Gerry Matatics a Heretic?

[orthodoxdogma]

Hi all!

Hope everyone had a very Merry Christmas!

The Orthodox love Christmas and the Holy Icons.

Well, I just finished a “new” book: Communicatio in Sacris by Mr. DeTucci.

It was very strong to say the least – at least coming from the Orthodox background.

The book I must admit is well-documented and quotes Gerry Matatics and his association with Sedevacantism – it calls Mr. Matatics "a Heretic" on p. 55.

I was surprised…is he not a Roman Catholic Theologian?

I purchased this book through LULU…at:

lulu.com/content/1431544

The book also states that Abp. Lefebrve is a Schismatic for rejecting John Paul II.

Any comments would be helpful…I was very pleased with the books documentation but appears very one-way!

Happy New Year!

PapaOrthodox

 

[Aramis]

Hi all!

Hope everyone had a very Merry Christmas!

The Orthodox love Christmas and the Holy Icons.

Well, I just finished a “new” book: Communicatio in Sacris by Mr. DeTucci.

It was very strong to say the least – at least coming from the Orthodox background.

The book I must admit is well-documented and quotes Gerry Matatics and his association with Sedevacantism – it calls Mr. Matatics "a Heretic" on p. 55.

I was surprised…is he not a Roman Catholic Theologian?

I purchased this book through LULU…at:

lulu.com/content/1431544

The book also states that Abp. Lefebrve is a Schismatic for rejecting John Paul II.

Any comments would be helpful…I was very pleased with the books documentation but appears very one-way!

Happy New Year!

PapaOrthodox

The reason for Lefebrve is not quite correct: He’s been excommunicated for violating canon law and direct instructions. The specific point was ordaining 4 bishops when he had permission for one, and then giving them apostolic missions as well (which he was not to do).

But any pro-sedevaticanist is at least a schismatic, if not a full blown heretic.

 

[WestonGrant]

I heard that about Matatics, too. Did you try doing a search? I bet you’ll find something on that.

 

[VL93]

Sadly - from Gerry’s own web site:

Is Gerry Matatics a ‘‘sedevacantist’’?

…Having admitted all the above, in concession to the prevailing custom I will nevertheless grudgingly agree to use the term “sedevacantism” - however undesirable, unfair, and unhelpful - as a “shorthand” for the position of those (like me) who profess the Catholic Faith and feel constrained, as a necessary aspect of professing the Faith in the current circumstances, to reject as unCatholic, not only the men claiming to be popes since the death of Pius XII in 1958, but as well all the changes those men have claimed to make to the faith, liturgical life, and morality of Catholics during the years subsequent to Pius XII’s death.

The case for “sedevacantism” can be succinctly stated in three separate syllogistic arguments. Any one of these three arguments is sufficient in itself to demonstrate that Benedict XVI cannot possibly be pope and is as likely a candidate as we’ll perhaps ever see for the prophecy of the “German antipope” of the last days who will lead many astray (see abovementioned anthologies of Catholic prophecies). But the combination of all three composes quite a formidable case. The syllogisms are as follows:

Syllogism #1: No true bishop, no true pope

1. Major premise: A man who is not a validly ordained bishop cannot function as the bishop of Rome, i.e., as the pope. [Note: a non-bishop – even a layman – can be, and sometimes has been, elected to the papacy, but in every case he had to receive the necessary ordination(s) to ascend, however quickly, up through the required ranks of the clergy before he began to reign as pope.]

1. Minor premise: But Joseph Ratzinger is not a validly ordained bishop, having received (in May 1977) the demonstrably invalid episcopal ordination rite promulgated in June 1968 by antipope Paul VI. (For a devastating demonstration of the fact that the new rite is invalid, read the brilliant 12-page article by Fr. Anthony Cekada, or at least the less technical two-page summary.

1. Conclusion: Therefore Joseph Ratzinger cannot be a true pope.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Syllogism #2: No true orthodoxy, no true pope

1. Major premise: A manifest heretic cannot be a true pope.
   [See Canon 188.4 of the 1917 Code of Canon Law, Paul IV’s 1559 Cum Ex Apostolatus Officio (the English translation of which is posted on this website in the “Library of Key Documents” section), the unanimous consent of the Fathers and doctors of the Church, as documented in articles by Fr. Cekada on sedevacantism on his website, http://www.traditionalmass.org/

, as well as articles on strobertbellarmine.net/.)

1. Minor premise: But Joseph Ratzinger is a manifest heretic, as can be amply demonstrated from his numerous writings and addresses both before and since his “papal” election. (See articles on Ratzinger on traditionalmass.org/, novusordowatch.org/, or mostholyfamilymonastery.com/.)
2. Conclusion: Therefore Joseph Ratzinger cannot be a true pope.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Syllogism #3: No true Church, no true pope

1. Major premise: A head of a non-Catholic church cannot simultaneously be the head of the Catholic Church, i.e., the pope.
2. Minor premise: But Joseph Ratzinger is the head of a non-Catholic Church, namely the Vatican II or postconciliar Church, the non-Catholic nature of whose doctrines, sacraments and worship, and laws can be readily demonstrated by comparing them to the perennial doctrines, sacraments and worship, and laws of the Catholic Church down through the ages. (See articles on above-mentioned websites.)
3. Conclusion: Therefore Joseph Ratzinger cannot be the head of the Catholic Church, i.e., the pope.

 

[cam100]

I would be careful about declaring someone a heretic. You might rather say that the idea someone promotes is heretical.

I wouldn’t label Gerry Matatics’ ideas as heresy, however. I would say they are schismatic, but not heretical. He teaches sedevacantism, which shares with protestantism the idea of private interpretation, but it is not inherently heretical. It could lead to heresy, however.