Gerry Matatics

[atsheeran]

Check this out:

gerrymatatics.org/mass.html

Gerry Matatics is doing a lecture tour called “Unmasking the New Mass”. I get the feeling that he is not just presenting a set of theoretical arguments that one could proffer if they were rejecting the Novus Ordo. It looks like he does indeed reject it.

Also, check out this bit.

 

[mark_a]

atsheeran:

Check this out:

gerrymatatics.org/mass.html

Gerry Matatics is doing a lecture tour called “Unmasking the New Mass”. I get the feeling that he is not just presenting a set of theoretical arguments that one could proffer if they were rejecting the Novus Ordo. It looks like he does indeed reject it.

Also, check out this bit.

I checked this out, but I don’t understand. Does his rejection of Novus Ordo mean he rejects the Church, Pope, magisterium, his bishop? None, some, or all of the above?

I guess things are better for us Catholics since Gerry converted. Now only most (as opposed to all) of us are misled.

 

[atsheeran]

mark a:

Does his rejection of Novus Ordo mean he rejects the Church, Pope, magisterium, his bishop?

I don’t see how you can be in communion with the Pope and at the same time hold that the Pope is participating in the “final apostasy” which consists of “the abomination of desolation standing in the holy place”. Am I way off here?

 

[TNT]

atsheeran:

Check this out:

gerrymatatics.org/mass.html

Gerry Matatics is doing a lecture tour called “Unmasking the New Mass”. I get the feeling that he is not just presenting a set of theoretical arguments that one could proffer if they were rejecting the Novus Ordo. It looks like he does indeed reject it.

Also, check out this bit.

I did read it. Thanks.
The only thing he left out was the CCC:
The Church’s ultimate trial
675 : Before Christ’s second coming the Church must pass through a final trial that will shake the faith of many believers.574 The persecution that accompanies her pilgrimage on earth575 will unveil the “mystery of iniquity” in the form of a religious deception offering men an apparent solution to their problems at the price of apostasy from the truth. The supreme religious deception is that of the Antichrist, a pseudo-messianism by which man glorifies himself in place of God and of his Messiah come in the flesh.576

Now, exactly HOW would you or I be “deceived” in which “man glorifies himself” ? Tough question. I do remember all the sudden emphasis on “man” never before heard of in the history of the Church until VATII. Nah, that can’t be it!

 

[challenger]

TNT:

He did no such thing. Yes, you’ll have to read Karl’s question to Gerry earlier.

In a Q & A on Sungenis’ website, he mentioned that Matatics won’t go to a NO because he thinks it’s invalid. Since Sungenis and Matatics seem to be friends and know each other, Sungenis is probably right on this one.

 

[TNT]

Originally Posted by TNT
He did no such thing. Yes, you’ll have to read Karl’s question to Gerry earlier.

challenger:

In a Q & A on Sungenis’ website, he mentioned that Matatics won’t go to a NO because he thinks it’s invalid. Since Sungenis and Matatics seem to be friends and know each other, Sungenis is probably right on this one.

At the time I posted that I was refering exclusively to Karl’s question, and his reciting Gerry’s answer.
However I will not argue your valid point concerning other site quotes.

Thanks.

 

[Sean_O_L]

Mr S wrote:

Third, the distinction might be between the valid NO, and in invalid NO (where some priests have incorporated thier own changes and/or abuses or personal “norms”.

What precisely are the abuses that you believe would lead to the Pauline Mass to be invalid?

Are they any different to those which would cause the Latin so-called “Tridentine” Mass to be invalid?

 

[Sean_O_L]

TNT wrote:

Today confusion prevails …until you go back to the old teachers, popes and apologists. That is what I did. And confusion dissapated and continuity prevailed…

So when, according to Peter da Rosa, St Gregory the Great allegedly said:

that all sexual desire is sinful in itself - sex is only for the sake of children. Intercourse, he said, is sinful not only during pregnancy but during lactation, too. After a man slept with his wife, he may not enter a church until he had purged himself by penance and washing, for his will remains evil. Marriage is not sinful, but sex between partners assuredly is! (“Vicars of Christ” p.452.) Writing to St Augustine in England: “Sexual desire is absolutely impossible without fault” - needs penance. (VOC pp.451/2.)

that priests’ marriages WERE VALID - but the priest had to choose; wife or ministry! Calixtus II {160th} would later contradict Gregory I by decreeing that all clerical marriages were to be broken up - the marriages WERE INVALID! (VOC p.572.)

that unbaptised babies go straight to hell and suffer there for eternity. (VOC pp.289, 452 & 455.)

