Gerry Matatics R.I.P

[trth_skr]

Tarcisius:

…This is crazy! The guy has read himself right out of the Church and into a church of his own making.

I wonder if the traditionalists who used to promote him, such as The Remnant and Catholic Family News newspapers and writer Christopher Ferrara, will have the courage to come out now and condemn the positions Matatics has taken and to say that he is no longer a Catholic.

A lot of people who supported him over the years have some egg on their face, true (and clearly Karl Keating was correct about him a long time ago).

Still, it is really a sign of how treacherous the spiritual world has gotten these days (I know there were other particularly difficult times). As I say in my blog regarding this (Karl Keating was Right About Gerry Matatics ):

This episode is another example of how tricky navigating the spiritual world is today with the Church’s authority in shambles, and ambiguity reigning. I hope and pray that Benedict XVI will turn the situatuion around.

Mark Wyatt
www.veritas-catholic.blogspot.com

 

[Traditional_Ang]

maggieodae:

According to recent surveys? I do not live by surveys young man. I live by the truth and love of Christ. As a life long Catholic, I find it beyond the pale for those who come in and out, to bash something they know not and they fail miserbly in a Holy Tradition called Obeidience. And NO young Johny come lately is going to make me swallow dung, just to suit thier agenda. Matatics has spend 20 years being a nitwit…not a Catholic. There are many who call themselves Catholic, who are Judas Goats. That has been true in every age.

Maggie:

Gerry Matatics is wrong, not the devil or Judas, and I think the vitriol i see directed at him is uncalled for and will not avail to bring him or any of his compratriots back into Holy Mother Church.

I would hope that, if I or you were to fall into serious error, that some would pray for us while others took it upon themselves to correct our errors and lead us back home. Vatican II committed the Church to a process of dialogue, evangelism and prayer in order to do that with the Prostestants and the other “Seperated Brethren”, and because of that, and some very patient work by this Pope and the Previous one, my Archbishop is very nearly ready to bring some 285,000 Traditional Anglicans home to Rome from their exile in Canterbury.

Maybe we should look at the example of the two Popes in trying to bring the TAC home and apply the lesson to Gerry, and to stop beating up on the poor man who is just simply lost and wrong.

It is said St. Abbot Moses of the Desert, when asked to pass judgment on a fellow brother, came late to the meeting and brought a leaky basket filled with sand saying, “I’ve been asked to pass judgment on my brother, and yet here are all my sins trailing out after me.”

I will not pass judgment on Gerry for, “Here are all of my sins trrailing out after me.”

Do as you will,
Michael

 

[Traditional_Ang]

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.

Bigdawg:

The fact is that the Early Church used the Orthodox works of Heretics and Schismatics to defend the faith when they thought the works did so in a particularly sdillful way:

So they used Origin, Tertulian, Hyppolytus and a whole slew of others, and allowed them to receive renumeration for their work even while they were heretics and schismatics.

In many cases, this magninimity caused the heretics to reexamine their stands and their beliefs and to submit themselves to the Church, so some of these people who were Heretics and Schismatics became Martyrs for the fiath and Canonized Saints on our Calendar.

The Pegan Historian said that he “knew Christians by their love one for another”, not by how correct their doctrine was.

That’s what attracted so many to the early church in spite of the real threat of death, and caused many to join the Christians on the arena floor in order to die with them.

Maybe we should try loving and praying for Gerry instead of anethematizing him.

Pretend he’s the younger son who just took his inheritance off to a far land and is now spending it in dissipation and carrousing.

We all know there were two other characters in that story - Which one do we want to be? I know I was just brought back as the Prodigal not so long ago…

In Christ, Michael

 

[maggieodae]

All well and good. The main thing is pray for him. That I do. But if you all don’t mind, and** even if you do…**I do not stand and let such people represent the Holy Catholic Church, and **Bash our Pope **at the same time. I am offended by Mr. Matatics and I shall not white wash his error, nor over look his vitrol against our Holy Church.

You can play PC if you wish. I call a spade a **SPADE! **

Do I care about him and pray for him…you bet. Do I have to be PC just to please you all.** No.** I do not.

