doug Keck and and I will be discussing Surprised by Canon Law.

:: Pete Vere 1:47 PM [+] | ::

************************************

Is Gerry a Sedevacantist?
The Dimond Brothers Respond

As most of you know, the Dimond brothers now claim that Gerry Matatics is a sedevacantist. Not convinced by their claim, I fired off the following email to them yesterday:

Dear Brothers Peter and Michael,

How can you conclude, based on his initial email to you, that "there is no doubt that Gerry is a sedevacantist?" After all, most sedeprivationists would also affirm article #4 in Mr. Matatics' initial email to you. Therefore, I suggest you ask Mr. Matatics the following questions -- each of which can be easily answered "yes" or "no":

1) Are you a sedevacantist?
2) Are you a sedeprivationaist?
3) Is Benedict XVI a MATERIAL pope?

Pax Christi,
Peter Vere

I just received the following response from Br. Peter Dimond:

Peter:

See below an e-mail from Gerry to us in which he put himself with the
sedevacantists: "...Ferrara is attacking us in that periodical as well."

There is no doubt that he is a sedevacantist.

By the way, what do you think of the fact that your "Pope" says that
Protestantism is not heresy?

-Bro. Peter Dimond

Dear Brothers:

Please expand your "Response to the Attack on Sedevacantism in The Fatima Crusader and Catholic Family News" by appending a point-by-point rebuttal of Chris Ferrara's latest installment in the October 15 issue of The Remnant.

(You might wish to consider slightly re-titling your "Response" to include "and The Remnant" in your title, since Ferrara is attacking us in that periodical as well.)

Thanks.

God bless,
Gerry Matatics

Here's the reply I just fired off to the brothers:

This doesn't prove anything because:

1) Ferrara, like most Americans, mistakenly classifies sedeprivationism
under sedevacantism when in fact it is its own distinct theory. (Thus by
"us" Gerry could be saying "sedevacantists and sedeprivationist")

2) Similarly, the possibility of Siri-Vacantism is not eliminated either.

Pax Christi,
Pete Vere

:: Pete Vere 11:42 AM [+] | ::

************************************

An Open Letter to Mr. Gerry Wells in Defense of Gerry Matatics

Geesh, today must be indy chapel day. All my most interesting email is coming from readers who attend so-called independent chapels. For those who were wondering where to find a copy of what was probably the most well-known letter written in defense of Gerry Matatics, one of my indy chapel readers found it. Here's a couple of the more interesting quotations:

Gerry told me that Keating's accusations of "Feeneyism," schism and heresy were utterly false and had nearly ruined his apostolate, causing him to lose numerous speaking engagements around the country as reflected in cancellation letters citing Keating's statements in This Rock and The Wanderer.

[snip]

We discussed Gerry's views on various matters of the Faith, and I found them to be nothing more or less than the views of a typical "traditionalist" Catholic in full communion with Rome, exercising his right under John Paul II's 1988 apostolic letter Ecclesia Dei (not to mention the immemorial custom of the Church) to abstain from the new liturgy, while not denying its essential validity as a rite of Mass. In this regard, Gerry is no different from the priests of the papally-chartered Priestly Fraternity of St. Peter, at whose seminary he teaches Sacred Scripture, and innumerable other orthodox Catholics who feel that they cannot worship in peace in the new rite.

Anyway, you can read the full article here.

:: Pete Vere 5:29 PM [+] | ::

************************************

Siri-Vacantism?

Okay, I cannot believe that I didn't think of this one. If what is said in the following email checks out, then I may in fact owe Sungenis and Keating an apology:

cher dr. vere,

i attend an indy chapel in california with sedevacantist leanings. we sometimes see m. matatics here. i assure you he is no sedeprivationist. i think he supports the siri thesis.

Can anyone confirm this?

:: Pete Vere 3:40 PM [+] | ::

************************************

Fr. Feeney was too Liberal!
(Matatics Reportedly Clarifies His Clarification of His Clarification)

Okay, this is why I much prefer disagreeing with Sungenis. The language may be brutal between us at times, however, at least I know what the disagreement is about. Can anyone decipher what is being said in this latest reported email to the Dimond brothers?

Anyway, here are some of the more interesting quotations attributed to Gerry:

In any case, I said absolutely nothing in my October 29 e-mail, and have done absolutely nothing anywhere else, to distance myself from you or your position in any way… I did state in that e-mail that I am not a "Feeneyite," which is perfectly true, but I have ALWAYS said that for years now, because:

1) I do not in fact derive my belief in the absolute necessity of water baptism from Fr. Feeney (I have yet, after all these years, to read a single one of his works right through), but rather from the infallible pronouncements of the Church's Magisterium, and

2) I disagree (as far as I can see, based on the fragments of Fr. Feeney's stuff that I have read) with his belief that one can be justified without water baptism, with his acceptance of Paul VI as Pope, his acceptance of the essential validity of the New Mass, etc. etc.

But you can hardly, in fairness, construe this as a distancing of myself from you or your position since you yourself state the EXACT SAME THING about yourself as I did about myself! You emphatically state, on pp. 235-6 of your aforementioned book, that you are NOT a "Feeneyite," and you give the exact same abovementioned two reasons that you are not a Feeneyite that I give for not being one!

