8/23/2019 Gerry Matatics Its Not a True Catholic http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/gerry-matatics-its-not-a-true-catholic 1/21 Visit: vaticancatholic.com1 IN THIS FILE: -A MUST-SEE VIDEO ON GERRY -GERRY’S TRULY MIND-BOGGLING HYPOCRISY -GERRY PRAISES AND DESCRIBES AS CATHOLIC A MAN WHO BELIEVES THAT JEWS WHO REJECT CHRIST CAN BE SAVED -ANOTHER CONVERSATION WITH GERRY –HE AFFIRMS THAT HE DOESN’T CONSIDER PROTOCOL 122/49 TO BE HERETICAL -GERRY SELLS OUT TO THOSE WHO BELIEVE IN SALVATION FOR NON- CATHOLICS Must-See Video on Gerry Matatics Those interested in whether Gerry Matatics is a true Catholic really need to see this video. It covers his radical schismatic views; his mind-boggling hypocrisy and promotion of members of the Counter Church; his contradictory positions; his heretical position on salvation outside the Church; his schismatic and false position on jurisdiction; and much more. This one video really sums up all of what is covered in this file. Gerry Matatics is not a true Catholic[Video –1 hour 10 minutes] GERRY’S TRULY MIND-BOGGLING HYPOCRISY Gerry Matatics acts as i f he’s an uncompromising rejecter of Antipope Benedict XVI and the Vatican II sect. The truth is that he is actually a promoter of the Vatican II sect. That’s correct, and it’s demonstrated in the video linked to above. Consider the following: Gerry Matatics currently holds the position that anyone who attends a Mass where Benedict XVI is named as the pope by that very fact separates himself from the Catholic Church. He also purports to reject any religious communion with adherents of the Vatican II Church. Yet, he simultaneously (as in currently, in 2012) promotes and prays with a woman named Judith S. Judith S. is a promoter of the Vatican II sect and the Vatican II antipopes. Judith S. sponsors false
-GERRY PRAISES AND DESCRIBES AS CATHOLIC A MAN WHO BELIEVESTHAT JEWS WHO REJECT CHRIST CAN BE SAVED
-ANOTHER CONVERSATION WITH GERRY – HE AFFIRMS THAT HE DOESN’TCONSIDER PROTOCOL 122/49 TO BE HERETICAL
-GERRY SELLS OUT TO THOSE WHO BELIEVE IN SALVATION FOR NON-CATHOLICS
Must-See Video on Gerry Matatics
Those interested in whether Gerry Matatics is a true Catholic really need to see this video. It covers his radical schismatic views; his mind-boggling hypocrisy andpromotion of members of the Counter Church; his contradictory positions; hisheretical position on salvation outside the Church; his schismatic and false positionon jurisdiction; and much more. This one video really sums up all of what iscovered in this file.
Gerry Matatics is not a true Catholic[Video –1 hour 10 minutes]
GERRY’S TRULY MIND-BOGGLING HYPOCRISY
Gerry Matatics acts as if he’s an uncompromising rejecter of Antipope Benedict XVIand the Vatican II sect. The truth is that he is actually a promoter of the Vatican IIsect. That’s correct, and it’s demonstrated in the video linked to above. Considerthe following: Gerry Matatics currently holds the position that anyone who attendsa Mass where Benedict XVI is named as the pope by that very fact separates himself from the Catholic Church. He also purports to reject any religious communion with adherents of the Vatican II Church. Yet, he simultaneously (as in currently, in2012) promotes and prays with a woman named Judith S. Judith S. is a promoterof the Vatican II sect and the Vatican II antipopes. Judith S. sponsors false
traditionalist conferences that feature pro-Novus Ordo and Vatican II speakers.She does not publicly reject the antipopes; she even promotes the works of defenders of Benedict XVI and Vatican II, such as Robert Sungenis and John Salza.She identifies those defenders of the Vatican II sect as Catholics. She evenpromotes their works in which they refer to the Vatican II antipopes as true popes!