Are these matters of Faith and Morals, or of discipline? Would you agree with St Gregory the Great on those matters? Would you side with him against Calixtus II?

Innocent VIII, allegedly. in his 1484, Dec.: Bull – Summis disiderantes affectibus: (VOC p.256.) wrote”

"Men and women straying from the Catholic faith have abandoned themselves to devils, incubi and succubi…” (male and female sexual partners)

Do you believe in incubi and succubi?

The same Innocent VIII also, allegedly, was the first pope to enter into an accommodation with Christ’s “enemy” - the Muslims; for 40,000 ducats yearly and the gift of the “Holy Lance” he detained the Sultan’s brother (the Sultan’s foe) in close confinement at Rome. (Oxford Dictionary of Popes and Keepers of the Keys, The Pope in History; p.187.)

It seems that accommodations with Islam is not an innovation, wouldn’t you agree?

St Pius V WAS a great pope and saint – but did you know that he failed the Irish?

In 1570, the Irish looked to the Pope and to Spain for assistance. But she got assistance from neither…Pius V showed himself no more interested in Ireland’s troubles than his predecessor, John XXII, had done 250 years earlier. In fact, he expressed the strongest disapproval of the whole Geraldine plan that the crown of Ireland should be transferred to the King of Spain without having first obtained his (the Pope’s) consent. The Archbishop (FitzGibbon) was horrified at meeting opposition from Rome. There was he, a fugitive, his flock at the mercy of wolves; his country ruled by a heretic who had recently been excommunicated; there was he, the representative of Catholic Ireland, which had been faithful to the Holy See ever since St Patrick’s time 1,127 years ago, seeking the help from the one country which could give it - Spain; was he not justified in so doing? But Archbishop FitzGibbon got no further. (The Geraldines, by Brian Fitzgerald (a relative of mine.) p.266.)

Poor old Ireland had been “given” to Henry II by the Pope for a “pot of gold” (Peters Pence):

In 1317 the Irish sent to Pope John XXII their remonstrance against English oppression. But the Pope’s reply was promptly to excommunicate all Irishmen who took part in the war to drive the English out of Ireland! (TG p.88)

When the Irish went to Rome and complained of their ill-treatment at the hands of the English, what answer did they receive? A Papal Bull that reaffirmed the English over-lordship of the island (1317.) Pope after Pope habitually appointed Englishmen to fill the greater Irish sees. Armagh, Dublin, and Meath were rarely entrusted to anyone but of English birth. The reason is obvious. So long as Peter’s Pence continued to pour out of Ireland into the coffers of the Vatican, the Papacy had no desire to quarrel with the King of England. (TG p.237 & A History Of Ireland p.57.)

Ah, yes, TNT – how comforted you must feel that the “good old days” were not confusing or complicated and that there was … what was it? Continuation?

Talk about Ivory Towers!

The facts are that each human being is born into this world having the task to save his soul within the parameters of his environment; that means, for you and me, in the Church of today, under the possessor of the Power of the Keys who reigns today; he whom the Lord has promised will not infallibly compromise the Faith. We must be confident in the Holy Spirit’s continued Presence in Christ’s Catholic Church. Amen.

 

[Sean_O_L]

TNT wrote:

He never said the NOM is INvalid. He just said it would be sinful for him to receive communion at the NOM.

Which reminds me of the evasive mentality of Archbishop Lefebvre - as recounted by Fr. Kevin Robinson at the SSPX chapel at Hampton, Vic. Australia:

July 28, 1996
Fr Robinson of Hampton, Australia, during the Sermon on the Novus Ordo stated that Archbishop Lefebvre had NEVER described it as being invalid, nor heretical, nor not fulfilling the Sunday obligation.

At the same time, he had NEVER described it as being in the contrary sense, i.e., NOT BEING invalid, nor NOT BEING heretical, nor AS fulfilling the Sunday obligation, and had never said it himself. (Of course, he did not disclose that Lefebvre had actively participated in the Novus Ordo!!! Please refer to 30/6/1980 Item following.

