Gerry Matatics

Is he in good standing with the Church?

[quote=mark a]Is he in good standing with the Church?
[/quote]

why wouldn’t he be??? Ask his bishop if there is a concern. He is probably not in good standing with some here because of his views and opinions on TLM, or Fatima, etc. But his views and references are as good as any one else with a view or opinion. If it has been implied that he has said or taught some heresy, I would be very doubtful of the source of any such statement.

Yes–He is in perfect standing. He is a great apologist.

I hear he is debating Robert Sungenis as to whether the Novus Ordo fulfills the Sunday obligation (Gerry is the negative, Sungenis, the positive).

[quote=EENS]Yes–He is in perfect standing. He is a great apologist.

I hear he is debating Robert Sungenis as to whether the Novus Ordo fulfills the Sunday obligation (Gerry is the negative, Sungenis, the positive).
[/quote]

Is Gerry playing the devil’s advocate, or does he truely believe that the Novus Ordo does not fulfill our Sunday obligation, which would make him a heretic, as the Magisterium have declare that the Novus Ordo does indeed fulfill the Sunday Obligation.

[quote=Scott_Lafrance]Is Gerry playing the devil’s advocate, or does he truely believe that the Novus Ordo does not fulfill our Sunday obligation, which would make him a heretic, as the Magisterium have declare that the Novus Ordo does indeed fulfill the Sunday Obligation.
[/quote]

The purpose of the “debate” is to present both sides of the issue as fairly (openly) as possible. Both have often declared their allegience to JPII , and their acknowledgement that a NO is licit, valid, and for Catholics.

I personally think they must have “argued” as to who would take the negative.

We have to wait till long after the Oct “debate” to listen or watch the presentation… ought to make for a heated discussion on this forum, or sure.

[quote=MrS]The purpose of the “debate” is to present both sides of the issue as fairly (openly) as possible. Both have often declared their allegience to JPII , and their acknowledgement that a NO is licit, valid, and for Catholics.

I personally think they must have “argued” as to who would take the negative.

We have to wait till long after the Oct “debate” to listen or watch the presentation… ought to make for a heated discussion on this forum, or sure.
[/quote]

So, he is playing the devil’s advocate. Just wanted to know. It takes a mature and intelligent debater to be able to prepare for and argue in favor of a position you personally opposed to.

I was perusing the old issues of “This Rock” online and I read an article about Matatics in which he was leaning towards sedevacanism. It was an older issue so I’m not sure what conclusion he ended up coming to.

catholic.com/thisrock/1995/9507fea1.asp

[quote=Scott_Lafrance]So, he is playing the devil’s advocate. Just wanted to know. It takes a mature and intelligent debater to be able to prepare for and argue in favor of a position you personally opposed to.
[/quote]

and a good disguise http://forums.catholic.com/images/icons/icon6.gif

MrS,

Are you sure Gerry does not believe it? I was talking to an apologist from Catholic International (for those who don’t know, that is Dr. Sungenis’s apostolate). The man with whom I spoke informed me that Gerry does in fact believe that the Novus Ordo does NOT fulfill the Sunday obligation (I suppose implying that it is not valid). Now, I didn’t hear this straight from Gerry or even from Dr. Sungenis, so I don’t know for absolute certainty. I am just asking if you know for sure, since I was informed that it was the other way around. I would like to go to California to hear the debate, but, unfortunately, I live in Georgia (at least we have an FSSP parish less than an hour from my house). I wonder if they will sell tapes…

Anyway, if you could clarify for me, I would appreciate it. God bless.

[quote=EENS]MrS,

Are you sure Gerry does not believe it? I was talking to an apologist from Catholic International (for those who don’t know, that is Dr. Sungenis’s apostolate). The man with whom I spoke informed me that Gerry does in fact believe that the Novus Ordo does NOT fulfill the Sunday obligation (I suppose implying that it is not valid). Now, I didn’t hear this straight from Gerry or even from Dr. Sungenis, so I don’t know for absolute certainty. I am just asking if you know for sure, since I was informed that it was the other way around. I would like to go to California to hear the debate, but, unfortunately, I live in Georgia (at least we have an FSSP parish less than an hour from my house). I wonder if they will sell tapes…

Anyway, if you could clarify for me, I would appreciate it. God bless.
[/quote]

First, I think Robert Sungenis would be flattered at the degree you have given him. I believe that he is still a candidate for the Dr. degree. In any case, he probably forgets more in a day than I learn in a month.