Gerry not only praises her work (mortal sin), calls her a Catholic (heresy andmortal sin), promotes her outreach (mortal sin), but he engages in personal prayer with her about once a month! Gerry does all this while claiming to repudiate any communion with Antipope Benedict XVI or his adherents, and while condemningas non-Catholic all who attend Masses where Benedict XVI is named as the pope.Gerry Matatics is completely self-condemned. His hypocrisy is mind-boggling anddemonic. Those who support the heretic Gerry Matatics can expect to be damned.But there’s so much more…
Gerry Matatics' heresies against the salvation dogma[40 min. audio]
This audio proves that Gerry Matatics rejects the dogma Outside the Church Thereis No Salvation. He rejects it by accepting as Catholics those who reject it. Itproves that he is actually a Christ-denier, by recognizing as Catholics those who believe that Jesus Christ is not necessary for salvation. It also proves that he deniesthe dogma by considering Suprema haec sacra to not be heretical, and by failing toaccept the absolute necessity of water baptism. It also proves how he dishonestly tries to deny that he denies the dogma, but is refuted by his own words. Hear the very clips which prove the point. It also examines his position on Geocentrism.This audio shows how his position on Geocentrism undermines and refutes hiscriticism of our position on the status of the absolute necessity of water baptism. Italso refutes his claim that St. Thomas Aquinas did not deny the ImmaculateConception (before it was defined).
AUDIO SERIES REFUTING THE SCHISMATIC “NO JURISDICTION POSITION”HELD BY GERRY MATATICS
MHFM: This is a new series of audios refuting the schismatic “No JurisdictionPosition.” This position is held by some in the traditional movement. It hasrecently been adopted by Gerry Matatics (a person some of our readers are familiar with). These audios completely refute this schismatic error. The last audio below covers Gerry’s rejection of the salvation dogma.
This is a quick introduction to the controversy and the importance of Jurisdiction.
Jurisdiction Part 2 - facing up to the facts of the GWS[18 min. audio]
This part begins to get into the facts of the Great Western Schism. It shows how these facts completely refute the advocates of the “No Jurisdiction Position.”They have no response to these points. This section addresses and refutes Gerry Matatics on “extraordinary mission” and more.
Jurisdiction Part 3 - More devastating facts[40 min. audio]
This section further pins down and refutes the advocates of the “No JurisdictionPosition” on the point of the Great Western Schism. This part shows how Gerry Matatics cannot address the facts, so instead he dishonestly shuffles them to theside. This section also addresses many other points, including epikeia, the external
and internal forum, and a book called Supplied Jurisdiction According to Canon209.
This book, which Gerry Matatics wrongly says “devastates” the other side, actually devastates his position and that of other advocates of the “No JurisdictionPosition.” This audio covers, with supporting citations from the book, the extent of supplied jurisdiction, doubt of fact, doubt of law, colored title, putative title andmore. It explains what these mean and why they are significant to this issue. Thefacts in this section serve to further completely refute the schismatic “NoJurisdiction Position.”
Jurisdiction Part 4 - More points and La Salette[20 min. audio]
Note: This part 4 contains some important information. It will not be asinteresting for our general readers as part 5 or some other sections. Theinformation in this part is for those who have a deeper interest in these topics. Thispart also covers a controversy that some of our readers have asked about: did theHoly Office, before Vatican II, condemn commenting on the Message of
La Salette? Hear our response to this issue. This section also contains somemore important points from Supplied Jurisdiction According to Canon 209. Itcovers intrinsic cessation of the law. It also covers the dilemma of canonists indetermining the precise extent of common error, etc. and how their commentsserve to further obliterate the schismatic “No Jurisdiction Position.”
Jurisdiction Part 5 - Bishops and focusing in on their outrageoushypocrisy [30 min. audio]
This section refutes the advocates of the “No Jurisdiction Position” on consecrating bishops without a papal mandate. It covers what Pius XII said about that matter.It refutes Gerry Matatics’ outrageous attempt to justify his clear violation of thenormal canons against preaching, etc. without permission. It focuses in on theirhypocrisy, the laws they violate, and how they condemn themselves out of theirown mouths. It also covers lessons from Our Lord and the Machabees whichfurther refute the “No Jurisdiction” schismatics.