June 30, 1980
"…in regard to the new mass, Mgr. Lefebvre knows how to join deeds with words and give an example. On 30 June 1980, on the occasion of the obsequies of a member of his family, accompanied by Fr. Simoulin, he assisted “actively” at “Luther’s mass” completely in the modern fashion. (ECÔNE FULL STOP, Fortes in Fide, by Fr Noél Barbara.

The Anything BUT Consistent Mind Of Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre!

 

[mark_a]

Now I’m really confused. Is Mr. Matatics in good standing with the Church?

I don’t know much about him, but have enjoyed some of his writings and his conversion story. I would like to attend a nearby event where he will speak, but only if he doesn’t muddy the water for me.

 

[tradcatmel]

I totally support Gerry Matatics. I’m sure we can all agree - that he has helped many people convert to catholicism.

What I wanted to point out was, ok, we all know that the Pope is inflallible…that’s not an issue.

But if the Pope was to teach heresy - are you obliged to follow him??

That is the stance that I take, I only go to the latin mass, because I believe that by VAT II, they have stripped the mass of it’s essential meaning.

The mass is not a memorial of the last supper.

It is truly the re-anactment of Calvary - a supreme sacrifice - in an unbloody manner.

As the bible says - (I’m paraphrasing here) - “by their fruits, thou shalt know them”.

tradcatmel

 

[Sean_O_L]

tradcatmel wrote:

But if the Pope was to teach heresy - are you obliged to follow him??

And, are YOU claiming that the post Vatican II pope(s) is/are teaching heresy, tradcatmel?

That is the stance that I take,

Well it looks like that IS what you mean. But, are you claiming that he/they are officially teaching heresy in relation to the Mass?

If you are - then haven’t the Gates of hell prevailed? - and, isn’t THAT heresy on your part?

I only go to the latin mass, because I believe that by VAT II, they have stripped the mass of it’s essential meaning.

Isn’t the “essential meaning” that "the mass is a true and proper sacrifice’? - per Canon 1 On the Sacrifice of the Mass, Chapter IX, Session XXII, Sept. 17, 1562, which says:

“If anyone saith that in the Mass a true and proper sacrifice is not offered to God…let him be anathema.”

The mass is not a memorial of the last supper.

But it IS a commemoration is it not? And, did not the Lord say at the Last Supper: "Do this (these things that I am doing) in commemoration of me? And weren’t “these things” in the context of a meal (Last Supper)?

It is truly the re-anactment of Calvary - a supreme sacrifice - in an unbloody manner.

As the bible says - (I’m paraphrasing here) - “by their fruits, thou shalt know them”.

Do you infer from this and the above that the normative liturgy of the Roman Mass - the so-called “Novus Ordo” Mass is not the “true” Mass; nota a “true and proper sacrifice”?

If so, then, this would bring you also under the anathema of the Council of Trent, would it not?

 

[tradcatmel]

Ok, hear me out here…
Muslims and Christians adore the same God by Pope John Paul II
*We Christians joyfully recognize the religious values we have in common with Islam. Today I would like to repeat what I said to young Muslims some years ago in Casablanca: “We believe in the same God, the one God, the living God, the God who created the world and brings his creatures to their perfection” (Insegnamenti, VIII/2, [1985], p. 497). *
in response to the pope’s comment that we believe in the same God as the Muslims (off islam-guide.com/ch3-2.htm)
Muslims believe in one, unique, incomparable God, Who has no son nor partner, and that none has the right to be worshipped but Him alone. He is the true God, and every other deity is false. He has the most magnificent names and sublime perfect attributes. No one shares His divinity, nor His attributes. In the Quran, God describes Himself:
http://www.islam-guide.com/aqwas-ys.jpg Say, “He is God, the One. God, to Whom the creatures turn for their needs. He begets not, nor was He begotten, and there is none like Him.” http://www.islam-guide.com/aqwas-ym.jpg

The Catholic Church has the answer by Paul Whitcomb says on pg 5.
Catholics believe there is one God consisting of three divine distinct and equal divine Persons - Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Genesis 1:26 - God says “Let us make man to our image and likeness.”
“He begets not, nor was He begotten and there is none like Him”
In Psalms 2:7 we read: "The Lord hath said to me: Thou art my son, this day have I begotten thee.
in the new testament
“This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased” Matthew 3:16-17

How can the God that we believe in be the same God that the Muslims believe in?
**Isn’t the “essential meaning” that "the mass is a true and proper sacrifice’? - per Canon 1 On the Sacrifice of the Mass, Chapter IX, Session XXII, Sept. 17, 1562, which says:

Quote:
**“If anyone saith that in the Mass a true and proper sacrifice is not offered to God…let him be anathema.” **
******I agree with the Council of Trent that the Mass is a true and proper sacrifice - but tell me which mass are they refering to in this council?? the mass of post vatican 2 or the tridentine rite that was said back in 1562??