What's more, to ensure that no one could reasonably read my disclaimer (that I am not a "Feeneyite") as in any way implying that I DID take the more liberal view (that there are exceptions to the absolute necessity of water baptism) so prevalent among most traditionalists (including the SSPX, CMRI, the individuals such as John Daly and John Lane you previously mentioned, et al.), I (after stating that I was not a "Feeneyite") immediately and categorically asserted that I did NOT, on the other hand, hold to the more liberal view! Re-read my e-mail!...”

That being said, I must disagree with the Dimond brothers (and Keating, Sungenis, Pacheco, Woods, Akin, but not Sippo) when on the basis of Gerry's initial statement to them they conclude that "there is no doubt that Gerry is a sedevacantist." In short, most sedeprivationists also believe the following reportedly written by Matatics:

4. I believe, and publicly teach, that the Catholic Church has always infallibly taught that because heretics are not members of the Catholic Church, they cannot validly hold office in the Church, according to divine law, and that, should they seem to hold such offices, the believing Catholic must conclude that their election to and possession of such offices is null and void. This would include, not only the manifest heretics John XXIII, Paul VI, John Paul I, and John Paul II, but also the manifest heretic and present illicit and invalid occupant of the See of Peter, Benedict XVI, who has the further handicap (unlike his immediate four predecessors) of not even having been validly consecrated a bishop, which, in addition to all other considerations, makes it impossible for him to therefore function as Bishop of Rome.

:: Pete Vere 10:34 AM [+] | ::

************************************

Kevin Tierney Not Wanted at So-Called "Traditionalist" Sites Like AngelQueen
(And That Goes Double for So-Called "Moonbats" Like Shawn McElhinney)

I suppose the title might get one wondering: "Huh?" Yet this is exactly the attitude lately portrayed at the SSPX sympathetic forum AngelQueen, as Kevin Tierney found out. He's posted his commentary on these happenings at his blog. I thought I'd give it some blogtime here, since this kind of stuff is exactly what LEI is all about bringing to your attention.

It happened that a member of the forum questioned Kevin's stances for the very fact of their not being in line with the radical polemic that he was used to (hardhitting as that member put it). It seems any concession outside the pale of the polemic, especially the SSPX variety, makes one a non member of the so-called traditionalist community ( a fringe pseudo-traditionalist IOW). The responses to this inquiry from various members took the form of critcizing him for his friendship with Shawn (sorry, Shawn you're out before you even get in!) "who is against traditional Catholics." Nevermind that Shawn supports the Ecclesia Dei Indult and actually contributed to its implementation in his diocese, but I digress since this is about Kevin. They even took shots at his politics for being an "Americanist and supporter of Bush and the Iraq War" which is apparently sufficient to make any of his other opinions "worthless."

Kevin joined the fray to defend himself as well as to share his opinions. The one that finally got him banned? "Rome and Lefebrve, for whatever reason. Rome would not allow Anti-semitic holocaust denying moonbats like Richard Williamson the episcopate." The moderator quoted this from Kevin's posting and added: "Goodbye Iceman. Should've known it was just a matter of time before you exploded." Apparently, the moderator missed the calling of other Bishops 'moonbats' in the eight or so previous posts. The point? It really isn't about the use of the term 'moonbat,' it's about two things: criticizing a SSPX Bishop (who happens to grant them exclusive interviews) and holding a deviation of opinion from their point of view.

In the end, it means that if you're not SSPX, well, you're not really a 'traditionalist.' As one poster put it, "Semi-Traditionalism = FSSP, Institute of Christ the King, Society of St. John Vianney, "Indult" Priests, etc." You have to have just the right amount of vitriol to be a 'traditionalist' because it's not really about the Holy Mass. It's about a superficial understanding of what constitutes tradition. It's about being vehemently against an Ecumenical Council and making excuses for why one doesn't have to obey their superiors: whether they be pastors, bishops, or popes. (Obedience to the illicitly consecrated and subsequently excommunicated SSPX bishops notwithstanding, since they don't have any jurisdiction, our obedience is due to the local ordinary.)

Part of the problem, at least as it seems to me, is the label of traditionalist. While I grant that it is oftentimes a necessary one in conversation, certain distinctions ought to be made and kept in mind. Shawn's addressed this before so I see no need to go into any specifics here. It is sufficient to state that one may very well be a Catholic who seeks to promote a return to a more traditional liturgy, whether that be through the auspices of the Ecclesia Dei Indult, an Adoremus reform of the reform, or simply the mere implementation of current liturgical laws. From the other side of the aisle, there are those who aren't 'traditionalist Catholics' but rather simply 'traditionalists' who find themselves more or less in agreement with Catholicism, as far as its principles appear pleasing to them. And that's the rub, which is also what leads one poster at Angelqueen to state unequivocally, "This here "Ecclesia Dei type", pascendi, doesn't want Shawn or the Lidless Eye Inquisition "defending" my indult. As far as I'm concerned, these moonbats need to take a hike." That's my very point, if you don't take the party line then it's really just "a vain attempt to come off as defenders of traditional Catholicism."

Anyone that wants to take a look at serious authentic traditional liturgical discussions should visit The New Liturgical Movement and Friends of La Nef (which is just getting off the ground). If you have a sincere desire for truth and a love of the holy liturgy as the "source and summit" of Christian life or if you have an affection for any other liturgical form (Eastern or Western) than the one commonly called "Tridentine" just don't go to AngelQueen. They don't want you there anyway. Even if they're talking about you or analyzing your public writings. Kevin's certainly not wanted and though this has been happening of late to him (those who follow his blog will understand the reference) at least he's still got his integrity. I, for one, though disagreeing with him over particulars from time to time in the short span we've been emailing, enjoy sharp and witty banter with him. As we said in the Navy: "Bravo Zulu." (Well done)

:: Keith Kenney 2:30 PM [+] | ::

************************************

Open Forum:

As I have done in months past, this is a continuation of the open forum idea where people can talk about whatever they want and have a bit of a free-for-all without as much concern for being congruent to the post they comment on. The only real rules are the usual ones for conduct (including avoiding name calling) and avoiding posting spam (do not even think about it). Other than that, have at it!!!

