Gerry Matatics is Touring the Country Preaching Against the "Vatican II Church"

  • Thread starter Thread starter DNS
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I’m very conservative especially when it comes to my Faith. Also, I’m an old schooler when it come to how things should be done. I’ll admit I really like the Latin Mass. I think most here probably do too.

However, stuff like this really bugs me. To me its a classic case of the cart before the horse. It seems to me that these guys are saying that Jesus was wrong and the Gates of Hell did indeed prevail. The Magisterium has a total right to work with the liturgy. Let’s be honest its changed quite a bit through the years.

The liturgy has power because of the authority that empowers it.
 
DNS said:
See here. (This article was added to his site yesterday.)

Two things are clear from reading the article:
  1. Gerry holds an extreme interpretation of “No Salvation Outside the Church.”
  2. Gerry holds this view: “The “Vatican II Church” is not the Catholic Church (Christ’s true Church), but a clever counterfeit brought about by the nearly wholesale apostasy of the Catholic hierarchy into heresy and schism.” (Those are his exact words.)
Please remember that the moderators have, for the time, made sedevacantism a banned topic.
Click to expand...
I don’t find anything wrong with this man other than the second point stated.

I personally hold this belief…
  1. There is no salvation outside of the Catholic Church.
  2. Rome is still in the faith, as are many of its parishes and dioceses throughout the world. But there are Vatican II churches out there (like the one down my block) that are apostate and heretical because of the Spirit of Vatican II.
Just my two cents, and like the OP stated
lets not have a debate.
 
Missa_Solemnis said:
I don’t find anything wrong with this man other than the second point stated.

I personally hold this belief…
  1. There is no salvation outside of the Catholic Church.
Click to expand...
Noone was saying there was. Of course, there isn’t. But there is a difference in saying there is no salvation outside of the Catholic Church given the understanding in the Catechism, and saying that you must be explicitly a member of the Catholic Church before you die, otherwise, you’re stuffed. I’m pretty sure that this second view is heretical (Feeneyism?).
  1. Rome is still in the faith, as are many of its parishes and dioceses throughout the world. But there are Vatican II churches out there (like the one down my block) that are apostate and heretical because of the Spirit of Vatican II.
Click to expand...
Just my two cents, and like the OP stated
lets not have a debate.
Click to expand...
I don’t want to disagree with you because you don’t want to debate. However, I object to your use of the term “Spirit of Vatican II”. There was no such spirit; it is simply an excuse that these churches you speak of use to justify their abuses. The problem is with these churches, NOT with the council itself.
 
I think what causes people like Gerry Matatics to go overboard is a belief that the pope can never err in anything he teaches or says, even as pope.
That is false.
Let’s take a look at the Limbo debate.
The current emerging view is that the belief in a Limbo of Infants is erroneous. Yet scores of bishops and even some popes have held this view. Clearly, then, popes can hold to error or be close to, error.
Consider John Paul II saying that the Old Covenant has never been revoked. That is NOT a de fide statement. Scripture and tradition clearly and undeniably teach that the Law of Moses ceased upon the promulgation of the gospel. If John Paul believes that the Law of Moses is still in force and binding, he is clearly believing something erroneous, and the Council of Florence settled this matter once and for all.
But that does NOT make John Paul the 2nd to have been
a NON-Pope as the Sedes assert. The pope is promised infallibility explicitly, only when he defines a doctrine EX-CATHEDRA, and when teaching continuously on the level of the Universal Ordinary Magisterium. A couple of strange statements here and there doth not a heretic make.
People like Gerry Matatics and the other sedevacantists don’t understand that a pope CAN err, popes HAVE erred, and still remain true popes.

And as for their claim about the New Ordination Rites being invalid, that is pure bunk. Jacob Michael, on his website Lumen Gentleman Apologetics, has written a great article debunking this wicked claim. If you want to read it just go to Google and type in NOTHING LACKING FOR VALIDITY BY JACOB MICHAEL. A link to the article will come up.
It DEVASTATES the sedevacantist claims against the New Rite of Ordination.

