Author Topic: Gerry Matatics on EENS, BOD  (Read 2805 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline An even Seven

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 1993
  • Reputation: +858/-590
  • Gender: Male
Re: Gerry Matatics on EENS, BOD
« Reply #15 on: October 03, 2017, 11:42:39 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Catholictrue, logic fails you.

    What positive Catholic dogma would render BoD heretical?  It's the dogma that the Sacrament of Baptism is necessary for salvation.  Now, if one wanted to make some distinction while preserving this necessity of Baptism for salvation, one would avoid heresy, since one would not be directly contradicting the dogma that Baptism is necessary for salvation.
    The Sacrament of Baptism consists of what all other Sacraments consist of, form and matter. Without those, it is not a Sacrament. The words "I baptize thee..." and real and natural water are necessary for the Sacrament of Baptism. Those desiring this Sacrament, do not have the Sacrament. The Dogma is that the Sacrament of Baptism is necessary and that real and natural water are necessary. This is what makes any form of BOD heretical.

    Any formulation that ends in the actual reception of the Sacrament not being received, and Salvation still being obtained, would be heretical. The only distinction here is whether the person doing the formulation and speculation is a heretic or not.
    There is no difference between an intoxicated man and one full of his own opinion, and one is no more capable of reasoning than the other.----St. Francis de Sales

    Offline Catholictrue

    • Newbie
    • *
    • Posts: 71
    • Reputation: +77/-37
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Gerry Matatics on EENS, BOD
    « Reply #16 on: October 03, 2017, 11:54:10 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Catholic Truth,

    First, I notice you make a lot of claims regarding Mr. Matatics without citing any "proof." Where's the beef?

    As to your assertion:


    You might be able to desire something that doesn't exist, something that simply exists in your mind, but if you desire something that in fact exists, such as a catechumen desires to receive the sacrament of baptism, the existence of the sacrament is necessary to that desire, the desire for it, and it is that desire that is posited as capable of producing justification.

    To have an explicit desire for X, X must exist to move the desire. The existence of X, either in reality or in your mind, is necessary for a desire for X.

    Rather than being a contradiction and a lie, it's logically consistent and true.

    Don't have time to address the rest of this, but will try to come back to it.
    Tornpage,
     
    To provide more clarity and precision on Gerry Matatics’ view of the horrible and heretical letter, Suprema Haec Sacra: Whether or not he would say that he ‘accepts it’, Matatics has directly refused to condemn Suprema Haec Sacra as heretical when asked point blank about it.  MHFM has documented this: http://www.mostholyfamilymonastery.com/catholicchurch/gerry-matatics/  A person who truly believes and professes that one must have the Catholic faith, and that it’s heretical to teach otherwise, condemns that document as heretical.  Matatics has refused to do so.  In fact, about a year before Gerry published the letter you cited (around 2006), he was found giving someone a booklet which attacks Fr. Feeney as excommunicated and promotes Suprema Haec Sacra.  Here’s how one heretic named Vincent reported what happened (as documented in the file published by MHFM):
     
    “Pax Christi ! Good news about Gerry Matatics… Fr. Feeney, the Pope Has Spoken” By “a Missionary Sister of the Holy Ghost”… Given the rise of Feeneyism in the traditional circles, I HIGHLY recommend this little booklet that Gerry Matatics gave me… in Spokane Wa. It fills in the gaps regarding Fr. Feeney’s excommunication giving the true outline, and why the Letter from the Holy Office Aug 8th 1949 is an official act of the Holy Office…

    Vincent”
     
    Now, it’s unclear what Gerry would currently say about that heretical booklet.  But it’s a fact that he has refused to condemn Suprema Haec Sacra as heretical when directly asked about it, which indicates that he fails to profess the true faith on the issue.
     
    It’s also a fact that Gerry has regarded as Catholic people who believe souls can be saved in false religions.  Numerous examples of this could be given.  For example, in 2008, Gerry stated about the heretic Tom Droleskey (who believes Jews who reject Christ can be saved): When Catholics like you or me or Tom Droleskey speak out about this…”  So, he identified the heretic Tom Droleskey as Catholic after claiming that he never “for a single moment considered to be a Catholic anyone holding” that one can be saved in other religions.  Of course, Gerry’s words are demonstrably false.  


