Is Gerry Matatics still Catholic?

  1. Is Gerry Matatics still Catholic?

  2. Does the Church need to discipline him? Or can the Church ignore him because he is not a teacher (bishop) of the Church?

  3. What is the basis and criteria for the disciplining of erring Church members?

What did he do? I always thought he was Catholic. :confused:

he rejects the current pope as legitimate as far as I know

[quote=Superstar905]he rejects the current pope as legitimate as far as I know
[/quote]

If he does he is not Catholic, plain and simple.

Phil

Please believe that there are some good Catholics (you would know the names) who are trying to address this problem that GM now has.

He has aligned himself with the SSPXers, Mel Gibson, The Dimond brothers etc. He is a sedevacantist and he needs our prayers more than our criticisms.

He is wrong. He is misguided. Pray him home.

The SSPX is NOT sedevacantist!

If you have an army with a captain, a sergeant, a corporal, and a private, it only means that they are in the same army.

Matatics, Gibson, sedevacantists, Dimond Bros, etc are simply all in the same “army”… or in the same boat, adrift, if you wish.

Their influence against the church may vary, but they really do all need to be prayed home.

Mel Gibson is SSPX? :eek: I knew he was more of a traditionalist but I didn’t know that!

[quote=Malleus]The SSPX is NOT sedevacantist!
[/quote]

This is true, but they are most certainly schismatics.

[quote=Pillar of Cloud]Mel Gibson is SSPX? :eek: I knew he was more of a traditionalist but I didn’t know that!
[/quote]

He’s worse than the SSPX because he IS a sedevecantist.

I think that sedevecantism is a restricted topic, so let’s end the discussion on that topic right here! :thumbsup:

[quote=JSmitty2005]I think that sedevecantism is a restricted topic, so let’s end the discussion on that topic right here! :thumbsup:
[/quote]

It is? I thought these were open forums. There should probably be alot of other restricted topics in these forums :slight_smile:

[quote=Superstar905]he rejects the current pope as legitimate as far as I know
[/quote]

When did fall off the edge so to speak?

[quote=JSmitty2005]This is true, but they are most certainly schismatics.
[/quote]

Not according to Cardinal Hoyos, the head of the Ecclesia Dei Commission:

Your Eminence, what was the nature of the audience granted by the Pope to the Superior General of the Saint Pius X Fraternity?

DARÍOCASTRILLÓN HOYOS: The audience is part of a process that began with a very important intervention by the then Cardinal Ratzinger, who signed a protocol of agreement with Monsignor Lefebvre before the latter decided to proceed to the episcopal consecrations of 1988.

Monsignor Lefebvre did not back off…

CASTRILLÓN HOYOS: Unfortunately Monsignor Lefebvre went ahead with the consecration and hence the situation of separation came about, even if it was not a formal schism. (Emphasis added)

remnantnewspaper.com/Archives/archive-2005-1130-hoyos-30days.htm

[quote=JSmitty2005]He’s worse than the SSPX because he IS a sedevecantist.
[/quote]

Peace be with you!

No he is NOT a sedevacantist. His father was, but Mel is not. He was asked about it in an interview that I watched and he said he is not a sedevacantist.
The Dimond Bros. are sedevacantists but SSPX are not.
Gerry Matatics doesn’t just believe that Benedict XVI is illegitimate; he is fully in line with the sedevacantist position that every pope after Pius XII has been illegitimate. I will pray for him because this is a sad development.

Sedevacantism IS still on the banned topics list, but I had to clear this up.

In Christ,
Rand

Because Mr. Matatix does public speaking engagments the Church has the right to declare a formal excommunicate of him with the disire that he return to the folds of Holy Mother Church. Such actions brought by the Holy See or a local Ordinary (Bishop) are not restricted to clerics, religious and politicians but extend to any the Church has juridical authority over.

I’ve seen this word throughout this thread but what is a sedevacantist?

[quote=thistle]I’ve seen this word throughout this thread but what is a sedevacantist?
[/quote]

The Church is ‘sedevacante’ (“empty chair”) any time a Pope dies (until a new Pope is elected). We recently saw such a period.

But what if a Pope died, and a new Pope was elected, but that person (for whatever reason) wasn’t really eligable to be Pope? Then there would really not be a Pope, so the Church would still be sedevacante.

There are some who feel that any Pope who subscribes to doctrine they disagree with is not really eligable to be Pope (because he’s a heretic). This is theologically unsound (there’s no theological reason why a heretic can’t be a valid Pope), but they still feel this way. When such a Pope reigns, these folks don’t really consider him to be a valid Pope, so they consider the Church to be sedevacante, so they are called “sedevacantists.”

There are some who feel the Church is presently sedevacante (usually as a result of Vatican II). However, discussion of this particular topic is restricted on this forum (per the “sticky” posting guidelines), so we ought not discuss it apart from simply defining what it is.

Thanks for explaining it David. I’ve seen the word many times, but never knew what it meant.

I would say that Mr. Matatics is still a Catholic although perhaps gravely in error.
I say “still a Catholic” because he has not formally denied ANY Catholic DOGMA. He simply doesn’t believe that the current Pope is fit for the office (and probably bases that on Pope Paul the IV’s solemn bull Cum ex Apostolatus Officio).
He does, however, hold the extreme position against Baptism of Desire and Baptism of Blood.
Love, Jaypeeto3

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.