Update on Gerry Matatics 11/4/08 – Gerry praises and describes as Catholic a man who believes Jews who reject Christ can be saved
I noticed Gerry Matatics on your list of heretics page. Could it really be said that heteaches heresy?
Unfortunately, yes it can be said. There is new information which demonstratesthis unfortunate fact. Before making these new points, we want to emphasize that we tried to work with Gerry when he communicated to us that he was in fullagreement. We have always wished for his best. We acknowledge Gerry’stremendous abilities and knowledge, and we like a great deal of what he has to say.However, the fact of the matter is that he is a heretic and of bad will. (As an aside, we feel sorry for his children. It’s our understanding that at some point they held – and some still might hold – the full truth on the dogma Outside the Church There
is No Salvation and the necessity of water baptism. Undoubtedly they are put in adifficult position by the mixed messages and activities of their father.)
In a public talk with a woman named Judith, which was recorded this month(November of 2008), Gerry stated: “When Catholics like you or me or Tom Droleskey speak out about this…” Gerry described Tom Droleskey as a Catholic.Gerry also praised Tom and thanked the woman for having him speak. TomDroleskey is a disgusting heretic who believes that Jews (and other members of false religions) who reject Jesus Christ can be saved. We demonstrated that in thisfile. Gerry is well aware of this fact.
We asked Tom if he considered it heretical for Fr. Fahey to teach that Jews who
reject Christ can be in the state of grace. Tom wrote back and indicated that he didnot consider it heretical, but rather that he considered it to be Catholic teaching.Thus, Tom is a clear heretic. He holds that Jews who reject Jesus Christ can besaved. (Tom was too cowardly to debate us, by the way, because his hereticalposition would be exposed and refuted.). Not only does Tom obstinately deny thedogma, but he attacks those who hold the true position. In short, Tom D. belongsto the crowd of baptism of desire heretics who not only believe that souls can besaved in false religions, but who detest and wish to extirpate faith in Jesus’ dogmathat “unless a man is born again of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God ” (John 3:5). In other words, he’s among the very worst of thefalse traditionalist heretics.
That crowd is accurately described as the scum of the Earth. They are abominable.Gerry knows all of this. It’s inescapable, therefore, that Gerry obstinately considerspeople who believe that souls can be saved in false religions to be Catholic. Gerry isa heretic. As much as one might want to deny it, it’s just a fact. Gerry holds thatone can believe that Jews who reject Christ are saved and be Catholic (e.g., TomD.). He surely will make empty claims that he doesn’t endorse that heresy in any form, but such a claim is completely false and disproven by his own words.Further, by his promotion of a heretic such as Tom D., Gerry stands with andpromotes the worst of the false traditionalist enemies of the dogma in our day: the
tenacious “anti-Feeney ites.”
This summer we also wrote to Gerry and asked him if he would be interested in arecorded debate/discussion on the baptism of desire issue. We received noresponse. As stated in the update to this file, one of us also spoke with Gerry forfive hours last fall. Gerry insisted that the conversation be recorded by him, and he
promised (in front of his family) to send us the tapes the next day. He never sentthe tapes. (That shouldn’t be a surprise. It’s consistent with the activity describedin the file above.) In that conversation, Gerry confirmed that he does not hold theinfamous Protocol 122/49 to be heretical. Protocol 122/49 (which is covered in our book) is a heretical and non-infallible document (from a pre-Vatican II cardinal)
which teaches “baptism of desire,” “invincible ignorance,” salvation for people whoare not “members of the Church,” not of the “body of the Church” and not even“catechumens.”
There are other problems, major inconsistencies, and examples of hypocrisy in hiscurrent activity and public teaching. Gerry currently holds that people should notattend any Mass where Benedict XVI is prayed for in the canon. As we’vearticulated, we believe that one can go to only a certain number of such Masses: thepriest would have to meet certain conditions and one couldn’t agree with orsupport the priest. We do not believe that going signifies an acceptance of BenedictXVI. But that’s beside the point.