    Online Ladislaus

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 13450
    • Reputation: +6923/-1617
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Gerry Matatics on EENS, BOD
    « Reply #17 on: October 03, 2017, 11:55:35 AM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
  • Any formulation that ends in the actual reception of the Sacrament not being received, and Salvation still being obtained, would be heretical.

    Absolutely false.  St. Thomas Aquinas, St. Robert Bellarmine, and St. Alphonsus did not teach heresy ... and then had the Church declare them to be Doctors.

    Their teaching was that the Sacrament was received in voto ... thereby preserving the necessity of the Sacrament for salvation.

    Offline Catholictrue

    • Newbie
    • *
    • Posts: 71
    • Reputation: +77/-37
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Gerry Matatics on EENS, BOD
    « Reply #18 on: October 03, 2017, 12:05:22 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Catholic Truth,

    First, I notice you make a lot of claims regarding Mr. Matatics without citing any "proof." Where's the beef?

    As to your assertion:


    You might be able to desire something that doesn't exist, something that simply exists in your mind, but if you desire something that in fact exists, such as a catechumen desires to receive the sacrament of baptism, the existence of the sacrament is necessary to that desire, the desire for it, and it is that desire that is posited as capable of producing justification.

    To have an explicit desire for X, X must exist to move the desire. The existence of X, either in reality or in your mind, is necessary for a desire for X.

    Rather than being a contradiction and a lie, it's logically consistent and true.

    Don't have time to address the rest of this, but will try to come back to it.
    MORE TO TORNPAGE:
     
    Your argument is truly absurd.  I say that with care and seriousness.  It reveals that your ability to think clearly and honestly is severely impaired.  Matatics refers to so-called “Catholic catechumens” who “qualify to receive the grace of the sacrament”.  Thus, he’s referring to people who supposedly receive a so-called BOD.  Of such people, he says: “they are unable… to receive the sacrament”, but that such an “occurrence would still require the existence of the sacrament”.  When he says it “would still require the existence of the sacrament” in that context, obviously that means its “existence” in their individual reception of ‘BOD’.  That’s the only meaning any honest person could take from it.  Those words contradict his previous words that they are “unable to receive the sacrament”.  Essentially he’s trying to have it both ways: they don’t receive the sacrament but it still exists for them in receiving BOD.
     
    You, however, being deluded, argue that when he says it “would still require the existence of the sacrament”, that simply refers to the Sacrament of Baptism existing in general for people, but not existing or being present for them personally in the act through which they receive BOD.  Your argument is ridiculous.  No one on either side of this matter disputes that the Sacrament of Baptism exists in general.  No one here disputes that the sacrament was instituted by Jesus.  No one here questions that people have been baptized in history.  So, for Matatics to say that when someone receives a BOD that “would still require the existence of the sacrament” obviously that doesn’t mean that the sacrament exists in general and that people know about its existence, but rather to its “existence” and presence in the act through which those “Catholic catechumens” supposedly get BOD.  This is very obvious to any non-liar who can read (but apparently you don’t fit into that category).
     
    Hence, Matatics clearly contradicts himself and demonstrates the falsity of his position when says 1) they are “unable… to receive the sacrament” but 2) this “would still require the existence of the sacrament of baptism”. 
     

    Online Ladislaus

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 13450
    • Reputation: +6923/-1617
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Gerry Matatics on EENS, BOD
    « Reply #19 on: October 03, 2017, 12:21:22 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • The Sacrament of Baptism consists of what all other Sacraments consist of, form and matter. Without those, it is not a Sacrament. The words "I baptize thee..." and real and natural water are necessary for the Sacrament of Baptism. Those desiring this Sacrament, do not have the Sacrament. The Dogma is that the Sacrament of Baptism is necessary and that real and natural water are necessary. This is what makes any form of BOD heretical.

    Any formulation that ends in the actual reception of the Sacrament not being received, and Salvation still being obtained, would be heretical. The only distinction here is whether the person doing the formulation and speculation is a heretic or not.

    There's no Catholic dogmatic formulation which states that the Sacrament of Baptism must be received in re for salvation ... just that it is necessary for salvation.  Catholic theologians who speculate about BoD claim that the Sacrament can be received in voto ... just as Trent teaches that Confession can be received in voto.  Whether you agree with this or not (and I don't), it is NOT heretical.


