Gerry Matatics coming to speak; what should I do?

[DavidJoseph]

I attend an indult Tridentine parish near Atlanta. I discovered that Catholic apologist Gerry Matatics will be speaking in Atlanta in a couple weeks, and some people from my parish are going to hear him. As has been discussed on here in the past, Matatics seems to have gone off the deep end and become a dissident traditionalist. In fact, I understand he’s going to debate Robert Sungenis in California on whether or not the Novus Ordo Mass fulfills your Sunday obligation (Matatics is arguing that it doesn’t). Thus, in essence, he’d be saying it’s invalid. Well, the title of Matatics’ talk will be “What Should a Faithful Catholic Think of the New Mass?” Naturally, that makes alarm bells go off. I’ve told them what I’ve heard about him, but these people claim they’ve never heard anything like that about Matatics. I don’t want to see people get led astray. Any advice?

To be continued …

 

[DavidJoseph]

To see what Catholic Answers has to say about him, go here: freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/1067141/posts and scroll down to post #32.

To be fair, then scroll up to post #3 to hear Matatics’ side of the story (albeit told by Christopher Ferrara).

Frankly, I suspect that since Ferrara is a dissident trad just like it seems Matatics is, then it’s only natural he’d come to Matatics’ defense. In addition, the fact that Matatics apparently doesn’t believe in the Novus Ordo Mass’s validity, as his upcoming debate with Sungenis shows, is also at odds with Ferrara’s defense.

Whatever the case, I hope someone can help shed more light on this.

 

[Maccabees]

Uh the POpe attends the Noros Ordo in Itaalian usually. You mean he doesn’t fulfill his sunday obligation? What a nutcase!
Its one thing to prefer the Latin Mass it is beautiful but to totally nix the novus ordo is heretical.

 

[challenger]

Don’t be hatin’ on Ferrara or Matatics. THey’re good dudes. I don’t know what Ferrara’s position is on the validity of the NO, I know Matatics thinks it’s invalid. I might not go to that talk, but if you want to hear the opposing view, you can go. Sungenis defended Matatics once from something Catholic Answers said… it’s on catholicintl somewhere.

 

[Stevereeno]

DavidJoseph:

Frankly, I suspect that since Ferrara is a dissident trad just like it seems Matatics is, then it’s only natural he’d come to Matatics’ defense. In addition, the fact that Matatics apparently doesn’t believe in the Novus Ordo Mass’s validity, as his upcoming debate with Sungenis shows, is also at odds with Ferrara’s defense.

Whatever the case, I hope someone can help shed more light on this.

From your link, it appears that Matatics approves of the NO mass, but he disapproves of the English translation from the original Latin. I guess we’ll find out for sure after the Matatics-Sungenis debate.

 

[DavidJoseph]

challenger:

Don’t be hatin’ on Ferrara or Matatics. THey’re good dudes. I don’t know what Ferrara’s position is on the validity of the NO, I know Matatics thinks it’s invalid. I might not go to that talk, but if you want to hear the opposing view, you can go. Sungenis defended Matatics once from something Catholic Answers said… it’s on catholicintl somewhere.

People could be led astray by the opposing view. Besides, it’s heresy to believe that the Novus Ordo is intrinsically invalid. So Matatics can’t very well be considered to be an orthodox Catholic apologist. In addition, while I avoid publications like “Catholic Family News” and “The Remnant,” I’ve noticed stuff in there by Ferrara and others that denigrate Vatican II (when what he should be denigrating is those who twist the teachings and documents of Vatican II to say stuff it didn’t say). He and most of the other writers for such publications are VERY critical of the Holy Father as well. And rash judgment is a sin. I don’t know if Ferrara goes so far as to deny Vatican II as legit, but it’s heresy to deny it. So proceed with caution! I wouldn’t be at all surprised if people like him have helped lead people to schism and heresy. Btw, if I were you I’d dump publications like “The Remnant” and “Catholic Family News” and instead read stuff like “The Wanderer,” “This Rock,” “Envoy,” “Crisis,” and “National Catholic Register.”