I will not stand by idle and allow people to think he is correct in attacking our church, in any way, shape ot form. Should I happen to run into him, I would tell him the same. That said: "DO NOT tell me I do not care for his soul. I very much do. But again…I don’t suffer heritic’s by being mealy mouthed about their error. You take your approach and that is fine. I am well aware of my duty to Christ to love the sinner and hate the sin. I take my faith very seriously.
.

 

[trth_skr]

maggieodae:

…
I suggest you harang someone else. And as you are not Roman Catholic, I do not see where you have a right to tell our church how to treat a heretic.

Wow! The Church sure moves fast these days. When was he declared a heretic by the Church? I must have missed the announcement.

Mark Wyatt
www.veritas-catholic.blogspot.com

 

[maggieodae]

trth_skr:

Wow! The Church sure moves fast these days. When was he declared a heretic by the Church? I must have missed the announcement.

Mark Wyatt
www.veritas-catholic.blogspot.com

No you didn’t…I just did!

As with every other sin, Christians must strive not to attribute the sin of heresy to their neighbour as long as another explanation remains possible. But charity does not require mental gymnastics in order to excuse what is manifest.

Private individuals can recognise someone as a heretic before the direct judgment of the church, if the false doctrine is in manifest and direct opposition to a truth that must certainly be believed with divine and Catholic faith.

It is morally certain that the culprit is aware of the conflict between his opinion and the teaching of the Catholic Church.

The private individual may “judge” that someone is a heretic in the sense of recognising a fact - the epistemological meaning of the word “judge” - and not in the juridical sense of pronouncing a definitive sentence. Hence such judgments can oblige only the conscience of the person forming them, and no one else.
Denzinger 1105: Pope Alexander VII condemned the statement that one is not obliged to denounce to the authorities someone whom one knows to be certainly a heretic if one does not have strict proof that he is a heretic. This condemnation directly implies that private individuals can sometimes know that someone is a heretic before the authorities of the Church realise this, and even without having strict proof.

St Alphonsus Liguori treats the duty of denouncing heretics even among the members of one’s own family. He declares that this duty obliges without exception, but only when the miscreant is truly and formally a heretic and not only suspected or erring in good faith. This distinction, presented in a clear and detailed manner, would be perfectly otiose if individuals were unable to recognise heretics before the authorities had intervened. So St Alphonsus clearly presumes that individuals can at times distinguish suspicion of heresy from certainty and can recognise the presence or absence of pertinacity. (Theologia Moralis, lib. 5, n. 250)

Canon 1325 gives the classic definition of the word “heretic”, taken from St Thomas: “a baptised person who, while continuing to call himself a Christian, pertinaciously denies or doubts a truth which must be believed with divine and Catholic faith.” Canonists are agreed that the pertinacity in question consists in knowing that the doctrine one denies (or doubts) is taught by the Church as revealed. No other condition, such as authoritative judgment is required to make someone a heretic.

Holy Scripture often warns us to beware of heretics. It does not seem possible to understand all these texts as referring exclusively to those who have been condemned as such in person by the Church or who belong to sects which are notoriously outside her communion

 

[Jaypeeto3]

cmri.org/95prog9-3.htm

I don’t share all the views expressed in the link above.
But I’m sure Mr. Matatics does.
If we’re going to blast the daylights out of the man, we ought at least to see a representative sampling of why he and people like him think the way they do. It’s ONLY FAIR.
Love, Jaypeeto3

 

[maggieodae]

cmri.org/95prog9-3.htm

I don’t share all the views expressed in the link above.
But I’m sure Mr. Matatics does.
If we’re going to blast the daylights out of the man, we ought at least to see a representative sampling of why he and people like him think the way they do. It’s ONLY FAIR.
Love, Jaypeeto3

You can check Mr Matatics statement for that in the first post. So how does it fit that Mr. Matatics can call our Popes heretic’s and no one has the right to call him one.
Mr Matatic's:

I believe, and publicly teach, that the Catholic Church has always infallibly taught that because **heretics ** are not members of the Catholic Church, they cannot validly hold office in the Church, according to divine law, and that, should they seem to hold such offices, the believing Catholic must conclude that their election to and possession of such offices is null and void. This would include, not only the manifest heretics John XXIII, Paul VI, John Paul I, and John Paul II, but also the manifest heretic and present illicit and invalid occupant of the See of Peter, Benedict XVI, who has the further handicap (unlike his immediate four predecessors) of not even having been validly consecrated a bishop, which, in addition to all other considerations, makes it impossible for him to therefore function as Bishop of Rome.