    Offline An even Seven

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1993
    • Reputation: +858/-590
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Gerry Matatics on EENS, BOD
    « Reply #20 on: October 03, 2017, 12:41:08 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • There's no Catholic dogmatic formulation which states that the Sacrament of Baptism must be received in re for salvation ... just that it is necessary for salvation.  Catholic theologians who speculate about BoD claim that the Sacrament can be received in voto ... just as Trent teaches that Confession can be received in voto.  Whether you agree with this or not (and I don't), it is NOT heretical.
    How can one receive in voto, something which is external?  The Sacrament is a Rite which consists of the words and water that signify the interior effects. Without those, it is NOT the Sacrament. Therefore the Sacrament cannot be received without those.  It's illogical to say that one receives the Sacrament without receiving the actual Sacrament. Therefore, it would be an obvious error to say that the Sacrament is received in voto.
    There is no difference between an intoxicated man and one full of his own opinion, and one is no more capable of reasoning than the other.----St. Francis de Sales

    Offline An even Seven

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1993
    • Reputation: +858/-590
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Gerry Matatics on EENS, BOD
    « Reply #21 on: October 03, 2017, 12:45:05 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • There's no Catholic dogmatic formulation which states that the Sacrament of Baptism must be received in re for salvation ...
    Just to add to it, the Sacrament is an External Rite, so the fact that it must be received in re is definitely implied. Therefore, when the Dogma says that the Sacrament of Baptism is necessary for Salvation, it is talking about the External Rite. Without this external rite there is no Sacrament of Baptism.
    There is no difference between an intoxicated man and one full of his own opinion, and one is no more capable of reasoning than the other.----St. Francis de Sales

    Offline tornpage

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 372
    • Reputation: +83/-62
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Gerry Matatics on EENS, BOD
    « Reply #22 on: October 03, 2017, 12:54:23 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • MORE TO TORNPAGE:
     
    Your argument is truly absurd.  I say that with care and seriousness.  It reveals that your ability to think clearly and honestly is severely impaired.  Matatics refers to so-called “Catholic catechumens” who “qualify to receive the grace of the sacrament”.  Thus, he’s referring to people who supposedly receive a so-called BOD.  Of such people, he says: “they are unable… to receive the sacrament”, but that such an “occurrence would still require the existence of the sacrament”.  When he says it “would still require the existence of the sacrament” in that context, obviously that means its “existence” in their individual reception of ‘BOD’.  That’s the only meaning any honest person could take from it.  Those words contradict his previous words that they are “unable to receive the sacrament”.  Essentially he’s trying to have it both ways: they don’t receive the sacrament but it still exists for them in receiving BOD.
     
    You, however, being deluded, argue that when he says it “would still require the existence of the sacrament”, that simply refers to the Sacrament of Baptism existing in general for people, but not existing or being present for them personally in the act through which they receive BOD.  Your argument is ridiculous.  No one on either side of this matter disputes that the Sacrament of Baptism exists in general.  No one here disputes that the sacrament was instituted by Jesus.  No one here questions that people have been baptized in history.  So, for Matatics to say that when someone receives a BOD that “would still require the existence of the sacrament” obviously that doesn’t mean that the sacrament exists in general and that people know about its existence, but rather to its “existence” and presence in the act through which those “Catholic catechumens” supposedly get BOD.  This is very obvious to any non-liar who can read (but apparently you don’t fit into that category).
     
    Hence, Matatics clearly contradicts himself and demonstrates the falsity of his position when says 1) they are “unable… to receive the sacrament” but 2) this “would still require the existence of the sacrament of baptism”.  
     
    I have no idea what you're talking about, perhaps because of my "delusion." But then, having said that, and in light of my "dishonesty," I do know what you're talking about it. Which, I guess, by my dishonestly saying that, I don't. Uh oh . . . now I do again . . . 
    If you actually read what I said, you'll know I was not speaking about the sacrament in general, but an individual and specific desire, an explicit desire, for it - which as the other guy (Ladislaus) - not sure if he's dishonest and deluded, maybe you said just a dumb heretic or something told you, makes the sacrament necessary. Which is, after all, the dogma at issue. 
    You should spend less time sharpening your axe. Put your time to better use . . . maybe breathing exercises for when you feel an anathema coming on  . . . a reading course would definitely help. 
    "[L]et us hold most firmly that, in accordance with Catholic teaching, there is 'one God, one faith, one baptism' [Eph. 4:5]; it is unlawful to proceed further in inquiry."

