Author Topic: Anyone familiar with Gerry Matatics? (Read 6589 times)

Incredulous · « **Reply #30 on:** November 23, 2021, 02:35:45 PM »

Quote from: roscoe on November 23, 2021, 01:39:35 PM

i am not sure where Mr Matatics stands on the Card Rampolla alleged OTO(LOL) controversy( which leads to despair because it is in fact an attack on the Church as a whole because it is an attack on popes Pius IX, Leo XIII, St Pius X, Cards Del Val, De Lai etc) but mr Incred holds the SAME POSITION as Dimonds re C Rampolla.

Honorable Roscoe Rampolla!

We're honored your excellency posted on this Gerry Matatics topic!

My response to your post:

"The Dimond Bros. go with the trad flow, realizing Rampolla was OTO."

Now here's a presentation with sources for you. Suggest you play it in slow speed, to catch all the charges.

While a 'laughing emoji" is your standard, response, I suspect you'll be at further loss to explain yourself.

DigitalLogos · « **Reply #31 on:** November 23, 2021, 03:43:57 PM »

Quote from: Incredulous on November 23, 2021, 11:55:42 AM

I think the truth is found in the perfection of moderation, or the “Golden Mean”, as Our Lady emphasized in The “Mystical City of God”.

Call me a fence-sitter, but the "Golden Mean" is precisely why I hold to sedepriv as opposed to total sedevacantism.

Marion · « **Reply #32 on:** November 23, 2021, 03:53:26 PM »

Quote from: DecemRationis on November 23, 2021, 05:23:13 AM

I'm not done with the video debate, but at the about 1:01:30 mark until about 1:12 Gerry gives a brilliant analysis of the crisis based upon Scripture and 1 and 2 Maccabees, Isaiah 22 and Matthew 16. When I said I was leaning Sede at times and implied I may adopt that view again, Gerry expresses very well why there - on the basis of the revealed word of God which addresses this end times aberration, which won't be found in the "manuals" or in the theologians of "indefectibility."

Thank you very much, Decem, thank you very much, Mr Matatics. Superb. That's the key to understanding what we live through.

Quote

In that day, saith the Lord of hosts, shall the peg be removed ...

One can read: In that three and a half years, in that 70 babylonian years, in that generation that shall not pass before ..., saith the Lord ...

DecemRationis · « **Reply #33 on:** November 23, 2021, 04:29:31 PM »

Quote from: Incredulous on November 23, 2021, 11:55:42 AM

Gerry’s early formation was Protestant bible school. He has it down pat and can reel off Scriptural quotes reflexively.

In general, I hear a lot of Protestants rattling off Old Testament quotes, especially it seems... to bypass New Testament Scriptures related to the Sacraments.

For example, Forgiveness of sins (they don’t want to discuss the Sacrament of Confession) or the Holy Eucharist or Holy Orders.

So when Gerry delves in Old Testament sources for his arguments, I’m not buying it.

Secondly, I think Gerry has an agenda. He’s too smart and gifted not to know what he’s doing.

I’m sympathetic to sede-vacantist arguments, but not when they lead to despair 😔

The Dimond’s are selling the same schtik. Oh, but their stuff is very interesting, seemingly traditional, but then their ultimate message is one of despair too.

I think the truth is found in the perfection of moderation, or the “Golden Mean”, as Our Lady emphasized in The “Mystical City of God”.

Incred,

Coming back to this, it's been gnawing at me a bit. Not really understanding this post, it's real point, I guess.

I'm sure Gerry uses Scripture to support and defend forgiveness of sins, sacraments, Holy Eucharist, Holy Orders, and other things Catholic. So, in his instance, that Prot background serves the truth well.

Not really understanding this post, but that's my problem. LOL

As to despair: as another Sede, John Daly, said (in a debate that featured Gerry actually), if you have cancer, you want to be told you have cancer; you don't want to be told things are fine and dandy.

Some of us think that it's gonna be hell until the return of Our Lord, and it will only end with the return, and the end of the ages - boom. So despair until then. And we think we have good Scriptural warrant for believing that . . . Oops, is that Prot of us?

Just kidding.

Appreciate your posts and input.

DR

DecemRationis · « **Reply #34 on:** November 23, 2021, 04:31:05 PM »

Quote from: Marion on November 23, 2021, 03:53:26 PM

Thank you very much, Decem, thank you very much, Mr Matatics. Superb. That's the key to understanding what we live through.

