Gerry Matatics R.I.P

[maggieodae]

SherlockH:

Hmm. I just looked at all of Tarcisius’ postings and have come to the conclusion that the true identity of Tarcisius is . . .

none other than. . .

Karl Keating himself! :tsktsk:

Mind telling me what that has to do with the Subject? I do not think it is about Karl Keating…it is about Matatic’s.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

bigdawg:

Matatics is a brilliant apologist and I for one am saddened by his stance on the papacy and his departure from the Church.

Instead of slamming him, and one another, we should all pray for him.

I do not understand this statement.

How can he be a “brilliant apologist” when he has left the Church and is in error if not out right heresy himself.

 

[pnewton]

Jaypeeto3:

In saying that Matatics was in “imperfect” communion with Rome now, I was merely highlighting the hypocrisy and being justifiably sarcastic about it.

I missed your sarcasm. (the root of which is to tear flesh) other wise I would have pointed out the logic hypocracy of being uncharitable to the posters who were uncharitable to Mr. Matatics. We should pray for all who have departed from the faith. Tear into the nonsense about the pope not being a real bishop, but pray for the poor delusion soul that has left the faith.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

Jaypeeto3:

I agree with you, bigdawg. We should pray for him.
These are confusing times in the church.
From Mr. Matatic’s statement quoted above, he mentions his view that Benedict XVI was never validly consecrated as a Bishop. This is the controversy over the validity of the New Ordination Rite of 1968. Pope Leo XIII declared Anglican Holy Orders INVALID in part, said Leo, because they STRUCK OUT from their new ordination rite every Catholic rite prayer which signified that the man being ordained was being ordained a sacrificing priest. That was the Anglican rite, and why the Vatican declared it invalid.
Well, the New Catholic rite of Ordination of 1968 ALSO struck out any and ALL references and prayers regarding a sacrificing priesthood. Thus, the reasoning goes, if that made the Anglican rite invalid, then it makes the 1968 Catholic rite invalid too.
Similiar striking out of all sacrificial references was done to the new Catholic rite for ordaining Bishops and the ENTIRE “form” for ordaining Bishops was completely changed in the 1968 new rite, which makes some people, including apparently Mr. Matatics, conclude that the New Rites are INvalid and hence, Ratzinger, being ordained a bishop in the new rite, was allegedly invalidly ordained and hence can’t be a valid pope since he allegedly wasn’t validly ordained a Bishop. I know of many people who are uneasy about the New Ordination rite, and I really wish the Vatican would issue some sort of detailed explanation why the exact same prayers and references were stricken out of our New Rite which were stricken out the Anglican rite of ordination which made Leo XIII declare Anglican orders null and void. Such a document from the Holy See would ease many consciences.
As for Mr. Matatics, he deserves our prayers and not our wrath because he really believes he is doing the right thing in God’s eyes. Love, Jaypeeto3

Absolutely absurd. If the Pope, who cannot lead the Church into error, promulgates a liturgy to ordain bishops in the apostolic succession, then that liturgy is adequate to the purpose and cannot be otherwise, regardless of what Pope Leo said about something similar being used by a schismatic group (the Anglican service sounds very much like the Old Sarum rite, which was allowed by the Church, I think, until Trent, but they still cannot confect the Sacrifice). Why? Because in this sacrament, you have to have the correct matter (a man to ordain), the correct intent (to ordain him a bishop in the Catholic Church, which has the implication that he will confect the sacrifice) and the proper form (in this instance, whatever the pope says it is! Unlike the essential form for the Eucharist, “this is My Body,” and “this is My Blood,” there is not specific set of words handed down in Scripture for the ordination of a bishop (or a priest or a deacon), other than perhaps the invocation of the Holy Spirit). Why aren’t Anglican orders valid? Because the pope, the supreme legislator, said they weren’t! This is a poor argument posited by those who think that Quo Primum had the authority to bind future popes on disciplinary matters regarding the Mass (as opposed to dogmatic/doctrinal ones). It didn’t. The Church has the authority to govern the sacraments, as long as the essentials are maintained (she can’t say to use oil for baptism, or water for annointing, or a rock and sea water in place of bread and wine).

 

[bigdawg]

ByzCath:

I do not understand this statement.

How can he be a “brilliant apologist” when he has left the Church and is in error if not out right heresy himself.

It does seem a little odd doesn’t it?

I strongly disagree with his venture in to sedevacantism but I do give credit to him for all the work he has done thus far and would expect that his work outside of this particular error will still be strong.

 

[Sparky]

JKirkLVNV:

Absolutely absurd. If the Pope, who cannot lead the Church into error, promulgates a liturgy to ordain bishops in the apostolic succession, then that liturgy is adequate to the purpose and cannot be otherwise, regardless of what Pope Leo said about something similar being used by a schismatic group (the Anglican service sounds very much like the Old Sarum rite, which was allowed by the Church, I think, until Trent, but they still cannot confect the Sacrifice).

The thing is, they didn’t have the authority to change the rite of ordination, but the Pope does.

And if they’re right and all these men were not validly ordained…then Hell has prevailed against the church and Jesus is a liar.

Ergo - Matatics is Protestant.
–Ann

 

[Sparky]

bigdawg:

It does seem a little odd doesn’t it?

I strongly disagree with his venture in to sedevacantism but I do give credit to him for all the work he has done thus far and would expect that his work outside of this particular error will still be strong.