Is Pope Paul saying that the new mass is a true and proper sacrifice in this next statement?
“The Lord’s Supper, or Mass, is a sacred synaxis, or assembly of the people of God gathered together under the presidency of the priest to celebrate the memorial of the Lord.” (Pope Paul VI, Institutio Generalis, §7, 1969 version)

There is no mention of sacrifice of calvary in an unbloody manner

The words of consecration, especially of the wine, have been tampered with. Has the “substance of the sacrament” been respected? pro multis (for many) has been deliberately mistranslated as “for all”.

But it IS a commemoration is it not? And, did not the Lord say at the Last Supper: "Do this (these things that I am doing) in commemoration of me? And weren’t “these things” in the context of a meal (Last Supper)?

I am not denying that Our Lord said that at all …I think I have a problem with “the context of a meal part”

Even though technically speaking - it was the Last Supper and yes, they were sharing a “meal” together, there is a deeper happening here.

Our Lord was instituting the Mass…“THIS IS MY BODY…THIS IS MY BLOOD”…He was not meaning these words as a symbol but an ACTUAL physical change from bread and wine to HIS BODY and BLOOD…therefore that is what the commemmoration part is about - transubstantiation not the meal

So, that is my explanation…don’t get me wrong ok, I am not in intelligent enough to argue whether it is valid or not valid,its not my call but I make my point clear that I prefer to stay in the tridentine rite where the words of consecration are what Our Lord actually said “FOR MANY” rather than FOR ALL.

 

[tradcatmel]

CONTINUED

No I don’t think it is heresy on my part = Our Lord did say that Hell would not prevail against HIS church - but he promised to be with HIS church always even unto the consummation of the world…we both agree on that = his promising to be with his church is Him truly present in the holy eucharist

the prophecy of Daniel says “And arms shall stand on his part, and they shall defile the sanctuary of strength, and shall take away the continual sacrifice, and they shall place there the abomination of unto desolation”…

continual sacrifice = sacrifice of the mass - making it a memorial ? Pope’s words again celebrate the memorial of the Lord

Hope that helped to clarify my statements.

 

[tradcatmel]

In response to this:

June 30, 1980
"…in regard to the new mass, Mgr. Lefebvre knows how to join deeds with words and give an example. On 30 June 1980, on the occasion of the obsequies of a member of his family, accompanied by Fr. Simoulin, he assisted “actively” at “Luther’s mass” completely in the modern fashion. (ECÔNE FULL STOP, Fortes in Fide, by Fr Noél Barbara
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Oracle/9463/marcel1.gif The Declaration of Archbishop Lefebvre
November 21, 1974

We hold fast, with all our heart and with all our soul, to Catholic Rome, Guardian of the Catholic faith and of the traditions necessary to preserve this faith, to Eternal Rome, Mistress of wisdom and truth.

We refuse, on the other hand, and have always refused to follow the Rome of neo-Modernist and neo-Protestant tendencies which were clearly evident in the Second Vatican Council and, after the Council, in all the reforms which issued from it.

All these reforms, indeed, have contributed and are still contributing to the destruction of the Church, to the ruin of the priesthood, to the abolition of the Sacrifice of the Mass and of the sacraments, to the disappearance of religious life, to a naturalist and Teilhardian teaching in universities, seminaries and catechectics; a teaching derived from Liberalism and Protestantism, many times condemned by the solemn Magisterium of the Church.

No authority, not even the highest in the hierarchy, can force us to abandon or diminish our Catholic faith, so clearly expressed and professed by the Church’s Magisterium for nineteen centuries.

“But though we,” says St. Paul, “or an angel from heaven preach a gospel to you besides that which we have preached to you, let him be anathema” (Gal. 1:8).