One can read: In that three and a half years, in that 70 babylonian years, in that generation that shall not pass before ..., saith the Lord ...

Yes, the key. We're on the same (Biblical) page, Marion.

TradMan80 · « **Reply #35 on:** November 26, 2021, 03:22:31 PM »

I just listened to the Gerry Matatics/Jim Condit debate and, to my surprise, Matatics doesn't believe that any of the Traditional Catholic organizations are valid whether they be Indult, SSPX, SSPX Resistance, SSPV, CMRI, SGG, the Roman Catholic Institute etc.

Has anyone ever heard his explanation of why he believes this? He seems to me to be like the Dimonds but I don't think he even believes the Dimonds are valid (which is strange considering both Matatics and the Dimonds are home-aloners and Feeneyites).

Near the end of the debate, Matatics was plugging his audio discs but his online store seems to be not operative. Does anyone know where I can find his explanations of why he believes he's the only one who is right?

SimpleMan · « **Reply #36 on:** November 26, 2021, 04:53:43 PM »

Quote from: TradMan80 on November 26, 2021, 03:22:31 PM

I just listened to the Gerry Matatics/Jim Condit debate and, to my surprise, Matatics doesn't believe that any of the Traditional Catholic organizations are valid whether they be Indult, SSPX, SSPX Resistance, SSPV, CMRI, SGG, the Roman Catholic Institute etc.

Has anyone ever heard his explanation of why he believes this? He seems to me to be like the Dimonds but I don't think he even believes the Dimonds are valid (which is strange considering both Matatics and the Dimonds are home-aloners and Feeneyites).

Near the end of the debate, Matatics was plugging his audio discs but his online store seems to be not operative. Does anyone know where I can find his explanations of why he believes he's the only one who is right?

The best I've ever been able to figure out --- and I hope I don't mangle this too much --- he says that you cannot have Masses outside of papal or diocesan jurisdiction, and priests, even if validly ordained, cannot licitly exercise their ministry, so if there is no hierarchy, no pope, then the Church, or what is left of it, basically stops, with, one presumes, no way ever to "get it up and running" again. The Church is comprised only of those who possess the fullness of the Catholic Faith, and for all practical purposes, there is no hierarchy. You would think he'd allow for priests to administer rites in danger of death, and he may. I don't know.

Can anyone flesh this out better than I have?

Incredulous · « **Reply #37 on:** November 26, 2021, 04:55:13 PM »

You're on it TradMan!

DR, Sorry for my delay in supplying more details on the Matatics/Condit informal debate.

https://www.facebook.com/catholicapologist/videos/discussion-debate-with-jim-condit-jr-on-state-of-the-church-especially-the-burni/394936948729872/

At 1:59min, Jim Condit explains why we can assist at a Mass celebrated by a validly ordained priest, who does not carry an excommunication (by name) status. This is based on Pope Martin V's ruling in 1418, concerning the Great Western Schism, codified in Canon Law 2261 in 1917. Apparently Pope Benedict XII supported Pope Martin V's ruling in 1750.

The Popes say, the request of the Catholic faithful seeking valid Sacraments is what gives the priest Supplied Jurisdiction, versus Ordinary Jurisdiction.

"The request of the Catholic faithful" also carries leverage in our situation today, when we ask our Bishops for more priests.

SimpleMan · « **Reply #38 on:** November 26, 2021, 05:05:10 PM »

Quote from: Incredulous on November 26, 2021, 04:55:13 PM

You're on it TradMan!

DR, Sorry for my delay in supplying more details on the Matatics/Condit informal debate.

https://www.facebook.com/catholicapologist/videos/discussion-debate-with-jim-condit-jr-on-state-of-the-church-especially-the-burni/394936948729872/

At 1:59min, Jim Condit explains why we can assist at a Mass celebrated by a validly ordained priest, who does not carry an excommunication (by name) status. This is based on Pope Martin V's ruling in 1418, concerning the Great Western Schism, codified in Canon Law 2261 in 1917. Apparently Pope Benedict XII supported Pope Martin V's ruling in 1750.

The Popes say, the request of the Catholic faithful seeking valid Sacraments is what gives the priest Supplied Jurisdiction, versus Ordinary Jurisdiction.

"The request of the Catholic faithful" also carries leverage in our situation today, when we ask our Bishops for more priests.