Being smart and accomplished doesn’t excuse stupid behavior.
–Ann

 

[bigdawg]

Sparky:

Being smart and accomplished doesn’t excuse stupid behavior.
–Ann

Nope, but his venture away from the church should not discredit his past work nor should it ipso facto discredit everything he produces in the future.

 

[Sparky]

bigdawg:

Nope, but his venture away from the church should not discredit his past work nor should it ipso facto discredit everything he produces in the future.

It should indeed discredit anything he produces in the future with regard to the Church, as he no longer has the church’s interests at heart. He believes Hell has prevailed, therefore, he, himself, his a heretic.
–Ann

 

[Scott_Waddell]

If there really is a lack of charity by a poster, report it immediatley and let the mods decide. Otherwise throwing this accusation out is just a lame rhetorical device.

Scott

 

[bigdawg]

Sparky:

It should indeed discredit anything he produces in the future with regard to the Church, …
–Ann

Not necessarily. It is still very possible for him to write or debate effectively against sola scriptura, faith alone, etc.

Due to his denial of baptism of desire and his belief in sedevacantism I would stay away from certain topics he may cover in the future but not necessarily all of them.

 

[manualman]

SherlockH:

Hmm. I just looked at all of Tarcisius’ postings and have come to the conclusion that the true identity of Tarcisius is . . .

none other than. . .

Karl Keating himself! :tsktsk:

Several things in Tarcisius’ postings and Karl’s e-letter gave him away:

1). Mentioning in an e-letter that Tarcisius was his favorite Saint as a boy

2). He lives near a big church that looks like an ugly barn

3). Him bringing to light some concerns about Scott Hahn’s theology.

4). Tarcisius’ and Karl’s writing styles are almost identical.

Nobody is intrigued by this detective work? A quick scan of posts DOES reveal somebody with initmate knowledge of the catholic publishing and broadcasting industry! Better change your screen name more often! Too easy to search posts by author. In the same circumstance, I’D want to get some anonymous feedback to my thoughts too.

Wait a minute, Sherlock. ONE post? Sniff sniff. Gerry, is that you?

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

bigdawg:

Not necessarily. It is still very possible for him to write or debate effectively against sola scriptura, faith alone, etc.

Due to his denial of baptism of desire and his belief in sedevacantism I would stay away from certain topics he may cover in the future but not necessarily all of them.

All of his work is tainted.

On top of that, any support you give, though the purchase of works by this man or though paying for conferences that he is part of supports all his works.

 

[bigdawg]

ByzCath:

All of his work is tainted.

On top of that, any support you give, though the purchase of works by this man or though paying for conferences that he is part of supports all his works.

All of his work is not tainted. There is no way to make a logical argument that “all” of his work is tainted since “all of his work” includes work done in the past that is orthodox and fits in perfectly with Catholic dogma/doctrine. Any work that he has done in the past that is orthodox doesn’t magically become flawed by his current sedevacantist position.

As far as his future work goes…well, we will have to wait and see what he does there. There are certainly particular areas I would stay away from…such as authority and obedience.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

bigdawg:

All of his work is not tainted. There is no way to make a logical argument that “all” of his work is tainted since “all of his work” includes work done in the past that is orthodox and fits in perfectly with Catholic dogma/doctrine. Any work that he has done in the past that is orthodox doesn’t magically become flawed by his current sedevacantist position.

As far as his future work goes…well, we will have to wait and see what he does there. There are certainly particular areas I would stay away from…such as authority and obedience.

All of his work is tainted. I stand by that.

It is tainted for two reasons.

1. The purchase of such things supplies him with the means to spread his error.
2. The use of his material can lead people into his error.

There are more than enough apologists who are in communion with the True Church of Christ, no need in resorting to those who place themselves in authority over the Church.

 

[maggieodae]

ByzCath:

All of his work is tainted. I stand by that.

It is tainted for two reasons.

1. The purchase of such things supplies him with the means to spread his error.
2. The use of his material can lead people into his error.

There are more than enough apologists who are in communion with the True Church of Christ, no need in resorting to those who place themselves in authority over the Church.

Yep! And the Early Church Fathers would concur…“Let him be anethmeia”.

 

[Sparky]

Very good point, ByzCath.
–Ann

 

[cmt]

ByzCath:

All of his work is tainted. I stand by that.

It is tainted for two reasons.

1. The purchase of such things supplies him with the means to spread his error.
2. The use of his material can lead people into his error.

There are more than enough apologists who are in communion with the True Church of Christ, no need in resorting to those who place themselves in authority over the Church.

I concur. He is no longer anyone to look to for truth of our faith. All of his material is now useless.

 

[Karl_Keating]

SherlockH:

What about the New Oxford Review? I’ve heard him praise it several times and his name is on the list of contributing editors, but I’ve never seen an article with his name as author. . .

Yes, my name is listed on the masthead of the New Oxford Review, but I have not written for the magazine–and, if I ever do write for it, it will be under my own name. My “contributions” have been chiefly in the form of legal advice to the editor on such matters as the “fair use” doctrine (how much you can quote from a copyrighted work).

Sherlock’s other speculations are amusing. Unfortunately (or fortunately?) for him, out of our 30,000 members there are not a few whose writing styles appear similar to mine. After all, there are only so many ways to say something in 100 words or less.

Come to think of it, Sherlock’s own post reads as though I might have written it …

 

[pnewton]

Karl Keating:

Come to think of it, Sherlock’s own post reads as though I might have written it …

Maybe they both have read one too many This Rock’s (if there is such a thing).