:: Shawn 1:28 PM [+] | ::

************************************

On St. Robert Bellarmine and Papal Heresy:

It seems appropriate to post this as a thread in its own right so that the Matatics thread below can stay properly focused. Without further ado...

Apolonio: My Church history is admittedly weak, but...

I believe there were once three claimants to the Papacy. Different saints believed different Popes to be the true Pope. Some of them were wrong.

Correct. That situation is improperly referred to as a "schism" since most of those involved were seeking to follow the person they honestly thought was pope at a time when there was confusion as to who was pope. I say "most of those" because there were probably some who followed the claimant who was to their advantage to follow...particularly among some of the kings and other aristocrats. But on balance, most people did not do that.

Is this simplistic outline not a similar analogy--in at least a minimal sense.

Perhaps.

Obviously, a Pope can declare heresy--even publicly. It can even go in the Acta. He is can even be an obstinate heretic. There is no way to dispose him.

Um, it is actually not "obvious" BBC that either (i) a pope can declare heresy privately or publicly, (ii) such a declaration can go in the Acta, (iii) or that a pope can be an obstinate heretic. However, you are right that the pope cannot be deposed. I will now quote from a source that is virtually unknown in the English speaking world yet is supremely important for properly understanding the proper sense of the dogma of papal infallibility.

The Relatio of Bishop Vincent Gasser is the most authoritative commentary on the dogma's proper understanding because Bishop Gasser delivered it to the Fathers of the Council before they voted to approve Pastor Aeternus. In it, he explained the proper understanding that the dogma was to have in many parameters. This source was not only viewed as highly authoritative at the time but the Fathers of Vatican II had recourse to Bishop Gasser's relatio four times in the twenty-fifth part of the Dogmatic Constitution Lumen Gentium when explaining the infallibility of the pope. I doubt I need to say any more about it than that to emphasize its importance so I will not. However, I am in citing it here not doing so on the subject of papal infallibility except indirectly. Instead, I want to focus on certain things that Bishop Gasser told the assembled Fathers about certain theories about popes falling into heresy and the views of St. Robert Bellarmine. The latter being so often seriously misrepresented by sedevacantists and others, such a clarification will hopefully assist readers of this weblog on how St. Bellarmine's view is properly understood. But without further ado...

Now before I end this general relatio, I should respond to the most grave objection which has been made from this podium, viz. that we wish to make the extreme opinion of a certain school of theology a dogma of Catholic faith. Indeed this is a very grave objection, and, when I heard it from the mouth of an outstanding and most esteemed speaker, I hung my head sadly and pondered well before speaking. Good God, have you so confused our minds and our tongues that we are misrepresented as promoting the elevation of the extreme opinion of a certain school to the dignity of dogma, and is Bellarmine brought forth as the author of the fourth proposition of the Declaration of the French Clergy? For, if I may begin from the last point, what is the difference between the assertion which the reverend speaker attributes to Bellarmine, viz., "The Pontiff is not able to define anything infallibly without the other bishops and without the cooperation of the Church," and that well-known 4th article which says: "in questions of faith the judgment of the supreme Pontiff is not irreformable unless the consent of the Church accrues to it"? In reality there is hardly to be found any difference unless someone wants to call the disagreement of the bishops the cooperation of the Church so that a dogmatic definition would be infallible, even though the bishops dissent, but as long as they had been consulted beforehand. These things are said about the opinion of Bellarmine. As far as the doctrine set forth in the Draft goes, the Deputation is unjustly accused of wanting to raise an extreme opinion, viz., that of Albert Pighius, to the dignity of a dogma. For the opinion of Albert Pighius, which Bellarmine indeed calls pious and probable, was that the Pope, as an individual person or a private teacher, was able to err from a type of ignorance but was never able to fall into heresy or teach heresy. To say nothing of the other points, let me say that this is clear from the very words of Bellarmine, both in the citation made by the reverend speaker and also from Bellarmine himself who, in book 4, chapter VI, pronounces on the opinion of Pighius in the following words: "It can be believed probably and piously that the supreme Pontiff is not only not able to err as Pontiff but that even as a particular person he is not able to be heretical, by pertinaciously believing something contrary to the faith." From this, it appears that the doctrine in the proposed chapter is not that of Albert Pighius or the extreme opinion of any school, but rather that it is one and the same which Bellarmine teaches in the place cited by the reverend speaker and which Bellarmine adduces in the fourth place and calls most certain and assured, or rather, correcting himself, the most common and certain opinion. [Bishop Vincent Ferrer Gasser of Brixen: Relatio on the Proper Sense of the Proposed Doctrine of Papal Infallibility (c. July 11, 1870) as quoted by I. Shawn McElhinney's A Prescription Against 'Traditionalism' Part XVI, Appendix D (c. 2000, rev. 2003)]

In other words, to claim that St. Bellarmine took such a view of the possibility of a pope falling into heresy as is so often imputed to him by sedevacantists and others is to do St. Bellarmine a great injustice. For truth be told, St. Bellarmine was so cautious and concerned about any imputation of heresy to a pope that he actually went on record denying that Pope Honorius was condemned as a heretic by Constantinople III!!! I do not know why he did this and certainly Pope Leo II did explain the proper sense of that condemnation as not meaning that Honorius himself was personally a heretic. It is also possible that St. Bellarmine has the latter interpretation in mind with his stated position but it is also possible that he was involved in the kinds of apologetical controversies that can at times overly simplify matters. Nonetheless, St. Bellarmine was so careful in how he approached the subject of even the possibility of a pope falling into heresy that he actually viewed the theory that it was not possible for a pope to be a pertinacious heretic to be "the most common and certain opinion." But that is not all.