The sedevacantists had me confused for a while myself.
I’m glad I finally see the flaws in their arguments.
God bless,
Jaypeeto3 (aka Jaypeeto4)
 
Missa_Solemnis said:
I don’t find anything wrong with this man other than the second point stated.
Click to expand...
Gerry may be a Feeneyite. While the Church supposedly tolerates this position (I don’t know for sure), the position looks pretty problematic. See here. However, according to the Dimond brothers (sedevacantists who take an extreme position on No Salvation Outside the Chruch) Gerry accepts baptism of desire and of blood. I don’t know what to think concerning Gerry on this matter.
Just my two cents, and like the OP stated
lets not have a debate.
Click to expand...
I don’t mind dialoguing on these matters. I just wanted to remind everyone of the rules on sedevacantism.
 
DNS said:
See here. (This article was added to his site yesterday.)

Two things are clear from reading the article:
  1. Gerry holds an extreme interpretation of “No Salvation Outside the Church.”
  2. Gerry holds this view: “The “Vatican II Church” is not the Catholic Church (Christ’s true Church), but a clever counterfeit brought about by the nearly wholesale apostasy of the Catholic hierarchy into heresy and schism.” (Those are his exact words.)
Please remember that the moderators have, for the time, made sedevacantism a banned topic.
Click to expand...
So? Who is Gerry Matatics when he is at home? Is it the name of a rock band or something?
 
you know what? sedvacantists in many ways are in the same boat as protestants. there is so much disention as to what is the “truth.”

some believe that the chain of “antipopes” started with John XXIII, some believe it started with Pius XII some believe it started with Paul VI.

Some believe in baptsim of desire/blood, some don’t

some believe in feenyism, some don’t

some believe that the “Vatican II church” orders are valid, some don’t

some believe that the “Vatican II Church” sacraments are vaild, some don’t

some (conclavists) believe that there is currently a pope (ie pius XIII, Linus II, Peter II, Gregory XVII) some believe that there isn’t

and ofcourse there is much controvery over how to interpret papal decrees because there is no infallible guide for them to turn to since they claim that the seat is vacant. In the end they are pretty much relying on thier privite interpretation of tradition just as protestants rely on their privite interpretation of scripture. Who has the authority to decide what is true for the sedvacantist? the individual sedvacantist ofcourse!

Its a shame about what happened to Gerry, he was such a great apologist, i listened to alot of his debates against james white and i would say that gerry won most of them but now that he is a sedvacantist i think that he has lost alot of his credibility and people view him as a person who converts to a new faith based on his every whim. Supposedly he is best friends with scott hahn, maybe he can get him to come to his sences.
 
6glargento said:
Supposedly he is best friends with scott hahn, maybe he can get him to come to his sences.
Click to expand...
Not so, actually. Unless something has changed recently, Scott and Gerry have hardly spoken to one another in more than a decade, but not through any fault of Scott’s, so far as I can tell.

Looking at his web site, I think it’s fair now to say that Gerry no longer is a Catholic at all. He makes it clear that he entirely rejects the religious organization headquartered in Rome and headed by Benedict XVI. That organization, he says, is not the Catholic Church; whatever it is that Gerry belongs to is the real Catholic Church, and that is why he continues to call himself a Catholic.

But the fact is that the religious organization he rejects really is the Catholic Church, and by rejecting it he ceases to be a member of it. He has gone beyond the point of “mere” sedevacantism, which could mean as little as saying, “I’m a member of the Catholic Church but think the man now styled as pope isn’t really the pope.” That would leave Gerry as a Catholic. But he rejects not only Benedict XVI but the very institution of the Church itself.

