P
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
C
cam100
Guest
Thanks for posting this. I recently met Gerry Matatics and I was just today listening to his tape series “Consistent vs. Counterfeit Catholicism”, which promotes sedevanctism. I spoke to him briefly about my views and he requested that I put some of my objections to his viewpoint in writing and send them to him. (I haven’t done this yet, but hopefully sometime in the near future…) He struck me as very devoted and sincere man, and I pray that he will see the light.
G
GerardP
Guest
Unfortunately it’s a bit of a dissappointing article. Aside from a few nasty swipes at Gerry (he should fly a kite).
I didn’t find the arguments confronting the main arguments of the “sedevacantists.” It mostly deals with ancillary issues.
And citing Fr. Anthony Cekada who has some of the most bizarre views in the world (eg. his support of the murder of Terri Schiavo) as debunking the Vision of Leo XIII in the composition of the Prayer to St. Michael and the longer and shorter versions of it is simply not persuasive.
What Ben Douglass doesn’t point out is that Fr. Cekada denies the whole “vision” of Pope Leo. This is a case where traditionalists and conservatives are in agreement.
I’m not saying that Gerry’s exposition of the events and the details surrounding the prayers are correct; I’m saying that citing Fr. Cekada is a mistake.
The whole problem of sedevacantism deals with an exaggerated understanding of the infallibility of the Church. It turns into disciplinary guarantees of good fruits and policies are “guided by the Holy Ghost.”
This exaggeration is held by many Traditionalists, most conservatives and virtually all sedevacantists.
I didn’t find the arguments confronting the main arguments of the “sedevacantists.” It mostly deals with ancillary issues.
And citing Fr. Anthony Cekada who has some of the most bizarre views in the world (eg. his support of the murder of Terri Schiavo) as debunking the Vision of Leo XIII in the composition of the Prayer to St. Michael and the longer and shorter versions of it is simply not persuasive.
What Ben Douglass doesn’t point out is that Fr. Cekada denies the whole “vision” of Pope Leo. This is a case where traditionalists and conservatives are in agreement.
I’m not saying that Gerry’s exposition of the events and the details surrounding the prayers are correct; I’m saying that citing Fr. Cekada is a mistake.
The whole problem of sedevacantism deals with an exaggerated understanding of the infallibility of the Church. It turns into disciplinary guarantees of good fruits and policies are “guided by the Holy Ghost.”
This exaggeration is held by many Traditionalists, most conservatives and virtually all sedevacantists.
C
cam100
Guest
The thing that stikes most about Gerry Matatics’ arguments for sedevanctism is that he uses Scripture much more than other proponents of the idea. He even mentions this fact in his lectures. The problem I have with this is that it is HIS interpretation of Scripture, mostly of prophecies and the interpretation of “types” or pre-figures. His background in protestant theology gives him much familiarity with Scripture, but it’s still just HIS interpretation.
The same could be said for other proponents of sedevecantism who interpret Tradition to support their ideas.
The same could be said for other proponents of sedevecantism who interpret Tradition to support their ideas.
F
fatima1917
Guest
A puzzling statement especially at the end.
This student who claimed that Christ was not omniscient while on earth was probably confused by Matthew 24:36 and Mark 13:32, which state, “But of that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, nor the Son, but the Father alone.” The Church understands this passage in the sense that Christ did not know the day or hour of the end of the world by means of His human knowledge. While on earth Christ’s human, rational knowledge grew the same way ours does: by abstraction from sense data. He would have started out with no rational knowledge at His conception and grown steadily throughout His life as he continued to observe things and think. Therefore it is understandable that He would not know the end of time by means of His human knowledge.
Christ had no rational knowledge at birth? Does he mean that Christ who is God himself would be just like any other baby? Strange. These battling apologists should be avoided like the plague.
This student who claimed that Christ was not omniscient while on earth was probably confused by Matthew 24:36 and Mark 13:32, which state, “But of that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, nor the Son, but the Father alone.” The Church understands this passage in the sense that Christ did not know the day or hour of the end of the world by means of His human knowledge. While on earth Christ’s human, rational knowledge grew the same way ours does: by abstraction from sense data. He would have started out with no rational knowledge at His conception and grown steadily throughout His life as he continued to observe things and think. Therefore it is understandable that He would not know the end of time by means of His human knowledge.
Christ had no rational knowledge at birth? Does he mean that Christ who is God himself would be just like any other baby? Strange. These battling apologists should be avoided like the plague.
A
AJV
Guest
I couldn’t find that paragraph but taking human, rational knowlege as acquired knowlege it is not against traditional teaching: Christ had 3 kinds of knowledge. See the Summa (9-12) Christ grew in His acquired knowledge like everyone else. But nonetheless it is not correct to say Christ was not omniscient unless it is qualified.A puzzling statement especially at the end.
This student who claimed that Christ was not omniscient while on earth was probably confused by Matthew 24:36 and Mark 13:32, which state, “But of that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, nor the Son, but the Father alone.” The Church understands this passage in the sense that Christ did not know the day or hour of the end of the world by means of His human knowledge. While on earth Christ’s human, rational knowledge grew the same way ours does: by abstraction from sense data. He would have started out with no rational knowledge at His conception and grown steadily throughout His life as he continued to observe things and think. Therefore it is understandable that He would not know the end of time by means of His human knowledge.
Christ had no rational knowledge at birth? Does he mean that Christ who is God himself would be just like any other baby? Strange. These battling apologists should be avoided like the plague.
P
Pinoy_Katoliko
Guest
- Status
- Not open for further replies.