Contrary to so-called "conventional wisdom", Vatican I did not place any limits on papal infallibility except that (i) the pope could not delegate his magisterium to another, (ii) it applied to matters of faith and morals, (iii) there had to be either explicitly or at least by implication the involvement of the universal church. And Vatican I defined as dogma that the pope was infallible when speaking as supreme pastor or what is called ex cathedra. The same Council recognized (according to Bishop Gasser) that infallibility extended to more than ex cathedra pronouncements; however that view was not one of dogma but instead of ecclesiastical faith.

My reason for bringing this up is that there is no magisterial teaching that there can actually be error by the pope in his magisterium; ergo the idea that the Acta (which constitutes official judgments of the Apostolic See of at least an implied universal character) can contain heresy does not have magisterial support. For that reason, one should tread very carefully in presuming that it can since not only do they have no support from the magisterium on the matter but the "most common and certain opinion" viz. the pope falling into heresy was (according to St. Bellarmine) that he cannot do so "not only...as Pontiff but that even as a particular person he is not able to be heretical, by pertinaciously believing something contrary to the faith. This view according to St. Bellarmine can be believed probably and piously and was considered by him to be "most common and certain".

Now I should note in closing that such a view by St. Bellarmine is not binding in that no one here is forced to believe it of course. However, I note it here for the record so that St. Bellarmine is properly represented and so that what some take to be "obvious" on these matters is properly viewed as anything but "obvious."

I'm not arguing the sede case, and I don't know what each sede holds. I'm sure they do not call themselves sedes--neither did Robert Bellarmine for speculating about it. I think he was a saint--and Catholic.
Bible Belt Catholic | Email | Homepage | 11.09.05 - 11:47 am | #

Yes indeed, he was a Catholic, a great saint, and a Doctor of the Church. However, at the same time, St. Bellarmine is also seriously misrepresented on this matter by sedevacantists as a rule. Hopefully what is noted above from the very authoritative relatio of Bishop Vincent Gasser is of assistance in clarifying the matter for everyone reading this thread. And no, I do not take from your statements (nor should anyone else) that you were arguing the sede case BBC so worry not.

:: Shawn 1:23 PM [+] | ::

************************************

Maybe Gerry should get a job?

With regards to the Matatics situation, a couple people have raised the issue about his wife and children. Basically, if Gerry's fundraising letters are to be believed, Catholic apologetics is how he provides for his wife and family. So the question is... how will Gerry provide if he is pushed out because of this whole sede controversy?

Maybe he can get a job.

Look, I don't mind helping a man who is down on his luck, particularly if the individual is a fellow Catholic apologist. This happens from time to time. In fact, our family has just begun to recover from a rough financial patch owing to our recent move back north.

That being, can anyone remember a time when Gerry wasn't alleging he was going through a rough financial patch? This has been going on for well over a decade. Additionally, there's a difference between helping someone who is a little down on his luck and helping someone who is looking for donations so that rather than go out and get a job he can spend his time convincing people that Benedict XVI is not the Bishop of Rome.

While we all have a duty to defend the faith when it comes under attack, none of us has the right to make a living as a Catholic apologist. Rather, this is privilege, and with this privilege comes responsibility. One's first responsibility is to defend -- and not attack -- the faith. If one spends one's time criss-crossing the nation to reportedly give talks in which it is argued that the current pope is not a validly-consecrated bishop, then one is not acting as a Catholic apologist. Rather, one is acting as an apologist for sedevacantism or sedeprivationism.

So I'm sorry if others find this offensive, but if Gerry cannot support his wife and children doing what he's currently doing, then he needs to find a job like the rest of us. Providing for the welfare of his wife and children are responsibilities he undertook when he married Leslie. The time has come for him to take up these responsibilities and stop trying to pass them along to others.

:: Pete Vere 9:19 AM [+] | ::

************************************

Miscellaneous Musings:
(On the Types of People Who Annoy Me)

I have been doing some private reflecting in recent weeks upon different personality sorts and how some do not interact well with others. The whole subject resulted in me musing a bit on the types of people who personally annoy me. There are three in particular and I decided to write briefly on them for the benefit of readers of this weblog.

---To start with, I want to note probably the most annoying type of person is the one who is two-faced. These are the sorts who say one thing to a person to their face and another thing behind their back. I have come across this situation over the years{1} of people who act this way and it is usually because of a fear of being forthright on their part. But as the Gospels say that what is whispered in secret shall be proclaimed from the housetops (cf. Luke xii,3), there is really no value in failing to be forthright with someone if they are spoken of at all. Besides, they may well find out about it sooner than one would presume so honesty on these matters is the best policy.