 

[DavidJoseph]

Stevereeno:

From your link, it appears that Matatics approves of the NO mass, but he disapproves of the English translation from the original Latin. I guess we’ll find out for sure after the Matatics-Sungenis debate.

He may disapprove of the translation, but since the Church approved of it regardless of the flaws it may have, then that makes the Mass valid even when said in English or any other language that uses the “for all” translation. **When a priest uses a vernacular translation – whether it be good, bad, or indifferent – with the intent of doing what the Church intends, then that’s what happens. **For instance, where the official Latin has the correct pro multis (“for many”), even if the priest absent mindedly says some quite different – like per molitio (“through demolition”) in Latin, or maybe something fatuous like “for good men and women all over the world” in English – but sincerely intends a valid confection, then it happens. So it would be heresy to willfully doubt the Mass’s validity in the vernacular too.

 

[RattleSnake]

Maccabees:

Its one thing to prefer the Latin Mass it is beautiful but to totally nix the novus ordo is heretical.

Amen. perfectly said.

 

[ironmonk]

DavidJoseph:

I attend an indult Tridentine parish near Atlanta. I discovered that Catholic apologist Gerry Matatics will be speaking in Atlanta in a couple weeks, and some people from my parish are going to hear him. As has been discussed on here in the past, Matatics seems to have gone off the deep end and become a dissident traditionalist. In fact, I understand he’s going to debate Robert Sungenis in California on whether or not the Novus Ordo Mass fulfills your Sunday obligation (Matatics is arguing that it doesn’t). Thus, in essence, he’d be saying it’s invalid. Well, the title of Matatics’ talk will be “What Should a Faithful Catholic Think of the New Mass?” Naturally, that makes alarm bells go off. I’ve told them what I’ve heard about him, but these people claim they’ve never heard anything like that about Matatics. I don’t want to see people get led astray. Any advice?

To be continued …

That the Catholic Church is the pillar and foundation of Truth. 1 Tim 3:15.

That the Church will be guided in all truth. St. John 14

That if we think something is wrong with something that the Church has done or does (i.e. New Mass), then we must be wrong in our understanding and time to change our minds to match what the Church teaches. - Or there is no God.

The Church has the power and authority to bind/loose, therefore if the Church OK’s it, it cannot be wrong.

Thinking that we know more than the Church makes us no different than Luther, Calvin, Knox, etc… They were obviously wrong but believe themselves right.

Trust in God, and His promises about the Church… Not on our own intellect.

Human reasoning will lead us astray. If we think we are wiser than the Church, we are being foolish. If we think the Church is wrong with an official teaching, we are in the wrong.

 

[challenger]

DavidJoseph:

People could be led astray by the opposing view.

If that’s a danger, don’t go. Simple.
DJ:

Besides, it’s heresy to believe that the Novus Ordo is intrinsically invalid. So Matatics can’t very well be considered to be an orthodox Catholic apologist.

It’s only heresy if you deny the authority of the Magisterium.
DJ:

In addition, while I avoid publications like “Catholic Family News” and “The Remnant,” I’ve noticed stuff in there by Ferrara and others that denigrate Vatican II (when what he should be denigrating is those who twist the teachings and documents of Vatican II to say stuff it didn’t say).

It’s not like Vatican II was written in such a way as to preclude misinterpretations. And it’s not like some dudes made up that Communion in the hand, etc. is ok.
DJ:

He and most of the other writers for such publications are VERY critical of the Holy Father as well. And rash judgment is a sin.

You’re assuming it’s rash judgment. Like most people, the present pope has done things he shouldn’t have.
DJ:

I don’t know if Ferrara goes so far as to deny Vatican II as legit, but it’s heresy to deny it. So proceed with caution! I wouldn’t be at all surprised if people like him have helped lead people to schism and heresy. Btw, if I were you I’d dump publications like “The Remnant” and “Catholic Family News” and instead read stuff like “The Wanderer,” “This Rock,” “Envoy,” “Crisis,” and “National Catholic Register.”