That's the concept I was looking for. Again, I hope I don't mangle or butcher this too much, but it seems as though Matatics doesn't believe in supplied jurisdiction, or rather, that it does not apply to the present situation, even under the most severe permutation of sede vacante. He may not believe in supplied jurisdiction at all. I don't know.

Incredulous · « **Reply #39 on:** November 26, 2021, 05:16:52 PM »

Quote from: SimpleMan on November 26, 2021, 04:53:43 PM

The best I've ever been able to figure out --- and I hope I don't mangle this too much --- he says that you cannot have Masses outside of papal or diocesan jurisdiction, and priests, even if validly ordained, cannot licitly exercise their ministry, so if there is no hierarchy, no pope, then the Church, or what is left of it, basically stops, with, one presumes, no way ever to "get it up and running" again. The Church is comprised only of those who possess the fullness of the Catholic Faith, and for all practical purposes, there is no hierarchy. You would think he'd allow for priests to administer rites in danger of death, and he may. I don't know.

Can anyone flesh this out better than I have?

Check this one out, as an example of how the Church supplies:

The Apostolic Pardon prayer for the dying

"Through the holy mysteries of our redemption may Almighty God release you from all punishment in this life and the life to come.
May He open you the gates of paradise and welcome you into everlasting joy."

The Handbook of Indulgences #28 states: Priests who minister the sacraments to the Christian faithful who are in a life and death situation should not neglect to impart to them the apostolic blessing, with its attached indulgence.

But if a priest cannot be present, holy mother Church lovingly grants such persons who are rightly disposed a plenary indulgence to be obtained in articulo mortis, at the approach of death, provided they regularly prayed in some way during their lifetime. The use of the Crucifix or a cross is recommended in obtaining this plenary indulgence.

In such situations the three usual conditions required in order to gain a plenary indulgence are substituted for by the condition "provided they prayed regularly in some way."

Marion · « **Reply #40 on:** November 26, 2021, 05:53:19 PM »

Quote from: TradMan80 on November 26, 2021, 03:22:31 PM

I just listened to the Gerry Matatics/Jim Condit debate and, to my surprise, Matatics doesn't believe that any of the Traditional Catholic organizations are valid whether they be Indult, SSPX, SSPX Resistance, SSPV, CMRI, SGG, the Roman Catholic Institute etc.

Has anyone ever heard his explanation of why he believes this? He seems to me to be like the Dimonds but I don't think he even believes the Dimonds are valid (which is strange considering both Matatics and the Dimonds are home-aloners and Feeneyites).

Near the end of the debate, Matatics was plugging his audio discs but his online store seems to be not operative. Does anyone know where I can find his explanations of why he believes he's the only one who is right?

Here's a comment below the video:

Quote from: Gerry Matatics

Rest assured that Jim and I are both extremely eager to have a full-blown, formal, two-podium, timed debate this spring that will (unlike our free-wheeling, informal discussion this past Friday) restrict itself to the single issue of the legitimacy, or lack thereof, of these trad clerical groups and their chapels. We will keep you posted! In the meantime I plan to do a one-hour broadcast on this topic during this month of November. Stay tuned!

facebook.com/catholicapologist/videos/394936948729872/

TradMan80 · « **Reply #41 on:** November 26, 2021, 07:23:55 PM »

Quote from: SimpleMan on November 26, 2021, 04:53:43 PM

The best I've ever been able to figure out --- and I hope I don't mangle this too much --- he says that you cannot have Masses outside of papal or diocesan jurisdiction, and priests, even if validly ordained, cannot licitly exercise their ministry, so if there is no hierarchy, no pope, then the Church, or what is left of it, basically stops, with, one presumes, no way ever to "get it up and running" again. The Church is comprised only of those who possess the fullness of the Catholic Faith, and for all practical purposes, there is no hierarchy. You would think he'd allow for priests to administer rites in danger of death, and he may. I don't know.

Can anyone flesh this out better than I have?

You did a great job. Thanks for the response.

Quote from: Incredulous on November 26, 2021, 04:55:13 PM

You're on it TradMan!

DR, Sorry for my delay in supplying more details on the Matatics/Condit informal debate.

https://www.facebook.com/catholicapologist/videos/discussion-debate-with-jim-condit-jr-on-state-of-the-church-especially-the-burni/394936948729872/

At 1:59min, Jim Condit explains why we can assist at a Mass celebrated by a validly ordained priest, who does not carry an excommunication (by name) status. This is based on Pope Martin V's ruling in 1418, concerning the Great Western Schism, codified in Canon Law 2261 in 1917. Apparently Pope Benedict XII supported Pope Martin V's ruling in 1750.