    Pope Pius IX, Singulari quadem


    Offline tornpage

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 372
    • Reputation: +83/-62
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Gerry Matatics on EENS, BOD
    « Reply #23 on: October 03, 2017, 02:53:48 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Absolutely false.  St. Thomas Aquinas, St. Robert Bellarmine, and St. Alphonsus did not teach heresy ... and then had the Church declare them to be Doctors.

    Their teaching was that the Sacrament was received in voto ... thereby preserving the necessity of the Sacrament for salvation.
    Absolutely right, at a minimum.

    The word "ridiculous" has been used, and it should be applied to the claim that those saints taught heresy on an issue that was supposedly defined (no salvation without the receipt of baptism in re) before their "heretical" teachings - as to St. Alphonsus and perhaps St. Robert. 

    Such a position almost justifies LoT's shenanigans, the qualifier "almost" being the most important part of that clause.
    "[L]et us hold most firmly that, in accordance with Catholic teaching, there is 'one God, one faith, one baptism' [Eph. 4:5]; it is unlawful to proceed further in inquiry."

    Pope Pius IX, Singulari quadem

    Online Ladislaus

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 13450
    • Reputation: +6923/-1617
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Gerry Matatics on EENS, BOD
    « Reply #24 on: October 04, 2017, 08:44:39 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • How can one receive in voto, something which is external? 

    Ask the Fathers at Trent.  They explicitly taught that the Sacrament of Confession must be received at least in voto for someone to receive forgiveness of sins through perfect contrition.  Those who speculate about BoD are claiming the same thing, except with regard to Baptism ... well, except the likes of LoT who are heretics.  I disagree that Baptism can be received in voto like Confession can because an essential part of the grace of Baptism is the seal which makes one a member of the Church.  But BoD is NOT heretical.

    In fact, to claim that BoD is heretical would be schismatic.  You're claiming that people would be outside the Church for pertinaciously believing in BoD (as the Dimonds also allege) when the CHURCH has clearly stated otherwise.  Not only that, but the Church declared several of these men to be DOCTORS of the Church.

    Online Ladislaus

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 13450
    • Reputation: +6923/-1617
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Gerry Matatics on EENS, BOD
    « Reply #25 on: October 04, 2017, 08:47:08 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Such a position almost justifies LoT's shenanigans, the qualifier "almost" being the most important part of that clause.

    Correct.  I absolutely agree that it would be incredibly arrogant and rash to claim that men whom the Church has designated to be Doctors could have taught obvious/open heresy.  Now, where LoT goes bonkers is in effectively alleging that Doctors ... or even any theologian who received an imprimatur ... was thereby beyond reproach, beyond the possibility of error, and effectively infallible.


    Offline An even Seven

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1993
    • Reputation: +858/-590
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Gerry Matatics on EENS, BOD
    « Reply #26 on: October 04, 2017, 08:57:16 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Ask the Fathers at Trent.  They explicitly taught that the Sacrament of Confession must be received at least in voto for someone to receive forgiveness of sins through perfect contrition.  Those who speculate about BoD are claiming the same thing, except with regard to Baptism ... well, except the likes of LoT who are heretics.  I disagree that Baptism can be received in voto like Confession can because an essential part of the grace of Baptism is the seal which makes one a member of the Church.  But BoD is NOT heretical.

    AES: I am speaking of Baptism being an External Rite. Trent specifically states how Confession is received in voto. It does nothing of the sort for Baptism. I know you know this but how is it not specific error to say that one can receive the effects of Baptism, which consists of the words and water, without having the words and water applied. Especially when Trent specifically says that Baptism is necessary.

    In fact, to claim that BoD is heretical would be schismatic.  You're claiming that people would be outside the Church for pertinaciously believing in BoD (as the Dimonds also allege) when the CHURCH has clearly stated otherwise.  Not only that, but the Church declared several of these men to be DOCTORS of the Church.