Second, his site is Catholics Apologetics International, or www.catholicintl.com for a link up. The details (limited) are on that site, and I would defer to CAI as to what position GM takes, or promotes. I really doubt that he could be both a friend of Sungenis, and a heretic.

Third, the distinction might be between the valid NO, and in invalid NO (where some priests have incorporated thier own changes and/or abuses or personal “norms”. Unfortunately, much of what the Vatican says is either cut and pasted, or interpreted to fit a certain position… so confusion reigns

In my heart, a believe the NO is valid. But I revere the traditional liturgy more and I believe it will return stronger for its exodus from our churches. Those who abuse will answer to God, not me, not CAI, not Matatics

Ask CAI - he is good at answering if he has not already… I am going to look too.

[quote=MrS]First, I think Robert Sungenis would be flattered at the degree you have given him. I believe that he is still a candidate for the Dr. degree. In any case, he probably forgets more in a day than I learn in a month.

Second, his site is Catholics Apologetics International, or www.catholicintl.com for a link up. The details (limited) are on that site, and I would defer to CAI as to what position GM takes, or promotes. I really doubt that he could be both a friend of Sungenis, and a heretic.

Third, the distinction might be between the valid NO, and in invalid NO (where some priests have incorporated thier own changes and/or abuses or personal “norms”. Unfortunately, much of what the Vatican says is either cut and pasted, or interpreted to fit a certain position… so confusion reigns

In my heart, a believe the NO is valid. But I revere the traditional liturgy more and I believe it will return stronger for its exodus from our churches. Those who abuse will answer to God, not me, not CAI, not Matatics

Ask CAI - he is good at answering if he has not already… I am going to look too.
[/quote]

Yes, I mis-typed the name of CAI… I must have had the web address in my head when I wrote that. Also, you are right about him being a candidate for the Ph.D. My mistake.

I’m presently listening to a CD series entitled 'The End - A Study of the Book of Revelation" by Scott Hahn. On cd 3 or 4 Scott mentions that Gerry Matatics has a great book on Revelation and he recommends it as a good resource. This CD set is dated 2003 so a lot can happen in 2 years.

I too have also heard that Gerry has wandered into the realm of sedevacanist (spelling?) however, I say ask (email) him yourself. Some one should know how to contact him (CA?). It’s always better to ask the source rather than depend on the rumor mill.

This upcoming Debate has me a bit confused as well. Protestant Debater ‘JW’ had a field day with this on his web when they first announced it.“Catholics debating Catholics…can’t they agree on anything?”.

On another note: Also on this CD set, Scott mentions he is on his way to San Fransisco to debate an ex-Jesuit priest, Bob Bush. Does anyone know of this debate? Are there any tapes of transcripts on this? Keep in mind this is in 2003 and I don’t know the topic. If anyone can help I’d apprieciate it.

trobles +<><

[quote=mark a]Is he in good standing with the Church?
[/quote]

Go to the Catholic Answers homepage and search on Gerry Mattatics. Hoards of articles.

I don’t think I ever asked Gerry precisely whether he thinks the Novus Ordo fulfills one’s Sunday obligation. I did ask him a related question, though, and I asked it on more than one occasion over a period of some years, to see if his answer had changed. It hadn’t.

I asked whether he would receive Communion at a Novus Ordo Mass that was celebrated strictly according to the rubrics by a priest who was in the state of grace and who celebrated with the proper intentions. Gerry said he would NOT receive Communion at such a Mass because he thought it would be sinful to do so.

Well if gerry said that then he is not in good standing with the Church the Missal of Paul VI is valid and fulfills one’s sunday obligation PERIOD!!! (UNLESS OF COURSE ONE KNOWS THAT THE PRIEST DOES SOMETHING THAT INVALIDATES THE MASS)— does anyone think that God would allow a translation, (pro multis–as “for all”_ _ approved by The Church, that would invalidate the Mass ina country (U.S. and other countries) so that millions of Catholics would nter into material idolatry?? COME ON GET A LIFE!!!

[quote=marineboy]Well if gerry said that then he is not in good standing with the Church the Missal of Paul VI is valid and fulfills one’s sunday obligation PERIOD!!! (UNLESS OF COURSE ONE KNOWS THAT THE PRIEST DOES SOMETHING THAT INVALIDATES THE MASS)— does anyone think that God would allow a translation, (pro multis–as “for all”_ _ approved by The Church, that would invalidate the Mass ina country (U.S. and other countries) so that millions of Catholics would nter into material idolatry?? COME ON GET A LIFE!!!
[/quote]

Here’s how you “get a Life” :

Matthew 10:39 He that findeth his life, shall lose it: and he that shall lose his life for me, shall find it.
Matthew 16:25 For he that will save his life, shall lose it: and he that shall lose his life for my sake, shall find it.

