Is Gerry Matatics still Catholic?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Aris
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
40.png
Jaypeeto4:
I agree. The criticisms of Bob Sungenis are much too severe and unwarranted. He fully accepts the authority of the Magisterium and of Vatican II and is in full communion with Rome. What some people don’t like about him is that he will criticise papal and ecclesial BEHAVIOUR when that behavior has no precedent in Holy Tradition (such as the Assisi gatherings). That does not make him bad, not in the least.

As for his promotion of geocentrism, I find that a bit quirky, but it is certainly harmless. And nothing Bob has said in favor of geocentrism has been as strong as what the CHURCH used to say in favor of it, so what’s the problem?

Jaypeeto4 (aka Jaypeeto3)
Click to expand...
I thought this thread was about Gerry Matatics who is a bad Catholic.
 
40.png
JSmitty2005:
CatholicCulture.org has no authority to be the monitor of Catholic sites on the net. Sungenis is loyal to Rome but critical of ecumenitis. I share his concerns and will continue to support him.
Click to expand...
If you think CatholicCulture.org condemns certain websites willy-nilly, think again. Of the many, many sites they review, not many managed to get a red “DANGER” rating on fidelity.

I’ve run across at least two people who have got “Sungenis dogmatized” information on what the Church teaches that is not Catholic teaching, and it almost led them to abandon Catholicism. People who tape their own pages into the Catechism are just as bad as those who selectively rip pages out.
 
40.png
Jaypeeto4:
What some people don’t like about him is that he will criticise papal and ecclesial BEHAVIOUR when that behavior has no precedent in Holy Tradition (such as the Assisi gatherings). That does not make him bad, not in the least.
Click to expand...
:amen:
 
40.png
DeFide:
… People who tape their own pages into the Catechism are just as bad as those who selectively rip pages out.
Click to expand...
As an example of the misrepresentation of the faith that Sungenis engages in, I found this after looking at his site for only two minutes (which I don’t recommend unless you have have a firm grasp of actual Catholic teaching and then only if you have to):

From his site:

“Robert Sungenis holds to the Geocentric cosmological view of the universe in accordance with the literal, infallible, and inspired Word of God which, according to Providentissimus Deus by Pope Leo XIII, is inerrant in all matters.”

False. Providentissimus Deus never said the Word is “inerrant in all matters”. Why can’t he quote what the document actually says? Scripture is inerrant in regards to what what the authors assert, not in “all matters”. See CCC parag. 107

The blanket use of the word “literal” is also problematic, but less so, since it applies only to what Robert Sungenis holds, but could lead many to read into this that he believes it because it’s what the Church holds, which is not the case.

From the Catechism (selections):

106 God inspired the human authors of the sacred books. “To compose the sacred books, God chose certain men who, all the while he employed them in this task, made full use of their own faculties and powers so that, though he acted in them and by them, it was as true authors that they consigned to writing whatever he wanted written, and no more.”

107 The inspired books teach the truth. “Since therefore all that the inspired authors or sacred writers affirm should be regarded as affirmed by the Holy Spirit, we must acknowledge that the books of Scripture firmly, faithfully, and without error teach that truth which God, for the sake of our salvation, wished to see confided to the Sacred Scriptures.”

…

109 In Sacred Scripture, God speaks to man in a human way. To interpret Scripture correctly, the reader must be attentive to what the human authors truly wanted to affirm, and to what God wanted to reveal to us by their words.75

110 In order to discover the sacred authors’ intention, the reader must take into account the conditions of their time and culture, the literary genres in use at that time, and the modes of feeling, speaking and narrating then current. "For the fact is that truth is differently presented and expressed in the various types of historical writing, in prophetical and poetical texts, and in other forms of literary expression."76
…

The senses of Scripture

115 According to an ancient tradition, one can distinguish between two *senses *of Scripture: the literal and the spiritual, the latter being subdivided into the allegorical, moral and anagogical senses. The profound concordance of the four senses guarantees all its richness to the living reading of Scripture in the Church.

116 The literal sense is the meaning conveyed by the words of Scripture and discovered by exegesis, following the rules of sound interpretation: "All other senses of Sacred Scripture are based on the literal."83

117 The spiritual sense. Thanks to the unity of God’s plan, not only the text of Scripture but also the realities and events about which it speaks can be signs.
  1. The allegorical sense. We can acquire a more profound understanding of events by recognizing their significance in Christ; thus the crossing of the Red Sea is a sign or type of Christ’s victory and also of Christian Baptism.84
  2. The moral sense. The events reported in Scripture ought to lead us to act justly. As St. Paul says, they were written “for our instruction”.85
  3. The anagogical sense (Greek: anagoge, “leading”). We can view realities and events in terms of their eternal significance, leading us toward our true homeland: thus the Church on earth is a sign of the heavenly Jerusalem.86
 
40.png
DeFide:
If you think CatholicCulture.org condemns certain websites willy-nilly, think again. Of the many, many sites they review, not many managed to get a red “DANGER” rating on fidelity.