The Popes say, the request of the Catholic faithful seeking valid Sacraments is what gives the priest Supplied Jurisdiction, versus Ordinary Jurisdiction.

Thank you very much for the information.

DecemRationis · « **Reply #42 on:** November 27, 2021, 06:53:00 AM »

Quote from: Incredulous on November 26, 2021, 04:55:13 PM

You're on it TradMan!

DR, Sorry for my delay in supplying more details on the Matatics/Condit informal debate.

https://www.facebook.com/catholicapologist/videos/discussion-debate-with-jim-condit-jr-on-state-of-the-church-especially-the-burni/394936948729872/

At 1:59min, Jim Condit explains why we can assist at a Mass celebrated by a validly ordained priest, who does not carry an excommunication (by name) status. This is based on Pope Martin V's ruling in 1418, concerning the Great Western Schism, codified in Canon Law 2261 in 1917. Apparently Pope Benedict XII supported Pope Martin V's ruling in 1750.

The Popes say, the request of the Catholic faithful seeking valid Sacraments is what gives the priest Supplied Jurisdiction, versus Ordinary Jurisdiction.

"The request of the Catholic faithful" also carries leverage in our situation today, when we ask our Bishops for more priests.

Incred,

Thanks. I've listened to the whole thing.

Matatics didn't go a very good job of formulating his position as to why one can't resort to Trad priests operating outside Rome's approval. However, I think he made a lot of sense in his argument about why you certainly don't have to resort to such priests; i.e., he gave a justification for the home alone position I think.

Essentially, he argued that, if you're not required to go to, or listen to, a Trad bishop or priest for Mass, the sacraments, etc. - not required to go to them to fulfill your obligations to God - they can't represent the true Church because the true Church has authority: in normal times, the ordinary of your diocese has real authority over you. Bishop Sanborn can't discipline or enforce the Sunday obligation or the precepts of the Church on any Catholics in his area; any authority one concedes to him is voluntary. He essentially is arguing that a mark of the true Church is authority, and these guys don't have it - in that sense he is arguing that Trad clergy should not be resorted to because they are not true pastors of the Church in lacking the mark of authority that true pastors of the Catholic Church must have.

I've been having a discussion with Sean about the necessity of there being ordinaries in the Church for the Church to continue to exist and be apostolic. This is essentially the argument he should be making there. I would reject it being made in that context because while genuine authority requires a true bishop or pastor of the Catholic Church the authority is per accidens and not part of the essential nature (the per se) of being a true bishop or pastor of the Church.

Thus, an ordinary must be a bishop but it is not necessary that a bishop be an ordinary. It is not of the essence of the Church that she have ordinaries, but that she have bishops materially linked to the apostles (my argument). Only Catholic bishops (with the supreme authority going to the bishop above bishops, the pope) can have true authority but it is not necessary or of the essence of being a bishop that he have that authority. An ordinary can leave his diocese, and go somewhere where he loses the authority he had in his diocese; he doesn't cease to be a Catholic bishop and successor to the apostles when the authority isn't there, however; being an ordinary is not necessary but per accidens to him being a bishop or successor to the apostles.

As I said in that other thread, Christ's commission to the apostles is that they preach the Gospel and teach his commandments, and make disciples among men. For the Church to be apostolic, she must have genuine successors to the apostles who possess the true faith and gospel (or else they couldn't preach or teach it) so that men may hear and be baptized and converted to the Kingdom. These successors per accidens may also have authority in certain spheres, and only they can have such authority; however, such authority is not of the essence of what they are, and is not necessary per se for them to be true successors.

I'm winging this on the fly, but I think it may be sound.

He's a discussion that gets to where I think I'm going (LOL):

Quote

Closely related to this idea is the one that nihil quod est per accidens est necessarium—nothing that is per accidens is necessary.4 This implies that all contingent things are in some way per accidens, or per aliud, and must be resolved, led back to, or caused by what is per se. However, this also means that it is necessary that the per accidens be so grounded by the per se. Nonetheless, this does not confer necessity upon what is per accidens, even though it might be mistaken as such. That is, even though the per accidens is not what is essential to that which is per se, it is necessary that the per se always accompany the per accidens. This necessary connection can cause philosophical errors.

