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. 

It's a basic principle of natural law, that people have to follow their conscience. He would have sinned against the Holy Ghost, not to follow his conscience.

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

We have the patron of biblical studies, too:

The peg of Is 22 then is the katechon (the one who withholds and will be taken out of the midst of the Church) of 2 Thess 2. St. Jerome explains in his Commentary on Isaiah that the reason why the Lord takes the peg away, is found in Mt 24:12 (charity growing cold). St. Thomas Aquinas comments as follows:

545. In that day. Here he sets out the threat against the whole priesthood, which was destroyed in the time of Sedecias, when Nabuchodonosor took them captive; for what was said above of Sobna pertains to the time of Sennacherib. And here the priesthood itself, which ceased in the time of captivity, is called a peg: the children of Israel shall sit many days without king, and without prince, and without sacrifice, and without altar, and without ephod, and without theraphim (Hos 3:4).

aquinas.cc


It's not the gates of hell prevailing, it's the Lord himself pulling the peg.

I don't know what went into their decision, nor about others trying to get a priest, and out of respect to the family, I am not going to speculate.

I always wonder when people who are married take extreme religious positions, like joining a cult, or in this case, home alone sedevacantism. Was his wife with him all the way? When he was a believing protestant was his wife a protestant also? And when he converted to the Novus Ordo, was his wife also a believing Novus Ordo? And when he went to the SSPX, did his wife agree? And then when he became a homealoner? Did she believe exactly as he believed the whole way there, up until she died without the sacraments?

Does this pertain to the decapitation of the Mosaic priesthood at the sacking of Jerusalem by General Titus?

Sorry if I’m off track on your point here.

This refers to the 8 minute section of the Matatics/Condit debate recommended above by Decem.

Yes, the Lord "pulls the peg" at least three times. 1. see the Aquinas quote above (before the Babylonian captivity); 2. as you mention in A.D. 70; 3. pulling the withholder out of the midst at the Great Apostasy and revelation of Antichrist (2 Thess 2)

After carefully listening to the Gerry Matatics/Jim Condit debate, I've come to the conclusion that Matatics is a complete fraud and a deliberate troublemaker. 

If one were to agree with him in that debate (i.e. that there is not one valid priest or other clergy members in the entire Church and that the only solution is to be a "Feeneyite home-aloner") then Matatics himself does not make any sense because, when he converted to Catholicism, he would be knowingly converting to a "dead church" - a church that is not only invisible in hierarchy and structure but also a church where there are no more priests; he would be knowingly converting to a church where "everyone is on their own". 

And as if that wasn't hypocritical enough, here's what Matatics said in the debate about Epikeia: "I'm all for epikeia but it has its limited application." Please tell me how it's even possible to believe in epikeia when one doesn't even believe in the existence of a functioning clergy or the existence of any form of hierarchical structure? 

I personally believe Gerry Matatics is doing what he's doing to cause as much unnecessary conflict as possible in the Traditional community for financial profit. Just like the Protestant-turned-Traditional Catholic-turned Eastern Orthodox fraud that is Jay Dyer, both appear to be charlatans who were born Protestant and went from denomination to denomination, never comfortably holding any solid theological position for a long period of time, causing unnecessary turmoil wherever they go and making a buck from it.  

Honestly, in this day and age, I'm very weary of those who weren't born and raised Catholic. I know that may be too extreme but it's how I feel. Why are all of the so-called Modern Experts in Catholicism "former Protestants"? Isn't there any born and raised Catholics who are good enough? Food for thought. 

After carefully listening to the Gerry Matatics/Jim Condit debate, I've come to the conclusion that Matatics is a complete fraud and a deliberate troublemaker.

If one were to agree with him in that debate (i.e. that there is not one valid priest or other clergy members in the entire Church and that the only solution is to be a "Feeneyite home-aloner") then Matatics himself does not make any sense because, when he converted to Catholicism, he would be knowingly converting to a "dead church" - a church that is not only invisible in hierarchy and structure but also a church where there are no more priests; he would be knowingly converting to a church where "everyone is on their own".

And as if that wasn't hypocritical enough, here's what Matatics said in the debate about Epikeia: "I'm all for epikeia but it has its limited application." Please tell me how it's even possible to believe in epikeia when one doesn't even believe in the existence of a functioning clergy or the existence of any form of hierarchical structure?

I personally believe Gerry Matatics is doing what he's doing to cause as much unnecessary conflict as possible in the Traditional community for financial profit. Just like the Protestant-turned-Traditional Catholic-turned Eastern Orthodox fraud that is Jay Dyer, both appear to be charlatans who were born Protestant and went from denomination to denomination, never comfortably holding any solid theological position for a long period of time, causing unnecessary turmoil wherever they go and making a buck from it. 

Honestly, in this day and age, I'm very weary of those who weren't born and raised Catholic. I know that may be too extreme but it's how I feel. Why are all of the so-called Modern Experts in Catholicism "former Protestants"? Isn't there any born and raised Catholics who are good enough? Food for thought.

Just got to ask, where do I count WRT your comment about being weary of "those who weren't born and raised Catholic"?  Raised in a home where traditional morality was just a "given", strong work ethic, frugal habits that have stuck with me to this day, clean living, 1960s-1970s, but religion was hardly ever spoken of.  Possibly went to church a dozen times or less in my whole life before I discovered Catholicism at age 14, baptized at age 15, been reading and searching ever since, backslid a few times, always came back.  Nothing to unlearn.  Very thankful I learned at a young age why everything I'd ever seen prior to that in my life was so ****ed up.

No offense taken, I don't think your comment applied to someone with a life story like mine, just food for thought.

No offense taken, I don't think your comment applied to someone with a life story like mine, just food for thought.

You're right. My life story didn't apply to someone with a life story like yours. I was referring to people who seem to be so-called "experts" in theology that they write all of these books, give all of these public lectures, have their tv shows, and were not even born and raised Catholic. EWTN (and other modernist organizations) seems to love to do this (and they seem to love the Jesuits the most of all religious orders too, for obvious reasons. Pacwa, after all, is popular with them). Thanks for responding. 

I'm assuming that he would just have Catholics, who adhere to his school of thought, to baptize anyone who professes that same school of thought themselves, as well as, presumably, to baptize infants whose parents adhere to this, and who present those infants for baptism.  IOW, the Japanese Catholic situation redux.  Ditto for matrimony.  The other five sacraments aren't there.

But unlike the absurdities of Matatics, the Japanese "knew" there were other priests and clergy who existed but they just couldn't get to them & so they had to work with what they had. Matatics, on the other hand, chooses to join and stay within a Church he believes has no valid clergy and no hierarchy to determine anything. That's a huge difference.

Apparently, if one studies and adheres to the teachings of the subject of Matatics 101 ---one must realize the following: that everyone is on their own, there is no clergy or hierarchy, there are no Masses & even if there were Masses, "una cuм Masses" would be invalid. However, Mr. Matatics himself should be listened to over any other living Catholic person today because there really isn't anybody else alive who is actually practicing Catholicism correctly. However, one must remember that Mr. Matatics is just a layman who is capable of error. 

Honestly, I can't stomach his nonsense. Thanks for writing.