The point we’re making is that if one is going to hold that one should not attend any Mass where Benedict XVI is prayed for, as Gerry now does, then one must beconsistent on that matter. If you are going to talk the talk, you must walk the walk.If he’s going to say that one must avoid those Masses because it involves some sortof praying with Benedict XVI (a claim we reject), then obviously that person isexpected to remain consistent with that position and not pray with anyonewho doesn’t reject Benedict XVI . That makes sense, right? Of course it does.One who considers it a compromise to go to such a Mass because it involves, in his view, some sort of praying with Benedict XVI must necessarily make sure that thepeople with whom he prays also reject Benedict XVI. If he doesn’t, he’s a horriblehypocrite.
Well, while he travels all over the globe to tell people, among other things, that they should not attend a Mass where Benedict XVI is mentioned as the pope, lest they pray in communion with him, Gerry offers a monthly public prayer with theaforementioned woman (Judith) who is not even a sedevacantist! That’s
right. Someone we know wrote to her just recently. He asked her if she holds thesedevacantist position. She responded by saying that her group “does not take aposition on the Pope.” So she doesn’t even reject Benedict XVI as an antipope!(She also promotes talks by supporters of the SSPX; and she accepts the invincibleignorance salvation heresy). Gerry offers a public prayer with her every month; hecalls her Catholic and promotes her. What more does one have to say?
To sum it up: Gerry travels all over the world telling people, among other things,that they should not attend a Mass where Benedict XVI is mentioned as the pope.It’s so important, he says, that receiving the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Christ must even be passed up rather than involve oneself in some form of prayer with Benedict XVI. Certainly, therefore, he wouldn’t compromise and pray with
someone who doesn’t take true position on that issue, right? No. He offers amonthly public prayer with a woman who doesn’t even reject Benedict XVI’s claimto the Papacy and who promotes non-sedevacantists. He probably hasn’t evenasked her what she holds on that issue, nor told her what position she must hold onthat issue. Yet he travels thousands of miles to tell other people that very thing…amazing…
In the recent conversation, Gerry also described a Protestant named Chuck in theseterms: “Chuck Baldwin, perhaps in the total sincerity of his heart, believing that Protestantism is the true faith, still comes short of a true analysis of what iswrong with the human condition…” He describes the Protestant named Chuck assomeone who might be totally sincere in his heart. That’s not something any Catholic could or would say. It indicates that Gerry believes that the Protestant, who rejects Catholicism, could be in good faith – a heretical position.
According to people who have heard him speak, Gerry also publicly advocates someform of the false no-jurisdiction position. That position is refuted inthis file [PDF]. According to reports, he has also publicly expressed some level of doubt about the validity of the Thuc-line. There are no grounds upon which to doubt the validity of the Thuc-line. He also holds that people can passively attend non-Catholic funeralsand weddings. One person in New Jersey went to such a non-Catholic servicepassively after hearing him speak. Those errors are significant. However, his mostsignificant problem was described above. It’s his acceptance of the heresy thatpeople can be saved in false religions. That’s proven by his promotion of people who obstinately believe it and defend it. As a result, no Catholic should regard himas a Catholic or promote him as one.
Update on Gerry Matatics 10/1/08 – Another conversation with Gerry
10/1/08- In the fall of 2007, I (Bro. Peter Dimond) had a lengthy telephoneconversation with Gerry Matatics. The conversation lasted about five hours. Wediscussed many things, including the article which I wrote about him below. Gerry wanted to have the conversation tape-recorded. I agreed, as long as he would sendme a copy of the tapes. In the presence of his wife and some of his children (who
were listening), Gerry promised that he would send me a copy of the tapes the very next day. To this day (about a year later) I have not received the tapes. Althoughdisappointing, this failure to live up to his word on this matter is consistent withthe activity described below.