He has adopted the view that there are no valid bishops left in the world–at least none who have been consecrated by one of the popes that he rejects, and he seems to reject all of the popes from John XXIII onward. He logically thus also would reject the ordinations of all priests ordained by these bishops because a non-bishop can’t ordain anyone. To Gerry this means the entire “Conciliar Church” is a bogus institution–it has the trappings of authority but not the reality. It occupies Catholic real estate but without any right to do so.

This is an intellectually ludicrous position that pretty well undercuts Gerry’s giving himself the title of “biblical scholar”–no real scholar would fall for such nonsense. Be that as it may, while Gerry may use “Catholic” as a label for himself, the fact is that the title no longer applies. He is now something other than a Catholic.
 
Karl_Keating said:
Not so, actually. Unless something has changed recently, Scott and Gerry have hardly spoken to one another in more than a decade, but not through any fault of Scott’s, so far as I can tell.

Looking at his web site, I think it’s fair now to say that Gerry no longer is a Catholic at all. He makes it clear that he entirely rejects the religious organization headquartered in Rome and headed by Benedict XVI. That organization, he says, is not the Catholic Church; whatever it is that Gerry belongs to is the real Catholic Church, and that is why he continues to call himself a Catholic.

But the fact is that the religious organization he rejects really is the Catholic Church, and by rejecting it he ceases to be a member of it. He has gone beyond the point of “mere” sedevacantism, which could mean as little as saying, “I’m a member of the Catholic Church but think the man now styled as pope isn’t really the pope.” That would leave Gerry as a Catholic. But he rejects not only Benedict XVI but the very institution of the Church itself.

He has adopted the view that there are no valid bishops left in the world–at least none who have been consecrated by one of the popes that he rejects, and he seems to reject all of the popes from John XXIII onward. He logically thus also would reject the ordinations of all priests ordained by these bishops because a non-bishop can’t ordain anyone. To Gerry this means the entire “Conciliar Church” is a bogus institution–it has the trappings of authority but not the reality. It occupies Catholic real estate but without any right to do so.

This is an intellectually ludicrous position that pretty well undercuts Gerry’s giving himself the title of “biblical scholar”–no real scholar would fall for such nonsense. Be that as it may, while Gerry may use “Catholic” as a label for himself, the fact is that the title no longer applies. He is now something other than a Catholic.
Click to expand...
wow this is really sad, I wonder if he will end up reouncing his catholic faith entirely cause it really sounds like he is heading in that direction.
 
DNS said:
See here. (This article was added to his site yesterday.)

Two things are clear from reading the article:
  1. Gerry holds an extreme interpretation of “No Salvation Outside the Church.”
  2. Gerry holds this view: “The “Vatican II Church” is not the Catholic Church (Christ’s true Church), but a clever counterfeit brought about by the nearly wholesale apostasy of the Catholic hierarchy into heresy and schism.” (Those are his exact words.)
Please remember that the moderators have, for the time, made sedevacantism a banned topic.
Click to expand...
It sounds to me almost as though he never fully converted from Protestantism. Protestants hold that the Church could, and did, go into near apostacy, but not Catholics. It sounds as though he still has trouble trusting in God and His abillity to guide the Church. I’m not blaming him really, I do that myself at times. But I am worried about the mindset of people who think that the entire Catholic Church (across the world) went completly apostate. I remember reading a question on EWTN that said that the Bible may even have predicted apostacy. I couldn’t help thinking that person would be much happier in the LDS Church rather than the Catholic Church, since the LDS Church teaches that very idea.

Oh well. We must all pray for Gerry.
 
Karl_Keating said:
Looking at his web site, I think it’s fair now to say that Gerry no longer is a Catholic at all. He makes it clear that he entirely rejects the religious organization headquartered in Rome and headed by Benedict XVI. That organization, he says, is not the Catholic Church; whatever it is that Gerry belongs to is the real Catholic Church, and that is why he continues to call himself a Catholic.