---The second sort of person which annoys me is the one who when they have a problem with someone, they do not seek to address the problem to the person in question if this is at all reasonably feasible to do. Though less annoying than the two-faced, I nonetheless have a very low opinion of these sorts of people and with not a few of the self-styled "traditionalists", this is a common problem they have with me and my work.

If I had a thousand dollars for every time I have encountered a supposed "exposition" of my so-called "errors" and dispatched effortlessly with it, I could probably buy out most small businesses. That is not to say that I am free from error in each and every one of my statements of course{2} only that the "rumours of my supposed 'errors' are profoundly exaggerated" (cf. Shakespeare) and rarely have I had to break a sweat demonstrating it when I am so inclined to do so.

---The third sort of person I do not well tolerate is the one who fails to conform to the spiritual masters of the Catholic tradition viz. how they approach controversial issues. This is a subject I have covered many times over the years (including at this very weblog) and do not intend to touch on here except to briefly reiterate it anew. This latter one is however ranked below the other two because it is usually the result of a deficient spiritual formation and not necessarily a character flaw as is commonly the case of the other two.

Now certainly I would be remiss in not noting that I have always made accommodations to varying degrees for dealing with such people -particularly those who are interested in incendiary subject matter of the sort I tend to write on not infrequently. For example, I have had email addresses on my web writings for years and on this and other weblogs since their founding. And on this site I even use comments boxes to better facilitate questions or challenges on issues. If it is a significant enough challenge, I may even take it up...though my days of taking on all comers viz. these issues long since passed away.{3} Usually I can point to something I have written previously which deals with the matter as there is really nothing under the sun which is new (cf. Ecc. i,10) with regards to these matters. However, in cases where previous sources are no longer accessible{4}, it is sometimes viewed as feasible to revisit them if time and the circumstances seems to warrant it.

Anyway, this is a sketch of some of what I have mused about in private in recent weeks and as I rarely muse in private what does not eventually become a public posting in some form or another, it seemed appropriate to post it here for your consideration.


Notes:

{1} And though I rarely if ever talk about it, I have pretty good resources and am usually familiar with either whom these sorts of people are or I find out about it before long.

{2} I am certainly not infallible and have made minor blunders at times. This is particularly the case when writing on the fly and relying on my memory alone for information but this is usually on very minor subject matter and more often than not happens in the comments boxes of posts. When notified of an actual error (rather than a perceived one based on a faulty interpretive paradigm of the one making the criticism), the rule is to correct the error to the extent it is made. (For example, in a weblog post if made in a weblog post, in the comments box of a post if made there, etc.)

{3} A recent example of the kinds of challenges I used to respond to a lot in years past is the one:

Responding to an Email Challenge on Issues Pertaining to "Traditionalism" Falsely-So-Called (circa October 26, 2005)

Others are in the archives of this weblog while some of the ones from years past are on the web in essay form.

{4} For example, old message board postings, material from my old computer harddrive (including about a thousand dialogues if not more) which were lost in a harddrive crash in mid 2002, etc.

:: Shawn 1:05 PM [+] | ::

************************************

Public Jury on Hold

It appears that the idea of approaching Gerry Matatics with a public jury (to help clarify his views) has been put on hold for the time being. New rumors and allegations are now coming to light, and the situation is just one big mess. What makes this set of allegations interesting is that they are not coming from Novus Ordo Catholics but from fellow traditionalists.

It appears that some traditionalists of the non-sede variety are upset because they donated money to Gerry's St. Jerome Study Center with the understanding that Gerry was not a sede (whether of the vacantist variety as Keating and Sungenis believe, or of the privationist variety as I believe.) They donated under the assumption that Gerry shared their recognition of John Paul II and Benedict XVI as pope and that this would be the prevelant view taught at the Center.

If Gerry was struggling with the sede position during this time, at least one person asked, why did he take donations from non-sedes? Why not wait until after he made up his mind and gone public before accepting donations? I should note that I am not the only person receiving these types of email; at least one other traditionalist author (with whom I have feuded quite openly in the past) mentioned (without identifying the reader) that he had received at least one similar complaint.

Anyway, some of these readers now want to know whether they can take any legal action against Gerry to get their money back. As far as the civil law is concerned, I do not know. I'm not a civil lawyer and thus I could not tell you what recourse you may have before the civil courts. This is the type of information you would need to get from a civil lawyer.

As far as canon law is concerned, the answer is "No" from what I can tell. There is such a thing in canon law as "intention of the donors". This is very important and it must always be honored. The problem is that Gerry reportedly attends the SSPX chapel in Pittston, PA and he also appears to reject the papacy of Pope Benedict XVI as well as that of Pope John Paul II. Thus he has placed himself outside of the scope of the Catholic Church's judicial system and I would be very surprised if he accepted a judgment that came from the Church's tribunals.

Therefore, while I believe Gerry has a moral obligation (based upon the implicit or virtual non-sede intention of the donor) to return the money to those who ask, there is no way within the canonical courts to pursue the matter. Of course, I suppose one could always just call Gerry up and ask for one's money back. But unless Gerry agrees to submit to the diocesan Tribunal or some other quasi-judicial body, any legal action would have to be pursued through the civil courts. And one should definitely consult a competent civil lawyer first.

:: Pete Vere 7:54 PM [+] | ::

************************************

On the Use of Labels:
(Dialogue With Kevin Tierney)

This post is taken from a thread which Kevin and I interacted on back in late September at the Envoy message board with some very minor tweaking made to it. My words will be in regular font except for my previous words in the thread which will be in blue. Kevin's previous words will be in darkgreen font and any previous words of his in additional italics if applicable. My sources will be in darkblue font.