I subscribe to the Register and Crisis, and read This Rock online. I also subscribe to Catholic Family News.

 

[DavidJoseph]

challenger:

If that’s a danger, don’t go. Simple.

It’s not me who’s going; it’s friends of mine.

It’s only heresy if you deny the authority of the Magisterium.

Heresy involves the denial of the Magisterium’s authority. So denying the Novus Ordo’s validity is to deny the Magisterium’s authority.

It’s not like Vatican II was written in such a way as to preclude misinterpretations. And it’s not like some dudes made up that Communion in the hand, etc. is ok.

I agree that Vatican II has been misinterpreted by many – by liberal-minded cafeteria Catholics AND conservative-minded cafeteria Catholics (dissident traditionalists). As for Communion in the hand, I don’t like it either. We can like it or dislike it, but if the pope has allowed it, then it can’t be all bad.

You’re assuming it’s rash judgment. Like most people, the present pope has done things he shouldn’t have.

No, I’m not assuming anything. You can agree or disagree with the way our Holy Father has done certain things, and it’s not a sin to criticize the pope, but it’s not very wise. That’s probably how most dissident traditionalists (including those who attend Masses by schismatic or independent priests). Instead of jumping on His Holiness for everything he does that you disagree with, try and look at both sides of the story.

I subscribe to the Register and Crisis, and read This Rock online. I also subscribe to Catholic Family News.

Ok, I stand corrected – you apparently do look at both sides of the story.

 

[DavidJoseph]

Thanks, everyone, for your (name removed by moderator)ut, but do any of you have any suggestions on how to deal with the Gerry Matatics situation? As I said earlier, I have friends who are going, and I don’t want to see them get led astray.

 

[challenger]

DavidJoseph:

Heresy involves the denial of the Magisterium’s authority. So denying the Novus Ordo’s validity is to deny the Magisterium’s authority.

Only if you believe that the Magisterium legitimately stated the Novus Ordo was valid.
DJ:

No, I’m not assuming anything. You can agree or disagree with the way our Holy Father has done certain things, and it’s not a sin to criticize the pope, but it’s not very wise. That’s probably how most dissident traditionalists (including those who attend Masses by schismatic or independent priests). Instead of jumping on His Holiness for everything he does that you disagree with, try and look at both sides of the story.

Well, if he didn’t hold the office he does, what he does wouldn’t be so important.
DJ:

Thanks, everyone, for your (name removed by moderator)ut, but do any of you have any suggestions on how to deal with the Gerry Matatics situation? As I said earlier, I have friends who are going, and I don’t want to see them get led astray.

If they’re very impressionable, I would say don’t go. If they’re more level-headed and reasonable, I don’t see anything wrong with hearing the opposing view.

 

[DavidJoseph]

challenger:

Only if you believe that the Magisterium legitimately stated the Novus Ordo was valid.

I hope you’re not implying that you doubt the validity of the Novus Ordo! But anyway, the Novus Ordo has been legitimately promulgated by the Magisterium. It’s they who decide what constitutes a valid Mass, not you. Remember, what the Church binds on earth is bound in heaven.

Well, if he didn’t hold the office he does, what he does wouldn’t be so important.

But who are you to determine what the pope should and shouldn’t do? You don’t have the authority or competence to make such determinations.

 

[challenger]

DavidJoseph:

I hope you’re not implying that you doubt the validity of the Novus Ordo! But anyway, the Novus Ordo has been legitimately promulgated by the Magisterium. It’s they who decide what constitutes a valid Mass, not you. Remember, what the Church binds on earth is bound in heaven.

Of course I’m not doubting the validity of the Novus Ordo. I was saying doubting its validity is not heretical if you don’t believe the Magisterium ever legitimately promulgated. Whether that belief is correct or incorrect, you are not denying the Magisterium.
DJ:

But who are you to determine what the pope should and shouldn’t do? You don’t have the authority or competence to make such determinations.