 

[trth_skr]

maggieodae:

…
Canon 1325 gives the classic definition of the word “heretic”, taken from St Thomas: “a baptised person who, while continuing to call himself a Christian, pertinaciously denies or doubts a truth which must be believed with divine and Catholic faith.” Canonists are agreed that the pertinacity in question consists in knowing that the doctrine one denies (or doubts) is taught by the Church as revealed. No other condition, such as authoritative judgment is required to make someone a heretic.

…

**

dictionary:

pertinacious

adj

1. Determined in one’s purpose; dogged; tenacious.

• Thesaurus: obstinate, stubborn, insistent, willful, headstrong, mulish, unyielding, persistent, resolute, persevering, dogged, tenacious, gritty, tough, determined.**

I would agree that he has taken a heretical position. Maybe I am mincing words, but I think we need to give him time to be corrected and consider his position. I do realize there were signs of this coming.

Maybe you feel that he took heretical position previous to announcing his latest position, but I would argue that as far as formal heresy goes, the clock really started when he publicly announced his position. I agree that to God the clock started when he took the position in his heart. We really do not know when that was (at least I do not).

Mark Wyatt
www.veritas-catholic.blogspot.com

 

[maggieodae]

Mr Matatic's:

I believe, and publicly teach, that the Catholic Church has always infallibly taught that because heretics are not members of the Catholic Church, they cannot validly hold office in the Church, according to divine law, and that, should they seem to hold such offices, the believing Catholic must conclude that their election to and possession of such offices is null and void. **This would include, not only the manifest heretics ** John XXIII, Paul VI, John Paul I, and John Paul II, but also the manifest heretic and present illicit and invalid occupant of the See of Peter, Benedict XVI, who has the further handicap (unlike his immediate four predecessors) of not even having been validly consecrated a bishop, which, in addition to all other considerations, makes it impossible for him to therefore function as Bishop of Rome.

I think you need to take that up with Mr Matatic’s.

[CCC 889] In order to preserve the Church in the purity of the faith handed on by the apostles, Christ who is the Truth willed to confer on her a share in his own infallibility. By a “supernatural sense of faith” the People of God, under the guidance of the Church’s living Majisterium, “unfailingly adheres to this faith.”

[CCC 890] The mission of the Majisterium is linked to the definitive nature of the covenant established by God with his people in Christ. It is this Majisterium’s task to preserve God’s people from deviations and defections and to guarantee them the objective possibility of professing the true faith without error. Thus, the pastoral duty of the Majisterium is aimed at seeing to it that the People of God abides in the truth that liberates. To fulfill this service, Christ endowed the Church’s shepherds with the charism of infallibility in matters of faith and morals. The exercise of this charism takes several forms:

[CCC 891] “The Roman Pontiff, head of the college of bishops, enjoys this infallibility in virtue of his office, when, as supreme pastor and teacher of all the faithful - who confirms his brethren in the faith - he proclaims by a definitive act a doctrine pertaining to faith and morals … The infallibility promised to the Church is also present in the body of bishops when, together with Peter’s successor, they exercise the Supreme Majisterium,” above all in an Ecumenical Council. When the Church through its supreme Majisterium proposes a doctrine “for belief as being divinely revealed,” and as the teaching of Christ, the definitions "must be adhered to with the obedience of faith. This infallibility extends as far as the deposit of Divine Revelation itself.