The whole use of labels reminds me of the folllowing admonition by Pope Benedict XV of holy memory against those of his day and age who tried such things:

It is...Our will that Catholics should abstain from certain appellations which have recently been brought into use to distinguish one group of Catholics from another. They are to be avoided not only as "profane novelties of words," out of harmony with both truth and justice, but also because they give rise to great trouble and confusion among Catholics. Such is the nature of Catholicism that it does not admit of more or less, but must be held as a whole or as a whole rejected: "This is the Catholic faith, which unless a man believe faithfully and firmly; he cannot be saved" (Athanas. Creed). There is no need of adding any qualifying terms to the profession of Catholicism: it is quite enough for each one to proclaim "Christian is my name and Catholic my surname," only let him endeavour to be in reality what he calls himself. [Pope Benedict XV: Encyclical Letter Ad Beatissimi Apostolorum 24 (c. 1914)]

Furthermore, the idea that Tradition is based on theological positions, disciplines, liturgical observances, and devotionals is seriously askew. But that is a subject for another time perhaps...it suffices to call all Catholics "Catholic" and avoid these kinds of novel innovations which the popes have proscribed. Those who prefer the Tridentine liturgy can refer to themselves as "Catholics with a Tridentine preference" if they like as that does not presume arrogantly that one group is or is not "more or less Traditional" than another.

There, I have said my piece.

Rerum Novarum

A Prescription Against 'Traditionalism'

The 'Tradition is Opposed to Novelty' Canard

Edited by - IShawnM on 09/21/2005 5:22:43 PM

My good friend Shawn protest too much. I can understand the worry about "this group being more catholic than the next" but provided such a spirit is avoided, such classifications are no different than people attaching themselves to particular charisms in the body of Christ.

I respectfully disagree...there are enough divisions without creating more. Besides, I have posited a papal proscription of that approach. If my friend Kevin wants to posit an example of the popes giving a different view on the matter subsequent to 1914, be my guest. However, I doubt he will find anything of the sort from the magisteriums of Pius XI, Pius XII, John XXIII, Paul VI, or John Paul II. We already know that Benedict XVI twenty years ago referred to "so-called "traditionalism" in The Ratzinger Report; ergo he did not countenance such labeling:

It is impossible for a Catholic to take a position for or against Trent or Vatican I. Whoever accepts Vatican II, as it has clearly expressed and understood itself, at the same time accepts the whole binding tradition of the Catholic Church, particularly the two previous councils. It is likewise impossible to decide in favour of Trent and Vatican I but against Vatican II. Whoever denies Vatican II denies the authority that upheld the other councils and thereby detaches them from their foundation. And this applies to the so-called "traditionalism", also in its extreme forms…Every partisan choice destroys the whole (the very history of the Church) which can only exist as an indivisible unity.[Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger: "The Ratzinger Report" pg. 28 (c. 1985)]

My offer to Kevin to provide a papal counter to what I posted from Benedict XV on this kind of approach remains open of course.

I would more say what constitutes a traditionalist is the worldview they operate from more than anything else.

I do not see a distinction to be made between Catholics Kevin. Either someone is or they are not and if they are, then they are aligned with the Great Tradition whatever their devotions/practices/liturgical preferences/disciplines happen to be. As I have noted elsewhere:

[A]uthentic Traditionalism does not depend on what rite of Mass you attend, what devotional prayers you use, what theological positions you espouse, or what disciplines you follow. Authentic 'Traditionalism' is much more integral then that and it applies to a frame of mind and a certain attitude. It is not and cannot be found in externals - even those which may have the hallowed sanction of time. [A Prescription Against 'Traditionalism' Part I (c. 2000, rev. 2003)]

That summarizes it adequately enough.

Though more often than not, those people with the devotions/practices/theological positions more often than not would coincide within a traditionalist worldview.

Perhaps, perhaps not. I know Ecclesia Dei sorts whom what you say applies to; however, there are others who are more questionable. Likewise, I know non-ED people who could be called authentically Traditional (in the proper sense of that term) and non-ED people who would not be. It is an integral thing but as I said, it involves a frame of mind and a certain attitude and external adornments are derivative at best to the equation. I am not aware of the popes disagreeing with me on this but you are welcome to dispute this.

(And no I do not think the SSPX/remnant addicted to wreckage crowd operates from within that worldview, but that is for another time.)

But they tend to have the same liturgical preferences, the same devotions, the same theological speculations, and the same disciplines as the ED crowd Kevin. What makes them unacceptable by your criteria??? By mine they do not manifest the correct integral frame of mind and attitude and I could posit countless examples to substantiate that theory. But if you admit that it requires what I claim is required, then I fail to see how we disagree on this matter. Which brings us back to my original comments on this thread but I digress...

Edited by - IShawnM on 09/22/2005 6:41:32 PM

Briefly in response to Kev...

I simply submit that you are misinterpreting that papal prouncment, since Benedict had in mind the integrists who state that because they belong to this particular flavor of Catholicism they are "more catholic than thou."

With not a few who call themselves "traditionalists", that is the intended interpretation. And they prove it in spades when they resort to the "neo" labeling which implies that the party so labeled is somehow not authentically Traditional.

If one group emphasizes a particular charism over another, one can classify it that way without stating they are less Catholic. As you well know (at least from my writings) I in no sense employ that, and I'm sure other who use those labels do not either, though many do.