In the lengthy conversation with Gerry, I tried again and again to get him to admitthat Protocol 122/49 (also known as Suprema haec sacra) is indeed a hereticaldocument (see my book on salvation if you’re not familiar with this document).Gerry refused to admit that it is heretical, even though the document (as I pointedout to him and as he knows) teaches salvation for people who are “not members” of the Church; it teaches salvation for those who are not baptized but “invincibly ignorant” of the faith; and it teaches salvation for those who do not belong to the“body” of the Church. Gerry might claim that he doesn’t believe that members of false religions can be saved, or that people can be saved without believing in Christ.However, that assertion is meaningless if he doesn’t consider as hereticaldocuments which teach and justify that very heresy, and if he doesn’t denounce asheretical “traditionalists” who adhere to that kind of heresy. This summer I also wrote to Gerry and asked him if he would be interested in having a recordedtelephone conversation on the salvation issue, in which we could discuss/debatethe issue. I haven’t received any response.
Update on Gerry Matatics, 11/7/06 – Gerry sells out to those who believe insalvation for non-Catholics
By Br. Peter Dimond, O.S.B.
Gerry Matatics
Dear Brothers Dimond
I am rather confused by the different positions rumored to be taken by Gerry Matatics on EENS/necessity of water baptism to be saved. I thought he endorsed
your website and Brother Peter Dimond's book refuting Baptism of Desire andBaptism of Blood, as evidenced by some e-mail responses from him featured someshort while ago on your website. But a discussion forum moderated by John Lanefeatures a photograph of Gerry with John Lane at the recent Fatima Conference inSpokane last week, as well as anecdotal statements from people who met Gerry and
were told by him that he is not a Feeneyite and supports Baptism of Desire. Apparently he has read a pamphlet written by a nun entitled "Father Feeney ThePope Has Spoken" which convinced him of the magisterial status of thecondemnation of Feeneyism by the prelates acting in Pius XII's name…Are you ableto shed any light on what is going on with Gerry?
Thank you.
Michael
MHFM: Thanks for the question. As we had mentioned on our website, Gerry Matatics had distributed and sold our book Outside the Catholic Church There is Absolutely No Salvation and had informed us many times that he was convincedthat there is no such thing as baptism of desire or blood. To give just one example:
Gerry Matatics to MHFM, 4/19/2006: Dear Brothers: “I read with interest the e-mail from [x] on his inability to receive sacraments from [x] at the SSPX Masses inMemphis and Nashville…I'd like to contact [x] and encourage him to attend [my talks] as well, along with any other persecuted sedevacantists/"Feeneyites" inhis circle of friends. It sounds as though they could use some in-personCatholic camaraderie with an apologist of the same convictions.”
He also manifested agreement with our position that many of the “traditionalist”and sedevacantist priests out there are actually heretical for their false position onthe salvation issue. For instance, after a conversation he had with a priest of theSociety of St. Pius V, Gerry told us that the priest of the Society of St. Pius V was a“public heretic” for his position of salvation for non-Catholics via baptism of desire.
Gerry Matatics, to MHFM regarding the Society of St. Pius V, July 31, 2005: “… Inever stated that I would go to the SSPV chapel… We will pray the Mass at homerather than commune with a public heretic.”
However, Gerry Matatics was recently caught in the Pacific Northwestdistributing a booklet which attacks Fr. Feeney as excommunicated and
which promotes the heretical Protocol 122/49 ( Suprema haec sacra)!Gerry Matatics has thus radically changed his position on Outside the ChurchThere is No Salvation and the water baptism issue; he now sides with the heretics.
Here’s the report from baptism of desire and salvation for non-Catholics supporter Vincent, to whom Gerry actually gave the aforementioned pro-salvation-for-non-Catholics booklet:
“Pax Christi ! Good news about Gerry Matatics. Last week, John Lane and I spentsome time with Gerry Matatics. He told us he no longer denies Baptism of Desireand Blood ! And that he will retract his previous position publicly. Deo Gratias!