And Gerry is NOT part of the Majisterium. He is diabolically opposed to the Truth of Christ and His church. He went to great pains to declare himself just that. A heritic who teaches error.In his own words: I believe, and publicly teach,

 

[Jaypeeto3]

Mr. Matatics has basically merely said that he considers the last 4 popes to have been invalidly elected. That sure may be erroneous, but doubting the validity of the election of any particular man does not rise to the level of “heresy,” especially if that man has said or written things that can be taken two ways and if the doubter sincerely believes in his heart that the man elected is himself in error PRIOR to his election. Heresy, per se, is the pertinacious denial of an infallibly defined dogma of the Catholic faith. Which Catholic DOGMA has Gerry Matatics denied? None that I know of.
Love, Jaypeeto3

 

[maggieodae]

**

I would agree that he has taken a heretical position. Maybe I am mincing words, but I think we need to give him time to be corrected and consider his position. I do realize there were signs of this coming.

Maybe you feel that he took heretical position previous to announcing his latest position, but I would argue that as far as formal heresy goes, the clock really started when he publicly announced his position. I agree that to God the clock started when he took the position in his heart. We really do not know when that was (at least I do not).

Mark Wyatt
www.veritas-catholic.blogspot.com**

Yes, I think you are mincing words… so we can agree at least that he has Publicly stated his position and his intention to teach error? Pray for him I do. Stand around and white wash his heresy…nope! Not gonna happen.

Pax

 

[trth_skr]

maggieodae:

… so we can agree at least that he has Publicly stated his position and his intention to teach error? Pray for him I do. Stand around and white wash his heresy…nope! Not gonna happen.

Pax

I agree with the first point.

I think you could go through this forum and find a lot of opinions that are “heretical”; though mostly likely out of ingnorance. We do not call these people heretics. Since Gerry does hold himself up as a teacher and / or apologist, I suppose we should hold him to a higher standard than a participant on a forum.

I will pray for him,

Mark Wyatt
www.veritas-catholic.blogspot.com

 

[pnewton]

Jaypeeto3:

Heresy, per se, is the pertinacious denial of an infallibly defined dogma of the Catholic faith. Which Catholic DOGMA has Gerry Matatics denied? None that I know of.

But where there Bishop of Rome is, there is the Catholic Church. One who separates from him, separates from the Church.

 

[Traditional_Ang]

maggieodae:

All well and good. The main thing is pray for him. That I do. But if you all don’t mind, and** even if you do…**I do not stand and let such people represent the Holy Catholic Church, and **Bash our Pope ** at the same time. I am offended by Mr. Matatics and I shall not white wash his error, nor over look his vitrol against our Holy Church.

You can play PC if you wish. I call a spade a **SPADE! **

Do I care about him and pray for him…you bet. Do I have to be PC just to please you all.** No.** I do not.

I will not stand by idle and allow people to think he is correct in attacking our church, in any way, shape ot form. Should I happen to run into him, I would tell him the same. That said: "DO NOT tell me I do not care for his soul. I very much do. But again…I don’t suffer heritic’s by being mealy mouthed about their error. You take your approach and that is fine. Now get off my back as to what is my duty. I am well aware of my duty to Christ to love the sinner and hate the sin. I take my faith very seriously.

I suggest you harang someone else. And as you are not Roman Catholic, I do not see where you have a right to tell our church how to treat a heretic.

Maggie:

I wasn’t telling the Church what to do about Gerry Matatics - I’m sure the competent authories will do whatever is needed to deal with the situation appropriately. I was only asking that the issuance of “Anathemas” be left to those authorites and that we do as our Lord asked and try to show the man some mercy and lovingkindness in the hopes that would aid in his repentence.

I do not see how asking for mercy to be shown even a heretic or an apostate should get anyone such a vitriolic reaction.

People on this forum are pronouncing “Anathemas” on this man, which means they are consigning him to the devil. That’s serious business.

I understand that, when Christians are obstinent in their heresy, this must be brought to the attention of the Church, esp. in those instances where they are in positions were they can lead others astray.

I also understand that, the souls of those lead astray by obstinent heretics are not only on the heads of the heretics, but of those who fail to try to correct the heretics.

I just don’t see how pronouncing “Anathemas” and spewing venom will help us to correct Gerry’s heresy or to caution the unwarry from following him.