Is it not this that the Holy Father is repeating to us today? And if we can discern a certain contradiction in his words and deeds, as well as in those of the dicasteries, well we choose what was always taught and we turn a deaf ear to the novelties destroying the Church.

It is impossible to modify profoundly the lex orandi without modifying the lex credendi. To the Novus Ordo Missae correspond a new catechism, a new priesthood, new seminaries, a charismatic Pentecostal Church-all things opposed to orthodoxy and the perennial teaching of the Church.

This Reformation, born of Liberalism and Modernism, is poisoned through and through; it derives from heresy and ends in heresy, even if all its acts are not formally heretical. It is therefore impossible for any conscientious and faithful Catholic to espouse this Reformation or to submit to it in any way whatsoever.

The only attitude of faithfulness to the Church and Catholic doctrine, in view of our salvation, is a categorical refusal to accept this Reformation.

That is why, without any spirit of rebellion, bitterness or resentment, we pursue our work of forming priests, with the timeless Magisterium as our guide. We are persuaded that we can render no greater service to the Holy Catholic Church, to the Sovereign Pontiff and to posterity.

That is why we hold fast to all that has been believed and practiced in the faith, morals, liturgy, teaching of the catechism, formation of the priest and institution of the Church, by the Church of all time; to all these things as codified in those books which saw day before the Modernist influence of the Council. This we shall do until such time that the true light of Tradition dissipates the darkness obscuring the sky of Eternal Rome. By doing this, with the grace of God and the help of the Blessed Virgin Mary, and that of St. Joseph and St. Pius X, we are assured of remaining faithful to the Roman Catholic Church and to all the successors of Peter, and of being the faithful dispensers of the mysteries of Our Lord Jesus Christ in the Holy Ghost. Amen.

I FIND IT VERY DIFFICULT TO BELIEVE THAT THE SAME MAN WOULD SAY THE NEW MASS AFTER WRITING THIS DECLARATION.

It is simply a LIE.

 

[Sean_O_L]

tradcatmel,

Let’s see if we can approach theses things on a point by point basis? Let’s start with “all” vs “many”, OK?

First of all you talk about Our Lord’s words.

Did Our Lord actually say “all” or “many”?

Well, will you agree with me that Our Lord did not speak in the English nor Latin nor Greek tongue at the Last Supper?

If He did not, then, would you agree with me that He said neither “all” nor “many”.?

Would you also agre with me that there are two truths in respect of Our Lord’s death?

1: That His death was SUFFICIENT for the REDEMPTION of every person created by Him; and

1. That His death was EFFECTIVE for the SALVATION of many (that is, NOT “all” - for not all want to correspond with His Grace.)

Can we agree on these two things?

While you are thinking about it, ponder over the following:

Refers to * CHANGES TO THE WORDS OF INSTITUTION (F.J.L.)

christusrex.org/www1/CDHN/valmass.html

 

[Sean_O_L]

On the Validity of the Mass of Paul VI
Copyright - 1994 by Ed Faulk

Our first area of examination will be the Mass
Key objections to changes to the Mass seem to fall in the following areas:

• Use of the vernacular

• CHANGES TO THE WORDS OF INSTITUTION <<<<<<<< (F.J.L.)

• Vatican II had no authority to change the Mass
• The ‘Protestantization’ of the Mass

Changes to the Words of Institution

The next area of concern to the ‘traditionalists’ is ‘changing the words of institution’.
If we look at the Tridentine Mass we find that the words of consecration are as follows:

Hoc est enim Corpus meum
For this is my Body

Hic est enim Calix Sanguinis mei, novi et aeterni testamenti: mysterium fidei: qui pro vobis et pro multis effundetur in remissionem peccatorum
For this is the Chalice of my Blood of the new and eternal covenant: the mystery of faith: which shall be shed for you and for many unto the forgiveness of sins

We are told that we cannot tamper with these words because they are the ‘form’ of the Sacrament.

Yet, one asks, where did these words come from?

If we look at Scripture we find that the words of institution are listed in Matthew, Mark, Luke, and 1 Corinthians.

