FishEaters Traditional Catholic Forums

Full Version: Gerry Matatics' a sede?
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Pages: 1 2 3
Gerry Matatics Declares Himself a Sedevacantist
Sunday, October 30, 2005
According to an e-mail sent on 31 July 2005 (which Matatics is supposed to make public and expand upon):

I believe, and publicly teach, that the Catholic Church has always infallibly taught that because heretics are not members of the Catholic Church, they cannot validly hold office in the Church, according to divine law, and that, should they seem to hold such offices, the believing Catholic must conclude that their election to and possession of such offices is null and void. This would include, not only the manifest heretics John XXIII, Paul VI, John Paul I, and John Paul II, but also the manifest heretic and present illicit and invalid occupant of the See of Peter, Benedict XVI, who has the further handicap (unlike his immediate four predecessors) of not even having been validly consecrated a bishop, which, in addition to all other considerations, makes it impossible for him to therefore function as Bishop of Rome.



*********


Sedevacantism means literally, "the seat is empty" - referring to the papacy.

http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2005/10/g...mself.html

 

Question: Why does it matter if Pope Ratzinger, according to this blog post not a validly consecrated bishop? I thought that the only criterian for Papacy is that they be baptised RC males. Further....that alone isn't a good enough reason to be sede. But, is Pope Ratzinger (Benedict XVI) a consecrated bishop ? He has to be to become cardinal....confused.

Quote:  Question: Why does it matter if Pope Ratzinger, according to this blog post, is not a validly consecrated bishop? I thought that the only criterion for Papacy is that they be baptized RC males.

 

One can be elected without being a bishop, or even a priest for that matter, but one cannot actually be raised to the Sovereign Pontificate unless he is a bishop.  If I (a mere layman) get elected, for example, I can accept, but in order to actually become Pope, I would need to be ordained a priest, and then consecrated a bishop, before I could actually become the Pope (which would involve some further ceremonies in this non-existent ceremonial whirlwind).

 

Quote:Further....that alone isn't a good enough reason to be sede.


 

If you knew a man was not a bishop, but that he was pretending to be Pope, it would actually be plenty reason to refuse his claim to the Sovereign Pontificate (because he would be incapable of possessing it - he could be elected, but he could not be raised to the office until he was consecrated a bishop).

 

Quote:But, is Pope Ratzinger (Benedict XVI) a consecrated bishop ? He has to be to become cardinal....confused.


 

This may not help (sorry for that, as it is intended to), but one does not even need to be a priest, technically speaking, to become a cardinal.  Most are, to be sure, but it is not strictly necessary.

Quote:

Quote:But, is Pope Ratzinger (Benedict XVI) a consecrated bishop ? He has to be to become cardinal....confused.

 

This may not help (sorry for that, as it is intended to), but one does not even need to be a priest, technically speaking, to become a cardinal.  Most are, to be sure, but it is not strictly necessary.

[/QUOTE]

 

Thank you for your response Glad, but the question was is Benedict XVI a consecrated/valid Bishop?

AGtoTrad Wrote:Thank you for your response Glad, but the question was is Benedict XVI a consecrated/valid Bishop?
According to Mr. Matatics?  No, he is not.  I agree with him on this point, btw.
Yes, Ratzinger was "consecrated" a "bishop" in the new religion's rite, but not in the rite of the Catholic Church. However, he was ordained in the proper rite.
 
What does this have to do with Gerry?
Simply trying to understand the email that Gerry M. sent which stated that Ratzinger was not consecrated. And in essence it has nothing to do with Gerry per se just his statement.
So your saying that all Bishops since Vatican II are not valid? Are the priests ordinations valid? I am sorry I am feeling way out of the loop here, dear one.
 
 
AGtoTrad Wrote:So your saying that all Bishops since Vatican II are not valid? Are the priests ordinations valid? I am sorry I am feeling way out of the loop here, dear one.

Nothing to be sorry about, my good lady, as there is an awful lot that has been changed, and it is hard to keep up with the innovations of the NO church.  If I can help someone get back into the loop, or just be a little less out of it, it is my pleasure (that is, if they were even really out of it to begin with, or just a little too busy with the things of life - which I would guess you are - to have kept up on all that has been going on).
 
It is held by some, GM (as far as I know) and myself included, that the priestly ordinations and episcopal consecrations of the NO are invalid, due to a defect in the form (which is the same criterion which is used by most who hold the NOM to be invalid).
 
The new ordination form came into use in 1968, the NOM in 1969, and the consecration form in 1970 (? - I am not sure of the exact date off the top of my head, but it was in the same period of whole-sale change).
 
God speed, and I hope all has worked out well with your son's recent questions.[Image: tiphat2.gif]
gemma_philothea Wrote:What does this have to do with Gerry?

He is now apparently a sede-vacantist, and holds the NOM, the new rites of ordination and consecration, and likely confirmation, too, to be invalid, due to a defect of form.
gladius_veritatis Wrote:
gemma_philothea Wrote:What does this have to do with Gerry?

He is now apparently a sede-vacantist, and holds the NOM, the new rites of ordination and consecration, and likely confirmation, too, to be invalid, due to a defect of form.

 
Well I knew that. He has been tricky about words lately though. I believe he also holds the Dimond position on the Rythmn Method and BOD AND BOB.
gemma_philothea Wrote:I believe he also holds the Dimond position on the Rythmn Method and BOD AND BOB.
Dunno bout the rhythm bit, but I know he had flirted with the Feeneyites a bit (as can be seen by his association with Catholic Treasures), but I believe he is "over" that one.  This proves nothing, but he is now selling Omlor's The Robber Church at his talks, which contains an article that would be rather stupid for a Feeneyite to promote (and it is also the best one I have read on extra ecclesiam nulla salus, too).
Pages: 1 2 3