The question remains how many use that expression who do not make the distinction that you do. I would argue that it is more than who do not; ergo for the sake of confusion, the moniker "traditionalist" should be scrapped as being more devisive than unitary.

"I do not see a distinction to be made between Catholics Kevin. Either someone is or they are not and if they are, then they are aligned with the Great Tradition whatever their devotions/practices/liturgical preferences/disciplines happen to be."

It depends on how one defines the term. For one who always likes to talk about the context in which one uses their terms, on this one point you sure do raise a lot of guff in blanket statements.

Actually, the term you are defending the use of is the blanket statement. I prefer (if you need a term of identification) the expression "Catholics of a Tridentine preference" or "Tridentine-inclined Catholics" or some equivalent. That correctly identifies the term and does not make the mistake of claiming that Tridentine-preferences are somehow "traditional" when in fact such a presumption ends up placing the value in the external adornments rather than the internal dispositions which is where authentic Traditionalism subsides.

"Perhaps, perhaps not. I know Ecclesia Dei sorts whom what you say applies to; however, there are others who are more questionable. Likewise, I know non-ED people who could be called authentically Traditional (in the proper sense of that term) and non-ED people who would not be. It is an integral thing but as I said, it involves a frame of mind and a certain attitude and external adornments are derivative at best to the equation. I am not aware of the popes disagreeing with me on this but you are welcome to dispute this."

Frame of mind and attitude, in other words, a worldview. :) Again, you protest too much.

I disagree because I do not tie the worldview to certain externals as you seem to do. For example, when you say that the SSPX are their ideas [are] certainly not traditional with the exception of their liturgy. I see nothing truely Traditional in their approach to the liturgy. Indeed, they are actually the antithesis of a truely Traditional frame of reference. And as time is short, I will reference the definition of Tradition given by my favourite academic orientalist Fr. Robert Taft SJ:

Tradition is the church's self-consciousness now of that which has been handed on to it not as an inert treasure, but as a dynamic principle of life. It is the church's contemporary reality understood genetically, in continuity with what produced it.

This is why Tradition is not found in ancient texts or monuments in its essential form -though the latter can of course bear witness to Tradition. And that is why true Tradition embraces a proper integral frame of mind and attitude as I noted before. A proper understanding of Tradition achieves a few things at once:

---It frees us from the tyranny of any one particular part of the past.

---It frees us from the tyranny of present day cliches.

Authentic and living Tradition is beholden to but never a prisoner of the past in other words. But with so many who call themselves "traditionalists", they essentially are prisoners of the past in a manner that is inauthentic: they tie themselves to old liturgies or prayers with the mistaken notion that these are in and of themselves what constitutes Tradition when instead they are a means or mediating point if you will. Nor for that matter are they the only mediating points but this response is long enough already so I will cut it short at that point.

:: Shawn 5:30 PM [+] | ::

************************************

Jury Duty

Looks like the idea of having Gerry present and defend his views before a public jury of peers has received some positive initial feedback. I've received enough initial interest to potentially fill every role on the proposed jury except sedevacantist rep. There's still some other details to be ironed out, but everyone seems to agree this is the best way to approach the issue of where Gerry stands.

UPDATE: For those who are wondering, Vin Lewis has agreed to moderate.

:: Pete Vere 10:35 AM [+] | ::

************************************

"Guess the People Who Said These Things" Dept.
(On the United Nations)

Of course by noting that the subject is the UN, I have already given quite a hint as to the timeframe of these quotes. Nonetheless, the readers are asked to guess who said each of the following statements. Without further ado...

Statement #1:

Who advocated in 1945 "an organ invested by common consent with supreme power to whose office it would pertain to smother in its germinal state any threat of isolated or collective aggression."

Statement #2:

Who in addressing the minister of San Salvador in 1947 said that no dedicated worker for world peace should renounce the use of the world forum of the United Nations "in order to prod the conscience of the world from so high and lofty a place."

Statement #3:

Who said in 1948 "The Catholic doctrine on the state and civil society has always been based on the principle that, in keeping with the will of God, the nations form together a community with a common aim and common duties."

Statement #4:

Who said to the World Federalists in 1951 "[y]our movement dedicates itself to realizing an effective political organization of the world. Nothing is more in conformity with the traditional doctrine of the Church."

Statement #5:

Who lamented in 1953 "[h]ow many...continue to shut themselves up within the narrow confines of a chauvanistic nationalism incompatible with the corageous effort to start a world community demanded by recent Popes."

Talk amongst yourselves :)

:: Shawn 5:57 PM [+] | ::

************************************

A Link of Possible Interest for Lidless Eye Readers:

Holy Souls Mass Registration List

:: Shawn 5:54 PM [+] | ::

************************************

Matatics Reportedly Not a Feeneyite Afterall

I don't think I'm breaking the letter or the spirit of the truce by pointing out that there are many issues where Sungenis and I have sharp differences. There's a simple reason for this. I know where Sungenis stands on issue A, B, or C and I disagree with his stand. Sometimes the disagreement is very public and extremely heated. But I know where he stands. Even when our relationship is at its most frosty, I can email Bob and ask, "Where do you stand on X?" Regardless of whether I think his answer is correct, I seldom find it ambiguous or unclear.

This is not the same with Matatics. For some reason, it seems that I never quite understand his answers. Even when I think I understood, I later find out that I missed something because Gerry mean't the exact opposite. Others -- from the most liberal Novus Ordoite to the most hardened sedevacantist -- have noted the same phenomenon. While some have accused Gerry of tailoring his message to what his audience wants to hear, I'm willing to give Gerry the benefit of the doubt since the man is clearly a genius and geniuses are often misunderstood.

