Saw Gerry Matatics Today

  • Thread starter Thread starter DavidJoseph
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
D

DavidJoseph

Guest
Some of you may remember an earlier thread I started in which I expressed concerns about Gerry Matatics coming to Atlanta and how I was scared that some of my friends might be led astray by him. Well, the talk itself was as bad as I had expected … maybe worse.

Matatics claimed that the Novus Ordo Mass might not be valid, and yes, he used the “pro multis” argument, claiming that it changes the meaning of the Mass and stuff (yeah right). Even worse, he claimed that since Pope Paul VI allegedly changed the ordination rite, it’s possible that those who were ordained bishops after 1968 might not truly be bishops, in which case the ordinations to the priesthood they perform would be invalid as well. In fact, Matatics said that while he used to attend an FSSP parish, he now attends an SSPX chapel, the reason being that most FSSP priests were ordained by bishops who assumed that position after 1968 (oh brother).

I knew his claims were a bunch of malarkey, and fortunately so did my friends from church – they all agreed he’d gone too far. But I recognized some other people from the parish as well, and I sure don’t want to see them or anyone else get led astray!

Just for the record, during the question-and-answer period I challenged some of the statements he made, and his responses were unconvincing.

After leaving the talk I went to talk to my priest about it in the hope that he’d warn the congregation of Matatics’ errors. But Father was like, “Well, that’s just [Matatics’] opinion. But the Church always has valid sacraments.” He didn’t even seem surprised to hear Matatics’ allegations (maybe he’s heard similar stuff before). And he also said he didn’t think we had to worry about anyone getting led astray; that surely those from our parish knew that his position was erroneous. But how can he be so sure?
 
40.png
DavidJoseph:
Some of you may remember an earlier thread I started in which I expressed concerns about Gerry Matatics coming to Atlanta and how I was scared that some of my friends might be led astray by him. Well, the talk itself was as bad as I had expected … maybe worse.

Matatics claimed that the Novus Ordo Mass might not be valid, and yes, he used the “pro multis” argument, claiming that it changes the meaning of the Mass and stuff (yeah right). Even worse, he claimed that since Pope Paul VI allegedly changed the ordination rite, it’s possible that those who were ordained bishops after 1968 might not truly be bishops, in which case the ordinations to the priesthood they perform would be invalid as well. In fact, Matatics said that while he used to attend an FSSP parish, he now attends an SSPX chapel, the reason being that most FSSP priests were ordained by bishops who assumed that position after 1968 (oh brother).

I knew his claims were a bunch of malarkey, and fortunately so did my friends from church – they all agreed he’d gone too far. But I recognized some other people from the parish as well, and I sure don’t want to see them or anyone else get led astray!

Just for the record, during the question-and-answer period I challenged some of the statements he made, and his responses were unconvincing.

After leaving the talk I went to talk to my priest about it in the hope that he’d warn the congregation of Matatics’ errors. But Father was like, “Well, that’s just [Matatics’] opinion. But the Church always has valid sacraments.” He didn’t even seem surprised to hear Matatics’ allegations (maybe he’s heard similar stuff before). And he also said he didn’t think we had to worry about anyone getting led astray; that surely those from our parish knew that his position was erroneous. But how can he be so sure?
Click to expand...
 
Hello I saw Jerry years ago when I was going to a protestant church. He was a few years in the Church and helped me come back to the Catholic Faith. I have not heard from or about Jerry for many years.
 
40.png
jamjostab:
Hello I saw Jerry years ago when I was going to a protestant church. He was a few years in the Church and helped me come back to the Catholic Faith. I have not heard from or about Jerry for many years.
Click to expand...
 
Your parish priest should be concerned and should address this, not just take it lightly. He may have heard all that stuff before, but he’s not particularly sure if his parishioners have heard of it before as well.
 
40.png
jamjostab:
Hello I saw Jerry years ago when I was going to a protestant church. He was a few years in the Church and helped me come back to the Catholic Faith. I have not heard from or about Jerry for many years.
Click to expand...
Unfortunately, he’s really gone off the deep end. He’s been flirting with the SSPX, Feeneyism, and sedevacantism for years.
 
If I’m correct, Scott Hahn knows Gerry. What is his view on this?
 
The charge of invalid ordinations is something that should be taken seriously. I don’t really think it represents much of a threat (although I haven’t heard his particular argument) but part of the reason we reject Anglican orders is that they changed the rite.
 
