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
Yes, but he has used ambigous language when asked if he holds the Feeney position. And if you know Gerry personally, you would know that he is very direct and precise most of the time when he speaks. Secondly, I was present when he avoided such a direct question. His association with the Dimonds puts me on edge. But I think it is pretty well known that he shares their sentiments, a non-profit group that I know of (who are staunch traditionalists) stopped giving him donations recently, due to these issues.
gemma_philothea Wrote: Secondly, I was present when he avoided such a direct question.

Was this very long ago, as I knew he had issues (some of his talks made this apparent), but thought he may have worked them out (no proof, just a hunch from recent, rather incomplete info).
 
If you know the article in Omlor's book on e.e.n.s., it would seem to be rather stupid to promote the book if one is a (closet?) Feeneyite.  Crazier things have been done, to be sure, but I would not do it if I sympathized with the Dimonds. 
 
Who knows?
What Gerry and many Sedevacantists forget is that there is a hierarchy in the Church.  God made it that way. 
 
In no way is it acceptable that the "inferior" judge the "Superior".  The priest can not judge his Bishop....the faithful cannot judge the Priest.  This "judging" involves a certain pride on the part of one who is making such accusations.
 
I know that the Sedevacantast argument goes much deeper than this.  But, for us mere "nothings" (faithful) to presume to judge the Pope - is disrespectful for one thing and it takes away the respect and honour that the Pope in his office deserves.
 
St Paul corrected the first Pope St Peter but he still respected him as the head of the Church, while doing so.  You can judge the actions of the Pope, but it is unacceptable to judge him and the office that he holds.
tradcat Wrote:What Gerry and many Sedevacantists forget is that there is a hierarchy in the Church.  God made it that way. 
 
While I realize this reminder is given in a kindly manner, no SVs I know actually forget this rather important point.  However, a hierarchy that is not actually Catholic does not really do much for the Church instituted by Christ.
 
Quote:In no way is it acceptable that the "inferior" judge the "Superior".  The priest can not judge his Bishop....the faithful cannot judge the Priest.  This "judging" involves a certain pride on the part of one who is making such accusations.
 
This "judging" is but a phantom issue in the SV question, as no SV is saying their conclusions amount to a judgment, properly so-called - as in a de jure statement, binding on the faithful (which is what the maxim "the Pope is judged by no one" is all about).  The recent claimants to the See of Peter have not even possessed the See in the first place, imo, and even if they did, they judged themselves by doing what they have done (which is what Cum ex apostolatus officio is all about).
 
Quote:I know that the Sedevacantast argument goes much deeper than this.  But, for us mere "nothings" (faithful) to presume to judge the Pope - is disrespectful for one thing and it takes away the respect and honour that the Pope in his office deserves.
 
His office does deserve the greatest possible filial respect, and submission, as it is the office of the Vicar of Christ.  However, what is disputed is whether the recent claimants ever possessed that office at all (and if they did not, there is no need - now or in the future - to "judge" them or depose them from their office, on this account).
 
Quote:St Paul corrected the first Pope St Peter but he still respected him as the head of the Church, while doing so.  You can judge the actions of the Pope, but it is unacceptable to judge him and the office that he holds.

 
Saint Paul gave Saint Peter what is called fraternal correction, which is a totally different ball of wax. 
 
Just what would the judgment of any man, in any circumstances, be based upon, other than his actions?  If you can judge those, you are judging the man who so acted.
 
As this thread is about Mr. Matatics, more than it is about SV, I would kindly ask that any specific questions or arguments be offered in another thread in this Wild West forum.  There are quite a few going at present, on many of the important issues pertaining to SV.  God speed to you, tradcat.
gemma_philothea Wrote: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?

 
Could you clarify the difference betwee consecration and ordination?  How can he be consecrated invalidly and ordained validly?
One is consecrated a bishop and one is ordained a priest. The problem with Ratzinger is that he was consecrated a bishop in the new rite, which was changed in many ways, including the core form laid down by the Church, as was the rite of ordination in the Novus Ordo.
 
That is why we do not accept the ordinations of priests and the consecrations of bishops in the new rites.
 
When the Novus Ordo religion came along--it changed the core form of almost all the sacraments--which would make them invalid. Certain words prescribed by the Church are absolutely necessary for the validity of a sacrament and one cannot diverge from them.
 
I hope this makes things clear.
 
JMJ,
Gemma
gemma_philothea Wrote: His association with the Dimonds puts me on edge.

I just read something that indicates his association may be, sadly, rather close (at least in ideology).  Oh well, time will tell.
Well, I do believe it is highly supsicious, especially when one, who has been so candid in the past, will not give a straight answer to a question.
 
I hope someday God will send us the final antidote to their (the Dimonds) venom.
 
JMJ,
Gemma
 
Is Gerry Matatics still involved with occultist, "Sir" Charles Coulombe?
MauricePinay Wrote:Is Gerry Matatics still involved with occultist, "Sir" Charles Coulombe?

I know very little about G.M.'s recent activities (or even his past ones, for that matter - other than his brief acceptance of SV, and of a teaching position at MHT Seminary, followed by a change of heart), but I think I recall the name of Coulombe from the Catholic Treasures catalogs.  What, briefly, is his story, Maurice (or anyone else who knows)? 
Pages: 1 2 3