Mark 8:35 For whosoever will save his life, shall lose it: and whosoever shall lose his life for my sake and the gospel, shall save it.

Luke 9:24 For whosoever will save his life, shall lose it; for he that shall lose his life for my sake, shall save it.

Luke 14:26 If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple.

Luke 17:33 Whosoever shall seek to save his life, shall lose it: and whosoever shall lose it, shall preserve it.

John 6:47 Amen, amen I say unto you: He that believeth in me, hath everlasting life.

I don’t believe Gerry M. is holding out for “pro multis”, otherwise his answer to Karl would have the qualification of having the NOM in Latin, which uses that phrase.
NO ONE in authority has pronounced Gerry M. “not in good standing with the Church”. It is really not our place to make that call. We can criticize his positions and reasons, but no further.

He never said the NOM is INvalid. He just said it would be sinful for him to receive communion at the NOM. I do not agree with him on this as I have done it many times. But if one’s conscience will not dispose of all doubt, we are not to act in that doubt, until it is resolved. He uses a valid alternative which is the indult TLM, where he has no doubt of conscience.
However, I do not believe the NOM is the best the Church could do in it’s Worship of the Holy Trinity or in the catechesis of the Faithful in the Truths o f their Catholic faith.
Both Cain and Abel believed they offered a valid sacrifice. At least something was given as a sacrifice. But somewhere there was a deciding difference in God’s eyes.
Finally
About half or more of Gerry. M.'s efforts are towards converting others to the Catholic Church, not debating internals of the VatII church. I give him credit for his success in converting others outside.

NO ONE in authority has pronounced Gerry M. “not in good standing with the Church”. It is really not our place to make that call.We can criticize his positions and reasons, but no further.

I can sign onto this point of view but it would seem that some will only give this courtesy to people of a “traditionlist” bent. Of course, you can see material schism which so many have pointed out before and on these forums and you should be able to call a spade a spade so I’ll have to think on this one some more.

As far as this:

But if one’s conscience will not dispose of all doubt, we are not to act in that doubt, until it is resolved.

This seems a bit of a stretch. There are many who have all kinds of doubts about the faith. Again, some of the same people who give Mr. Mattatics a pass on this wouldn’t think of giving a pass to a liberal minded priest for example.

[quote=bear06]This seems a bit of a stretch. There are many who have all kinds of doubts about the faith. Again, some of the same people who give Mr. Mattatics a pass on this wouldn’t think of giving a pass to a liberal minded priest for example.
[/quote]

I have no doubts about the Faith. I do have doubts about certain disciplines which as the church says are not infallible. Gerry M.'s doubt is in that category, not the Truths of the Faith. Such as: are some disciplines in the VATII church more or less pleasing to God than those they replaced.

Re: liberal minded priest:
I excuse them based on another one of my concise definitions:
Liberalism A mental disorder wherein the Illogical becomes completely logical with no lasting effect on the conscience.

ps. Good to see you back. How close now?

[quote=TNT]I have no doubts about the Faith. I do have doubts about certain disciplines which as the church says are not infallible. Gerry M.'s doubt is in that category, not the Truths of the Faith. Such as: are some disciplines in the VATII church more or less pleasing to God than those they replaced.

It seems like it would be hard to know exactly what Mattatics is objecting to since Karl didn’t say why he thought it a sin, only that he thought it was.

[/quote]

ps. Good to see you back. How close now?

Not close enough. 5 weeks :mad:

I have to admit, I have really been confused by the whole Matatics controversy.

It seems to me that there are things that are not being said - whether out of politeness or because it would look bad in the eyes of Protestants.

I came back to the Faith via Karl Keating and Scott Hahn. They are almost like father-figures to me: guiding me and assuring me of what I can and cannot stand on in good faith.

I have looked all over the Net for Matatics and his reliability. Those that defend him tend to stand on “legal talk” to justify his communion with JPII. They go into elaborate explanations to dance around some very obvious differences he has.

I just wish there could be an honest debate with Hahn, Keating, Matatics, and others (eg. Staples, Sungenis, Madrid…) to discuss their concerns.

It would help to end a lot of confusion.

Rich

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.