Let us look at the words we find in these various books:

• Matthew 26:26-28
• hoc est corpus meum
• This is my Body
• Hic est enim sanguis meus novi testamenti, qui pro multis effundetur in remissionem peccatorum
• This is my Blood of the new covenant, it will be shed for many for the forgiveness of sins
• Mark 14:22-24
• hoc est corpus meum this is my Body
• Hic est sanguis meus novi testamenti, qui pro multis effundetur.
• This is my Blood of the new covenant, it will be shed for many.
• Luke 22:19-20
• Hoc est corpus meum
• This is my Body
• Hic est calix novum testamentum in sanguine meo, qui pro vobis fundetur.
• This cup is the new covenant in my Blood, it will be shed for you.
• 1 Corinthians 11:23-25
• hoc est corpus meum
• this is my Body
• Hic calix novum testamentum est in meo sanguine
• This cup is the new covenant in my Blood

As you can see, the words in Scripture are different from those found in the Tridentine Rite.

How, then, can they say that the Pauline Rite (Mass of Paul VI) ‘changes’ the words of institution?

However, their big objection is not so much the change of all the words, as the specific change of ‘for many’ (pro multis) to ‘for all’.

How is this change justified?

In the Greek, the word that is used is polus (polus) which means ‘many, much, large’.

How then is the change justified?

To answer that we need to look at what Jesus was about to undergo.

Did Jesus die on the cross only for the elect, or did he die for all?

According to Trent, Jesus died ‘for our sins, and not only for our sins only, but also for those of the whole world’.

In fact, Trent cites II Corinthians 5:15 which says that Jesus died for all.

Trent further acknowledges that not all will receive the benefits of his death.

Yet, if Jesus died for all, then his Blood was shed for all.
Thus, the Tridentine formula, ‘pro multis effundetur’ reflects the results but not the intent.

The Vatican II formulation (‘for all’) reflects the intent as opposed to the results. That is, Jesus died for all, but not all accept the benefits of his death.

We now come to the crux of the matter.

What are the essential words, the form of the Sacrament of the Eucharist?

St. Justin Martyr says the words that effect the change of bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Jesus are ‘This is my Body’ and ‘This is my Blood’.

St. John Chrysostom refers to the bread (‘This is my Body’) but does not refer to the consecration of the wine.

St. Ambrose of Milan follows the lead of St. Justin Martyr.
Other Fathers of the Church considered the epiclesis as the form (St. Irenaeus, St. Cyril of Jerusalem) while still others refer to the Prayer of blessing or what we would call the Eucharistic Prayer.

In the anaphora, an early Eucharistic Prayer from The Apostolic Tradition, we find the first recorded Eucharistic Prayer.
The words of institution used there are ‘This is my Body’ and ‘This is my Blood which is poured out for you’.

Now, assuming that the Eucharist was validly confected by these earlier Masses, we must reduce the ‘form’ to the words that are found in common.

Thus, the ‘form’ of the Eucharist must be ‘This is my Body’ and ‘This is my Blood’.

As long as these words are said, assuming proper intention and that the one saying them is a validly ordained Priest, the confection of the Eucharist takes place.

 

[tradcatmel]

Thank you for that great explanation.

Yours in the most sorrowful heart of Our Immaculate mother

 

[Sean_O_L]

G’day tradcatmel,

No probs. In the meantime, I have been beavering away on a file which I am going to put up on this same Apologetics forum, called "Cheat Sheet On The Society of St Pius X (SSPX) and other “Integrists”

It is a resource file - snippets from larger articles. It is far easier for me to do this than to repeat myself with each new SSPXer to the board. So, please browse through it - I have tried to cover as many questions and matters of fact as possible to this time, but it is certainly a work in progress!

Please feel free to ask for further details either on the forum or by e-mailing me.

I would like to let you know that my wife and I started our adherence to Archbishop Lefebvre around 1973, and we supported him in the establishment of the SSPX in Australia.

If nothing else, I am a record keeper. I avidly read such earlly publishings as Fr. Noel Barbara’s Fortes in Fide, from which the data about Lefebvre’s active participation in the “Novus Ordo Missae” during the funeral ceremonies of his relative. I am sure that if you were to put the question directly to Bishop Fellay he would confirm the fact. I know Fellay is due in Australia from April 16 to 30 coming. I do not know if he is going to NZ.

By the way, do you know Jamie Frater? I have had quite a lot of correspondence with him in the past 5 - 6 years.

God bless,