But the fact is that the religious organization he rejects really is the Catholic Church, and by rejecting it he ceases to be a member of it. He has gone beyond the point of “mere” sedevacantism, which could mean as little as saying, “I’m a member of the Catholic Church but think the man now styled as pope isn’t really the pope.” That would leave Gerry as a Catholic. But he rejects not only Benedict XVI but the very institution of the Church itself.
Click to expand...
I didn’t realize that you could reject the current pope and still be considered a Catholic. I guess Gerry didn’t choose this “better” form of sedevacantism.
40.png
6glargento:
wow this is really sad, I wonder if he will end up reouncing his catholic faith entirely cause it really sounds like he is heading in that direction.
Click to expand...
He might, but (it is my understanding) that in Gerry’s mind the end of the world is right around the corner (that seems to be what he is trying to convey with some of the quotes he puts up on his site).
 
valient_Lucy said:
It sounds to me almost as though he never fully converted from Protestantism. Protestants hold that the Church could, and did, go into near apostacy, but not Catholics…
Click to expand...
Remember, during the Arian heresy, MOST of the Church’s bishops, priests, etc. held and taught heresy. It was only a few at the top (incuding the pope) and their few supporters who battled and ended it. Still, they did not cease to be bishops and priests (at least the ones who accepted the correction).

I am in no way saying that is occuring now, but now there is what Sr. Lucia referred to as a “diabolical disorientation” in the world, and it does effect our Church, includinng its bishops and priests, as well as lay people.

Gerry is caught up in that, and reacted way to strongly against it. The Church will come out of it. You are right, Gerry needs our prayers.

Mark Wyatt
www.veritas-catholic.blogspot.com
 
trth_skr said:
Remember, during the Arian heresy, MOST of the Church’s bishops, priests, etc. held and taught heresy. It was only a few at the top (incuding the pope) and their few supporters who battled and ended it. Still, they did not cease to be bishops and priests (at least the ones who accepted the correction).

I am in no way saying that is occuring now, but now there is what Sr. Lucia referred to as a “diabolical disorientation” in the world, and it does effect our Church, includinng its bishops and priests, as well as lay people.

Gerry is caught up in that, and reacted way to strongly against it. The Church will come out of it. You are right, Gerry needs our prayers.

Mark Wyatt
www.veritas-catholic.blogspot.com
Click to expand...
You’re right, the Arian heresy was devastating to the Church, but in the end the Holy Spirit prevailed. He will again. That is what we all have to remember. (myself as well.)
 
valient_Lucy said:
You’re right, the Arian heresy was devastating to the Church, but in the end the Holy Spirit prevailed. He will again. That is what we all have to remember. (myself as well.)
Click to expand...
Yes He will, but will the Church be as it is now? That is the question. Will our current model of the Church survive or will it go the way of the Arian Church? A reasoned reading of ALL evidence would seem to suggest that is a possibility however slight. Whenever you have two or more groups competing for and claiming the title of being correct how can you truly say which is right? You have to go with your conscience, with your belief and place your trust in God and the Holy Spirit…

Remember there were once three Popes at one time, two proclaimed by the same council. It is not as cut and dried as some would have you believe.

Food for thought.
 
DNS said:
I didn’t realize that you could reject the current pope and still be considered a Catholic.
Click to expand...
Only in the sense that a Catholic could say something like “I don’t think this fellow was elected properly, and thus he isn’t the real pope but an anti-pope” and say this while being factually wrong (that is, that the man really is the pope). This attitude wouldn’t entail rejecting what in fact is the Church.

But that is precisely what Gerry has done. He hasn’t said simply that there was an error and Benedict XVI isn’t a validly elected pope. He has said that the whole institution that Benedict heads isn’t the real Church.
 
Dear Karl:
Only in the sense that a Catholic could say something like “I don’t think this fellow was elected properly, and thus he isn’t the real pope but an anti-pope” and say this while being factually wrong (that is, that the man really is the pope). This attitude wouldn’t entail rejecting what in fact is the Church.
Click to expand...
The above quote surprises me. Wouldn’t that Catholic have to have a valid reason to put forth and be willing to be corrected?

Donna
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top