Regarding my situation. I live in an archdiocese with a reputation for heterodoxy, and have discussed that at length with a priest who is a former student of Pope Benedict XVI, who agrees with me that what I’m doing (trying to bring the TAC in with me so that I will have priests and bishops over me who will submit to the Pope) is probably the best option.

After your vitriolic attack, I’m not so sure of the welcome we’d receive.

I’m sorry if I offended you, but I fail to see how pleading for mercy to be shown so that it could aid in the repentence of Gerry Matatics is in any way PC or merited the vitriolic response I received from you.

In Christ, Michael

 

[Traditional_Ang]

Jaypeeto3:

Hi Maggieodae,
THANK you for calling me a young man, you really made my day, cuz I’m 45 and feel every bit of it !!
Seriously, though, your last post was really vitriolic.
Matatics may be wrong, but he is not a nitwit. Have you ever heard him defend the Catholic faith against skilled protestant opponents like James White? If you have, you’d KNOW he is no nitwit. You should find out WHAT led him to the position he now holds and then patiently and kindly show him WHERE he is wrong and WHY. You might even win him over. That last post was really ugly and completely unbefitting a Christian.
Love, Jaypeeto3

Jay:

I think Maggie’s too angry to listen.

I begged for mercy, quoted Scipture and the Verba Senorum, and you see the response I got.

It’s really too bad, what brings us into the Kingdom is God’s mercy and love. We have to know that we are Sinners in need of Saving, but if all we had was the recognition of our wretched situation, we’d do what Judas did and go hang ourselves. What brings us back like St. Peter is the knowledge that Jesus died for each one of us and that He forgives each one of us.

I get the feeling a few of the posters have forgotten that.

In Christ, Michael

 

[maggieodae]

Traditional Ang:

Maggie:

I wasn’t telling the Church what to do about Gerry Matatics - I’m sure the competent authories will do whatever is needed to deal with the situation appropriately. I was only asking that the issuance of “Anathemas” be left to those authorites and that we do as our Lord asked and try to show the man some mercy and lovingkindness in the hopes that would aid in his repentence.

I do not see how asking for mercy to be shown even a heretic or an apostate should get anyone such a vitriolic reaction.

People on this forum are pronouncing “Anathemas” on this man, which means they are consigning him to the devil. That’s serious business.

I understand that, when Christians are obstinent in their heresy, this must be brought to the attention of the Church, esp. in those instances where they are in positions were they can lead others astray.

I also understand that, the souls of those lead astray by obstinent heretics are not only on the heads of the heretics, but of those who fail to try to correct the heretics.

I just don’t see how pronouncing “Anathemas” and spewing venom will help us to correct Gerry’s heresy or to caution the unwarry from following him.

Regarding my situation. I live in an archdiocese with a reputation for heterodoxy, and have discussed that at length with a priest who is a former student of Pope Benedict XVI, who agrees with me that what I’m doing (trying to bring the TAC in with me so that I will have priests and bishops over me who will submit to the Pope) is probably the best option.

After your vitriolic attack, I’m not so sure of the welcome we’d receive.

I’m sorry if I offended you, but I fail to see how pleading for mercy to be shown so that it could aid in the repentence of Gerry Matatics is in any way PC or merited the vitriolic response I received from you.

In Christ, Michael

I suggest you get over it. You make it out as a vitrolic attack on **you. ** Nope…it is not. Just don’t get in my face with your take and expect me to smile and be silent. That is not going to happen. It is not you we are talking about. If you want to dispute your PC languge and my PC language…I suggest another thread.

A heritic is a heritic. Don’t push my button’s and I won’t push yours.

 

[Traditional_Ang]

maggieodae:

I suggest you get over it. You make it out as a vitrolic attack on **you. ** Nope…it is not. Just don’t get in my face with your take and expect me to smile and be silent. That is not going to happen. It is not you we are talking about. If you want to dispute your PC languge and my PC language…I suggest another thread.

A heritic is a heritic. Don’t push my button’s and I won’t push yours.

Maggie:

I don’t see how what I say to you is taken so personally (“Just don’t get in my face”) while I’m supposed to understand that whatever you’re saying is somehow being sent to no one in particular and not to be taken as an attack.