It’s not like when a pope is elected he gets a “Super Dude” injection and can do no wrong. I think Gerry Matatics is quite competent enough to have an opinion on something the pope should or shouldn’t’ve done.

 

[DavidJoseph]

challenger:

Of course I’m not doubting the validity of the Novus Ordo. I was saying doubting its validity is not heretical if you don’t believe the Magisterium ever legitimately promulgated. Whether that belief is correct or incorrect, you are not denying the Magisterium.

That’s like saying that it wouldn’t be heretical to doubt doctrines/dogmas like purgatory, the Immaculate Conception, the Real Presence, the Assumption, etc. if you don’t believe the Church legitimately defined such teachings! But it most certainly would be!

It’s not like when a pope is elected he gets a “Super Dude” injection and can do no wrong. I think Gerry Matatics is quite competent enough to have an opinion on something the pope should or shouldn’t’ve done.

I never said that happens. But he’s still the Pope and deserves the benefit of the doubt. It’s ok to think, “If I were Pope I’d do such-and-such differently,” but to publicly blast the Pope for doing this or that is uncharitable and can cause scandal. Heck, that’s probably how many people who now adhere to schismatic groups such as the SSPX got started on their journey out of the Church – they probably heard people mercilessly criticize the Pope. That gives scandal, and you know what Jesus said about those who cause others to sin.

 

[challenger]

DavidJoseph:

That’s like saying that it wouldn’t be heretical to doubt doctrines/dogmas like purgatory, the Immaculate Conception, the Real Presence, the Assumption, etc. if you don’t believe the Church legitimately defined such teachings! But it most certainly would be!

I’m saying it wouldn’t be doubting the Magisterium to deny those doctrines, if you don’t believe the Church legitimately defined them. It would constitute material heresy, however; not formal heresy. Gerry Matatics might be a material heretic, but it’s not like he doesn’t have any grounds at all for his belief. Matatics is a smart dude- he wouldn’t believe this if there weren’t some kind of reason for it.
DJ:

I never said that happens. But he’s still the Pope and deserves the benefit of the doubt. It’s ok to think, “If I were Pope I’d do such-and-such differently,” but to publicly blast the Pope for doing this or that is uncharitable and can cause scandal. Heck, that’s probably how many people who now adhere to schismatic groups such as the SSPX got started on their journey out of the Church – they probably heard people mercilessly criticize the Pope. That gives scandal, and you know what Jesus said about those who cause others to sin.

I agree you shouldn’t give scandal; but, on the other hand, to not object to things such as the Assisi I and II gatherings, or whatever the term was, could also give scandal. If the matter is grave enough, I think “blasting” may be warranted. Without any specific thing from Ferrara or Matatics, I cannot give my opinion on whether that “blasting” was warranted.

 

[jamjostab]

Hello,

I am talking to Jerry.
How about St. Faustina was she a Catholic? How about St.Malachy was he a Catholic? Just look at what they had to say. Why is Jerry doing this kind of talking? Never mind you don’t need to explain. When your on a Mission sometimes you need to step back and take a breath so you can retool. It is not always about you!! People do lots of things for a living besides this.I thank God for Jerry and will continue to pray for him.He has a great heart full of enthusiasm.Till Jesus comes back there will be disagreements.
Pray for me as I will pray for thee!

 

[DavidJoseph]

jamjostab:

Hello,

I am talking to Jerry.
How about St. Faustina was she a Catholic? How about St.Malachy was he a Catholic? Just look at what they had to say. Why is Jerry doing this kind of talking? Never mind you don’t need to explain. When your on a Mission sometimes you need to step back and take a breath so you can retool. It is not always about you!! People do lots of things for a living besides this.I thank God for Jerry and will continue to pray for him.He has a great heart full of enthusiasm.Till Jesus comes back there will be disagreements.
Pray for me as I will pray for thee!

I don’t understand what you’re saying here.

 

[jamjostab]

I was looking at some information in defense of Gerry.