Here's a good example: While not a Feeneyite myself, I find myself on reasonably good terms with most of them since I'm quite vocal as a canonist when it comes to defending the status of the majority as Catholics in good standing with the Church. From Gerry's various comments to various Feeneyites over the years -- including the most recent email to the Dimond Bros attributed to him (and which Bro. Peter Dimond told me in our phone conversation yesterday was one of several emails they received from Gerry as part of their regular correspondence) the most obvious interprepation to me (as well as Sungenis) is that Gerry is a Feeneyite.

It now appears that Sungenis and I (and several others as well) misunderstood Gerry. Here's an email reportedly circulating among Gerry Matatics' sedevacantist (but not, to my knowledge, his Feeneyite) readership. Although I have not been able to verify its authorship, I believe that it is probably authentic since it reads like many of Gerry's previous clarifications when I or someone else has misunderstood his position. My own comments follow below.

----------------------

From: GMatatics@aol.com [mailto:GMatatics@aol.com]
Sent: Saturday, 29 October 2005 9:56 AM
To: GMatatics@aol.com
Subject: Gerry Matatics to clarify his position on baptism of desire, etc.

Dear Concerned Friends:

After seeing an e-mail from me posted on another website (not my own), a few concerned friends wrote me to express their concern that, in their opinion, my position on baptism might not (some of you weren't sure) fully adhere to the Church's teaching on such aspects of the issue as the possibility of baptism of desire, baptism of blood, etc. I'm sending you this brief e-mail either because you are one of those who wrote to me directly, or you have discussed my position with me or others recently.

I deeply appreciate your concern. I humbly thank you for caring enough about Christ's Truth and about me to contact me (those of you who did). And I wish to assure you that I do accept the Church's full teaching on these matters.

I am not a "Feeneyite," as some of you may have thought (though none of you, I believe, actually put it quite that way).

Nor, on the other hand, do I hold to the current, liberal "watering down" (if you'll pardon the pun) of Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus that is current even among many "traditionalist" circles, a liberalization that Pius XII (in his 1950 encyclical Humani Generis) rightly said "reduced the dogma to a meaningless formula."

Instead, I am simply a Catholic who accepts all the Church's perennial teaching on this much-misunderstood issue.

I will be posting a full, detailed statement on my own website (www.gerrymatatics.org) within the next few days (no later than All Saints Day, I hope), demonstrating that my position is the orthodox one, in full submission to all the teaching of the Church's Magisterium.

I will send you an e-mail with a link to the article once I have posted it.

Thank you again for your charitable concern. May God bless you.

In the Sacred and Immaculate Hearts,

Gerry Matatics, Founder & President
Biblical Foundations International
PO Box 569, Dunmore PA 18512 USA
phone (570) 969-1724 / fax (570) 969-1725
e-mail: gmatatics@aol.com
www.gerrymatatics.org

------------------------

Since I don't want to assume bad faith or attribute impure motives to Gerry, I'm going to assume that Sungenis was mistaken in his following response to Matatics in which Sungenis interprets the content of Gerry's reported email as Gerry affirming that is a Feeneyite. Having honestly arrived at the same conclusion as Sungenis, I don't want to attribute bad faith or impure motives to him either. Yet Gerry clearly knows what he believes better than Sungenis or I, therefore I can only conclude that Bob and I were once again mistaken. And if recent correspondence and chatter on various Catholic and traditionalist webboards is any indication, there's a lot of people in the same situation as Bob and I.

As previously mentioned, even many traditionalists are now starting to accuse Gerry of bad faith -- claiming his message morphs to what he believes his audience wants to hear at any given time. If that were the case, however, why would Gerry, in his reported letter to the Dimond bros, state that he would debate the contents of his beliefs with anyone? Why would he encourage me to contact him and verify his position any time I hear rumors (although strangely we always see to get sidetracked into long conversations because Gerry is "very busy and cannot talk at the moment" whenever I attempt to do so)?

With this in mind, I think there's a way we can go about clearing up the whole Matatics situation. This would allow us to clarify each and every misunderstanding about Gerry's position on controversial issues while proving once and for all that Gerry does not tailor his message to his audience. Instead of a formal debate, I suggest that Gerry's critics use the format commonly used for doctoral defenses.

Let's bring together a respected thinker from among the Feeneyites, strict sedevacantists, SSPX adherents, and regular Joe traditionalists. I would suggest Doug Bersaw, Dr. Coomaswarmy, Dr. David Allen White, and Bob Sungenis respectively. Given that Gerry no longer appears to recognize Pope Benedict as a validly consecrated bishop, we really don't need a Novus Ordo conservative or indult trad present (although Karl Keating would be great in the former, and I would certainly enjoy the latter). We also need a moderator whose only job is to maintain order. Vin Lewis would be a good individual for this role.

Each individual would have the opportunity to cross-examine Gerry in ten-to-fifteen minute blocks. They would not be permitted to attack or cross-examine each other, just Gerry. We would have as many rounds as it takes us to clearly understand where Gerry stands on the issues, and we would be allowed to build upon or question Gerry's answers to previous individuals. The traditionalist public would also be invited to attend and submit questions to members of the jury. Finally, the whole thing could be taped.

Anyway, just my thoughts on the issue.

:: Pete Vere 4:02 AM [+] | ::

************************************