It can be the case that the attendant, per accidens unities in reality are confused with that which is essential, or what has reality per se. This mistake is frequently taken advantage of by advertisers, for instance. It is not necessary that someone speaking with scientific authority wear a lab coat, nor is it necessary that if someone is wearing a lab coat that he can also speak with scientific authority. But this per accidens reality—a lab-coat-wearing, scientific authority—is nonetheless exploited to immediately project an ethos when one appears in a commercial for a new pharmaceutical.

https://thomistica.net/essays/2019/2/20/some-mistakes-due-to-what-is-per-accidens

The per se for the Church to be apostolic is a requirement that she have preachers/teachers who can be materially traced back to the apostles, and that these successors possess the true faith, else they couldn't teach it (the gospel, the true faith) and convert to it. It is not necessary that they have authority; only they can have it in Christ's Church, but that authority is a per accidens that requires the per se, not the other way around - to be a true successor the authority is not required, but only true successors can have authority.

The Church continues to exist with true bishops materially linked to the apostles who preach the true faith to all creatures per Christ's command (Willamson, Sanborn, Dolan, etc.). That these true bishops lack the per accidens of authority possessed by ordinaries does not mean the Church has lost the per se (successors of the apostles possessing and preaching the true faith to all men).

Hey, as I said, I'm winging it on the fly, and perhaps unfortunately linking thoughts going on in other threads. Some good discussions going on here lately that are very valuable to at least get the blood flowing into the brain.

Thanks for the link; it would have totally been off my radar if you hadn't mentioned it.

DR

Ladislaus · « **Reply #43 on:** November 27, 2021, 08:02:18 AM »

There’s a certain amount of authority inherent in the episcopal Holy Order. Episcopus means “overseer” and is defined even in the essential form of the Rite as as basically a chief priest. There was no explicit separation between Order and authority for the first few centuries of the Church. That became elaborated as some bishops became heretics or when there was a need for chorbishops ... who were allowed to confect Minor Orders and Diaconate but not the priesthood. There’s a certain amount of authority inherent also in the priesthood as priests are a higher Order than laymen. Order is a reference to hierarchy. But it gets actualized concretely when assignments are made in terms of who gets charge over whom. But how these assignments are made has varied. Early on the people and the clergy selected their bishop. Just as St. Robert argued that, even if the Cardinals were all killed, the Church would nevertheless always have the ability to select or appoint a new Pope. Same thing could apply to bishops. If some cataclysm wiped out all those with ordinary authority, those Catholics who remained could elect for themselves a bishop and a pope. But there would have to remain at least one valid bishop. That bishop would by default be the highest ranking member of the hierarchy. There’s a huge difference between the authority inherent in the orders and the concrete designation. That’s also one of the principles behind sedeprivationism.

Order is like a rank, whereas authority is a specific commission. I could be a Lieutenant in the Army without having been put in charge of anyone. But if all the commanders above me were killed in action I would assume command by default given that I was the highest-ranking member left.

Even if I did not receive a commission explicitly, but by default, there would still be a continuity or succession from the military.

PAT317 · « **Reply #44 on:** November 27, 2021, 08:35:30 AM »

Quote from: SimpleMan on November 26, 2021, 04:53:43 PM

You would think he'd allow for priests to administer rites in danger of death, and he may. I don't know.

As mentioned above, he didn't allow for any priest to administer Last Rites to his wife before she died, as far as I know because of his position on this.

Author Topic: Anyone familiar with Gerry Matatics? (Read 6589 times)

Incredulous

Re: Anyone familiar with Gerry Matatics?

DigitalLogos

Re: Anyone familiar with Gerry Matatics?

Marion

Re: Anyone familiar with Gerry Matatics?

DecemRationis

Re: Anyone familiar with Gerry Matatics?

DecemRationis

Re: Anyone familiar with Gerry Matatics?

TradMan80

Re: Anyone familiar with Gerry Matatics?

SimpleMan

Re: Anyone familiar with Gerry Matatics?

Incredulous

Re: Anyone familiar with Gerry Matatics?

SimpleMan

Re: Anyone familiar with Gerry Matatics?

Incredulous

Re: Anyone familiar with Gerry Matatics?

Marion

Re: Anyone familiar with Gerry Matatics?

TradMan80

Re: Anyone familiar with Gerry Matatics?

DecemRationis

Re: Anyone familiar with Gerry Matatics?

Ladislaus

Re: Anyone familiar with Gerry Matatics?

PAT317

Re: Anyone familiar with Gerry Matatics?