I’ve run across at least two people who have got “Sungenis dogmatized” information **on what the Church teaches that is not Catholic teaching, **and it almost led them to abandon Catholicism. People who tape their own pages into the Catechism are just as bad as those who selectively rip pages out.
Click to expand...
You have posted with unwarrented, and unsubstantiated claims… no links at all … just your hearsay.

I know of at least two people who think your charity and truth levels are too low to make you credible.:nope: :tsktsk:
 
40.png
MrS:
You have posted with unwarrented, and unsubstantiated claims… no links at all … just your hearsay.

I know of at least two people who think your charity and truth levels are too low to make you credible.:nope: :tsktsk:
Click to expand...
Read post #43. You’ll also have to take on CatholicCulture.org.
 
40.png
Jaypeeto4:
As for his promotion of geocentrism, I find that a bit quirky, but it is certainly harmless. And nothing Bob has said in favor of geocentrism has been as strong as what the CHURCH used to say in favor of it, so what’s the problem?

Jaypeeto4 (aka Jaypeeto3)
Click to expand...
I guess some will come out of the woodwork soon when his book “Galileo was Wrong” is published… imprimature and all. Oh well, Robert and others like him (who stick to the truth and don’t raise their own opinion as necessary to that truth) will always find detractors,.

Perhaps Mr. Keating will jump in here on this thread topic and tie it all together… He and Sungenis are on the exact same page with the Matatics issue… and it it not one they "taped in to the CCC)😉
 
40.png
DeFide:
False. Providentissimus Deus never said the Word is “inerrant in all matters”. Why can’t he quote what the document actually says? Scripture is inerrant in regards to what what the authors assert, not in “all matters”. See CCC parag. 107

The blanket use of the word “literal” is also problematic, but less so, since it applies only to what Robert Sungenis holds, but could lead many to read into this that he believes it because it’s what the Church holds, which is not the case.
Click to expand...
Q1: what is your level of adherance to Providentissimus Deus?

Q2: have you backed off by saying “…but could lead many…”?

Q3: can you name any recent, recognized, Catholic Apologist, priest, bishop etc who has shown any of Sungenis’ works to be doctrinally erroneous?
 
While geocentrism is not popular it is definately not something that is improbable. In the Marco view of the Universe it is very possible that the Earth is the center however, something like that is very difficult to tell from our vantage point with our level of technology - sometimes I think we seem to think that we have the means to know all today which is false.

Sugenis is correct that as Catholics we believe in the complete inerrancy of Scripture and not a soft inerrancy as many Catholics think we hold. However, the problem that must be stated is: What do we mean by that? What it means is that in light of proper interpretation Scripture is always true. For this we have the four senses of Scripture given us by the Early Church Fathers and as St. Thomas stated the most important of these is the literal sense meaning - literary sense. Thus, the passage, verse, or book of Scripture must be looked at in view of its literary genre and then from there the deeper senses can the brought out. But, the point is that Scripture is never wrong in all things. Perhaps the language of the Catechism does not fully reflect this doctrine however the papal and consiliar documents are all very strong on this point.

I mourn for Gerry. He has moved from protestantism to protestantism.
 
40.png
mosher:
… it is very possible that the Earth is the center however, something like that is very difficult to tell from our vantage point with our level of technology - sometimes I think we seem to think that we have the means to know all today which is false.

I mourn for Gerry. He has moved from protestantism to protestantism.
Click to expand...
yep, both are theories, and neither is provable as correct or false… so I’ll let you guys know when I get to heaven…

👍 to both statements
 
As for Gerry Matatics being a “Bad” Catholic,
I will leave that judgment up to God.
I would agree, however, that Gerry Matatics is
certainly a misguided Catholic and a material schismatic.

Jaypeeto4 (aka Jaypeeto3)
 
40.png
JSmitty2005:
This website holds no authority whatsoever other than that which it has given itself.
Click to expand...
I can use that same hammer on Sungenis. He has no authority whatsoever. CatholicCulture.org gives reasons for its ratings that you can investigate, and many websites, including Catholic.com have no problem getting a “green/excellent” fidelity rating. There are tons of them.

If you want authoritative teachings (which is a good thing), I encourage you to read the Catechism from cover to cover. It’ll help innoculate you against dangerous misrepresentations of the faith.

vatican.va/archive/catechism/ccc_toc.htm
 
40.png
DeFide:
CatholicCulture.org gives reasons for its ratings that you can investigate,
Click to expand...
I don’t agree with their reasons. Mr. Sungenis gives reasons as well. In fact, his reasons are often more solid reasons than what I read on here.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top