(from your #44) The suggestion that I had no right to comment on this affair, since I’m not a Catholic and my opinion differs from yours is a personal…(please fill in the blank). The statement that I’m haranging you when I had made 2 posts (at the time) on the issue (1 quoting Scripture and 1 the Verba Senorum), while you had made 7 fairly extensive posts on the same issue has to be an … (fill in the blank)

It seemed as if you took my 2 posts more than personally, and then made statements that were very personal.

Again, I fail to see how asking for mercy to be shown so that a man might be brought to repentence is either “Getting in your face” or PC.

FYI, I have the same rights to comment on this or any other thread as you do, so I suggest that you find a way to address me and the issue civilly.

I’m not the enemy. The Devil is, and he loves nothing better than to see us with our teeth bared and the knives drawn going for a good old fashioned round of “I’m right! You’re wrong!”

Since we can’t seem to maintain civil conversation, or refer to this man as anything but the dveil incarnate, I see no reason why this thread should remain open.

I also see no reason to make the Devil happy at this time.

The thread is yours. Do with it as you will.

In Christ, Michael

 

[maggieodae]

Traditional Ang:

Maggie:

I don’t see how what I say to you is taken so personally (“Just don’t get in my face”) while I’m supposed to understand that whatever you’re saying is somehow being sent to no one in particular and not to be taken as an attack.

(from your #44) The suggestion that I had no right to comment on this affair, since I’m not a Catholic and my opinion differs from yours is a personal…(please fill in the blank). The statement that I’m haranging you when I had made 2 posts (at the time) on the issue (1 quoting Scripture and 1 the Verba Senorum), while you had made 7 fairly extensive posts on the same issue has to be an … (fill in the blank)

It seemed as if you took my 2 posts more than personally, and then made statements that were very personal.

Again, I fail to see how asking for mercy to be shown so that a man might be brought to repentence is either “Getting in your face” or PC.

FYI, I have the same rights to comment on this or any other thread as you do, so I suggest that you find a way to address me and the issue civilly.

I’m not the enemy. The Devil is, and he loves nothing better than to see us with our teeth bared and the knives drawn going for a good old fashioned round of “I’m right! You’re wrong!”

Since we can’t seem to maintain civil conversation, or refer to this man as anything but the dveil incarnate, I see no reason why this thread should remain open.

I also see no reason to make the Devil happy at this time.

The thread is yours. Do with it as you will.

In Christ, Michael

There you go again…The thread is **NOT ** about you or about me. It is about Gerry…who attested **in his own writing ** to oppose MY church…MY Pope, My Lord and Apostolic Secession. Not your church. Not your belief. So don’t expect ME to bow to your belief and method of judging an apostate… Love ya, but you do not have a say in my church.

 

[cmt]

Traditional Ang:

Maggie:

I don’t see how what I say to you is taken so personally (“Just don’t get in my face”) while I’m supposed to understand that whatever you’re saying is somehow being sent to no one in particular and not to be taken as an attack.

(from your #44) The suggestion that I had no right to comment on this affair, since I’m not a Catholic and my opinion differs from yours is a personal…(please fill in the blank). The statement that I’m haranging you when I had made 2 posts (at the time) on the issue (1 quoting Scripture and 1 the Verba Senorum), while you had made 7 fairly extensive posts on the same issue has to be an … (fill in the blank)

It seemed as if you took my 2 posts more than personally, and then made statements that were very personal.

Again, I fail to see how asking for mercy to be shown so that a man might be brought to repentence is either “Getting in your face” or PC.

FYI, I have the same rights to comment on this or any other thread as you do, so I suggest that you find a way to address me and the issue civilly.

I’m not the enemy. The Devil is, and he loves nothing better than to see us with our teeth bared and the knives drawn going for a good old fashioned round of “I’m right! You’re wrong!”

Since we can’t seem to maintain civil conversation, or refer to this man as anything but the dveil incarnate, I see no reason why this thread should remain open.

I also see no reason to make the Devil happy at this time.

The thread is yours. Do with it as you will.

In Christ, Michael

Well, as Catholic’s I should say…It is our Church and to post our displeasure is our right. The rest of your post…Ya lost me!