    AES: Is it schismatic to claim that the denial of the Immaculate Conception is heretical even though the Dogmas of the Church were revealed by Our Lord or Apostles and therefore have been believed by the Church since the beginning?
    There is no difference between an intoxicated man and one full of his own opinion, and one is no more capable of reasoning than the other.----St. Francis de Sales

    Offline An even Seven

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1993
    • Reputation: +858/-590
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Gerry Matatics on EENS, BOD
    « Reply #27 on: October 04, 2017, 09:00:39 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  •  Now, where LoT goes bonkers is in effectively alleging that Doctors ... or even any theologian who received an imprimatur ... was thereby beyond reproach, beyond the possibility of error, and effectively infallible.
    Yet this seems to be what you are saying as well.
    There is no difference between an intoxicated man and one full of his own opinion, and one is no more capable of reasoning than the other.----St. Francis de Sales

    Offline An even Seven

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1993
    • Reputation: +858/-590
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Gerry Matatics on EENS, BOD
    « Reply #28 on: October 04, 2017, 09:51:18 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • You're claiming that people would be outside the Church for pertinaciously believing in BoD (as the Dimonds also allege) when the CHURCH has clearly stated otherwise.  Not only that, but the Church declared several of these men to be DOCTORS of the Church.
    This is from MHFM's book on EENS. I think that this sums it up perfectly.

    Quote
    Most Holy Family Monastery, Outside the Catholic Church There is Absolutely No Salvation p. 167: "In conclusion, whether one wants to call baptism of desire a heresy or a grave theological error incompatible with dogma, the fact is that it is a false opinion which cannot be reconciled with numerous infallible definitions and no Catholic should hold it at all after seeing these facts. 
     
         Moreover, while any idea of baptism of desire is false, one must make a very important distinction between the version of baptism of desire held by certain saints (for unbaptized catechumens only) and the version held by most today (which will be covered in more detail later in the book).  The saints who held baptism of desire only applied it to unbaptized catechumens who believed in the Trinity, the Incarnation and the Catholic Faith.   Almost all who believe in it today apply it to those who don’t even believe in Christ and/or are members of false religions.  Those who believe in this latter idea (that baptism of desire can apply to Jews or Muslims, etc.) would have to immediately abandon it upon seeing any of the infallible definitions on Outside the Church There is No Salvation.  If not, they are definitely heretics who have been automatically excommunicated from the Church.  One could not reasonably believe that members of non-Catholic religions being saved is compatible with Outside the Church There is No Salvation.
     
         On the other hand, since the false idea that unbaptized catechumens can be saved was held by certain saints and taught in the fallibly capacity of other texts, those who hold baptism of desire as those certain saints did (i.e., for unbaptized catechumens only) would have more room for erring in good faith (reasonably thinking for a time that it was the traditional teaching of the Church) until all the aspects of the issue were presented to them.
    Where has the Church said that believing in BOD does not make one outside the Church? This is the same logic that you excoriated Bumphrey for. How can you compromise on whether one, after seeing all the points and having a full understanding of the issue, and still rejects it, cannot be heretical? It doesn't make sense. I think it's cowardly to not speak the Truth when we have all the facts in front of us. I understand that we cannot just issue a blanket statement about whether one is a heretic for believing in BOD for Catechumens only, but that does not mean that they can't be heretics for believing in it at some point.

    The Rule of Faith is clear that the Sacrament of Baptism is necessary for Salvation. Now days the only people who believe BOD only applies to Catechumens do so only because they read it from the Saints/Doctors. This is clear because BOD for Catechumens only, is not taught anywhere today. BOD for catechumens is the perfect loophole for salvation outside the Church. This is a special and unique issue. Once that door has been opened there's no end. It is explicitly contrary to the Canons of Trent which decree on the Sacrament as a whole and not just the interior effects, is necessary for Salvation.
    There is no difference between an intoxicated man and one full of his own opinion, and one is no more capable of reasoning than the other.----St. Francis de Sales

    Online Ladislaus

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 13450
    • Reputation: +6923/-1617
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Gerry Matatics on EENS, BOD
    « Reply #29 on: October 04, 2017, 01:58:42 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Yet this seems to be what you are saying as well.

    Nope.  Making an error with regard to a speculative opinion is one thing, for a Doctor of the Church to have taught blatant heresy is quite another.

     

    Sitemap 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16