Andreas Hofer:
The charge of invalid ordinations is something that should be taken seriously. I don’t really think it represents much of a threat (although I haven’t heard his particular argument) but part of the reason we reject Anglican orders is that they changed the rite.
Click to expand...
And are we saying that the Pope in union with the Magisterium doesn’t have the prerogative to change the mechanism of ordination? I think this is a lame attempt to try to invalidate the Catholic Heirarchy after V2 so that the sedevacantists and other separatists can justify their actions. Anyone who cuts themselves off from Rome jeoparizes their own salvation.
 
40.png
Scott_Lafrance:
Anyone who cuts themselves off from Rome jeoparizes their own salvation.
Click to expand...
Isn’t it ironic that those who believe the super strict interpretation of EENS (ie, unless your name is on a parish registry, you can’t be saved) are also the ones who, by there own definition, have forfeited their salvation by separating from the Church.
 
Andreas Hofer:
The charge of invalid ordinations is something that should be taken seriously. I don’t really think it represents much of a threat (although I haven’t heard his particular argument) but part of the reason we reject Anglican orders is that they changed the rite.
Click to expand...
Yes, they did - without authority. The Bishop of Rome, the Successor of Peter DOES have that authority.

Why would they say that Paul VI can’t change a rite if he wanted? That’s ludicrous!
–Ann
 
40.png
Sparky:
Yes, they did - without authority. The Bishop of Rome, the Successor of Peter DOES have that authority.

Why would they say that Paul VI can’t change a rite if he wanted? That’s ludicrous!
–Ann
Click to expand...
The essential words that make up the form of the sacraments can be changed by no one - not even the Pope. If the Pope changes the words of any of the sacraments, so that the meaning is no longer the same, he has commited a mortal sin, abused his authority, and made the sacraments invalid. If the change was in the form used in the ordination of a priest, the priest would not be ordained - even though he went through the ceremony; if the change was in the form used for the consecration at mass, the mass would be invalid and transubstantaion would not occur.

No one denies that the Pope has no right to change the words that make up the form of the sacraments - this is common knowledge - what is debated is whether or not the changes made by Paul VI went so far as to invalidate the sacraments. There can be slight variations in the words used, but the meaning must remain the same.

But just so everyone is perfectly clear: No one - not even the Pope - has the authority to change the words that make up the form of the Sacraments.
 
Fine. He can’t change the meaning. The charism of infallibilty would prevent that, no?

So prove he lost that charism. I think they have jump through hoops to do so.

–Ann
 
I just wanted to give a few quotes to support what I wrote above.

Pope Pius XII: “the Church is forbidden to change, or even to touch, the matter or form of any Sacrament.” (Sacramentum Ordinis, 1947).

Pope St. Pius X: “it is well known that to the Church there belongs no right whatsoever to innovate anything touching on the substance of the Sacraments” (Ex quo, nono, 1910)

Pope St. Pius V: “If anyone removes or changes anything in the Form of the Consecration of the Body and Blood, and by this change of words does not signify the same thing as these words do, he does not confect the Sacrament” (De Defectibus).

Now for the test: Do “all” and “many” mean the same thing?
 
The problem with the Anglican Orders is not that the words were changed, but that there is substantial reason to believe that the intent was as well. At the same time the orders were changed, the Anglican church was experiencing a domination by Protestant thought, including the denial of the Sacrificial Priesthood. The fact that they changed the order during this period leads the Catholic Church to believe that the intent was indeed different, hence the change.

Later the Anglicans went back to the old orders, but the damage had been done. There not only wasn’t a clear clarification that the Anglicans went back to believing their pre-schism stance about a Sacrificial Priesthood (some have, some haven’t), there was no effort to re-ordain the Bishops that had been ordained during the period of definite defect, meaning that the Anglican orders are mixed bag at best, with some real priests and some not. Anglicans have even recognized this deficit, and have tried to make it up by requiring multiple Bishops at ordainations, and bringing in schismatic Catholic Bishops to do their orders. It’s a very serious problem, but not at all like the changes made in the Catholic Church.
 
I am not aware of any of the MEANING being changed?

The N.O. Mass has lost NONE of the meaning.

The language has changed.

Where is the problem?

Rome has spoken on the issue. Case closed.

Those who are in an SSPX Church are outside the Church.
 
RSiscoe, are you saying you doubt the validity of the current rite of Holy Orders and of the Novus Ordo Mass?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top