“One of the main citations that helped him see the error of the Feeneyite andDimond Brothers was this little booklet: Titled;
"Fr. Feeney, the Pope Has Spoken" By "a Missionary Sister of the Holy Ghost"…Catholic Research Institute. Given the rise of Feeneyism in the traditional circles, IHIGHLY recommend this little booklet that Gerry Matatics gave me… in Spokane Wa. It fills in the gaps regarding Fr. Feeney's excommunication giving the trueoutline, and why the Letter from the Holy Office Aug 8th 1949 is an official act of the Holy Office…
Vincent”
The booklet mentioned above (which Gerry gave to Vincent) promotes Supremahaec sacra, which is the heretical 1949 letter of Cardinal Marchetti-Selvaggiani to Archbishop Richard Cushing of Boston concerning Fr. Feeney. It is also calledProtocol 122/49. Even someone such as Msgr. Joseph Clifford Fenton – who wasalso forced to contradict Suprema haec sacra’s false teaching on the Body of theChurch, as proven in our article: www.mostholyfamilymonastery.com/fenton_book.html - admitted that it’s notinfallible:
Msgr. Joseph Clifford Fenton, The Catholic Church and Salvation, 1958, p. 103: “…the teachings contained in Suprema haec sacra are not to be acceptedas infallibly true on the authority of this particular document.”
This heretical letter Suprema haec sacra (which is covered in our book) teachesthat souls “invincibly ignorant” of the Catholic Faith can be saved. It also teachesthe heresy that souls who do not belong to the Body of the Church can be saved. Italso teaches that baptism of desire saves, not only unbaptized catechumens, butthose who are not “members” of the Catholic Church, and only have an “implicit
desire” for her (translation: members of false religions).
The heretical letter was written in order to oppose Fr. Feeney’s preaching inMassachusetts that all who die as non-Catholics are lost (a defined dogma). As weread above, Gerry Matatics actually handed the aforementioned heretical booklet toa man who believes in baptism of desire to manifest his agreement with it. The booklet that Gerry Matatics handed to this individual was published by CatholicResearch Institute. Catholic Research Institute is the same group whichpublishes a booklet by Fr. Vaillancourt which teaches salvation forthose “outside” the Church and for Muslims and Buddhists:
Fr. Kevin Vaillancourt, I Baptize With Water, p. 17: “ Are there any more „goodfaith‟ pagans in existence? Is it possible for the Communists of China or thefaithful adherents of Buddhism and Mohammedism of the Near and Far East toeither have never heard the Gospel, or else had the Gospel presented to them in anerroneous light?... Can the Chinese Communist,or the Indian Buddhist orthe Pakistani Muslim be included in such a consideration [of invincibleignorance]? Only God knows, and it is not up to me to decide for Him. I writehere merely to uphold the dogmatic principle of the possibility of suchcases today, without admitting that all, or even a significant number of those who are in such circumstances will achieve salvation through justification.”(Catholic Research Institute)
Fr. Kevin Vaillancourt, I Baptize With Water, p. 18, quoting from Fr. Tanquery with approval: “Necessity of means, however, is not an absolute necessity, but ahypothetical one. In certain particular circumstances, for example, in the case of the invincible ignorance or of incapability, actual membership in the Church can besupplied by the desire for this membership. It is not necessary that this be
explicitly present; it can be included in a willingness and readiness to fulfill the willof God. In this way those who are outside the Catholic Church canachieve salvation.” (Catholic Research Institute)
So, to quickly sum it up: Gerry Matatics now stands with the heretics on this issue,and was caught distributing and promoting a book on salvation which promotes
Suprema haec sacra and whichis published by the heretical “Catholic ResearchInstitute” – a group which teaches that there is salvation “outside” the Church andfor Muslims, Buddhists, etc. Gerry Matatics is thus an enemy of the dogma Outsidethe Church There is No Salvation, despite whatever protestations to the contrary hemight make. True Catholics who adhere uncompromisingly to the
salvation dogma and the necessity of water baptism – and stand againstthe multitude of heretics who use “baptism of desire” to justify salvation for members of false religions – should completely shunGerry Matatics, his speeches and not support him at all. In certainrespects, he is more dangerous than the many “traditionalist” priests who openly deny this dogma; for in their cases it’s clear to all where these heretics stand. ButGerry Matatics gives true Catholics who defend the dogma the false impression thathe stands with them, only to compromise and change his position whensurrounded by heretics. (I don’t use the phrase “surrounded by heretics” loosely.The groups and individuals described in this paragraph, whose material Gerry now promotes, obstinately hold that it’s possible for members of false religions, such asJews, etc. to be saved without even believing in Jesus Christ – as documentedabove in the quotations from the book by Vaillancourt, published by C.R.I.)
Furthermore, isn’t it interesting that Gerry Matatics was caught changing hisposition in Spokane, Wa? Spokane (home of the heretical CMRI) is a strongholdfor those who believe in salvation for non-Catholics via “baptism of desire.” It’s ahotbed for those who hate “Feeneyism.” In other words, he was not exactly in anarea where a speaker would be very popular adhering to the absolute necessity of baptism for salvation. That’s the point. His change of position convenientlyoccurred when surrounded by all of these individuals – when surrounded by potential benefactors, potential admirers, and potential “friends.” In thisatmosphere, the temptation to overturn his “rigorist” belief was too great toovercome – too great to overcome, that is, for a liberal, compromising, anddishonest person who doesn’t seek to please God alone.
While on this trip, Gerry violated the scriptural teaching to avoid heretics (Titus3:10). He had dinner with the likes of the heretic John Lane, a man who attacksthe necessity of water baptism with obstinacy. John Lane has indicated that he hasno interest in the arguments from the other side. Lane recently thought he was
being generous by stating that the denial of baptism of desire is not heresy, just amortal sin against the Faith. But Gerry Matatics, liberal lover of man more thanlover of God , had dinner with Mr. Lane (whom he considers a “good guy.”)
John Lane, May 16, 2006: “…we can regard the denial of Baptism of Desire asmerely a mortal sin against Faith but not actual heresy. Does that assist?”
(By the way, since we’re talking about John Lane, it should be mentioned that he’sthe one who also recently attempted to debate on behalf of the sedevacantistposition. The job Lane did was, quite frankly, pathetic. In the entire debate – a
debate in which he is supposed to be presenting the case against the Vatican IIantipopes – he (incredibly) didn’t bring up even one heresy of Vatican II, nor oneact of false ecumenism of the Vatican II antipopes (such as kissing the Koran, Assisi, etc.), nor something as simple (and devastating to the Vatican II sect) as theheretical teaching that non-Catholics may lawfully receive Holy Communion. Hementioned almost zero specific examples of heresy from the Vatican II antipopes, which is the meat of the case for sedevacantism. But what do you expect from aliberal heretic who hates the necessity of water baptism? Mr. Lane also supportsthe SSPX, and considers their position which rejects sedevacantism “legitimate tohold.” Thus, he’s not even really a sedevacantist.)
Switching back to Gerry’s change of position in Washington, what’s interesting isthat if this Vincent hadn’t let this information out on the internet, we probably wouldn’t have known for a while. But that‟s the way Gerry likes it – givingboth sides the impression that he stands with them (or is looking intotheir position), thus pleasing as many as possible.
When we found out about this, we contacted Gerry to make sure that what wasstated by Vincent was true. In charity we wanted to give him a chance to deny theaccusation if, for some reason, he had been calumniated. We did believe it to betrue, however, having seen Gerry compromise his beliefs so many times in the past. For example, remember that after we posted his statement in the Fall of 2005 and commented that Gerry didn’t believe in baptism of desire, Gerry sent out an ambiguous e-mail to some baptism of desire supporters distancing himself from the statement and giving them the impression that he did believe in baptismof desire: see e-mail from Gerry 10/29/05 below. Another example of compromise/dishonesty about what he claimed to believe occurred when Gerry wasa non-sedevacantist. At that time there was a letter written by Chris Ferrara on behalf of Gerry, which was posted prominently on Gerry’s website. The letterdistanced Gerry Matatics from sedevacantism, “Feeneyism,” accusations of error in
the New Catechism, and a denunciation of people who go to the New Mass – allthings which the heretic Karl Keating had accused Gerry of holding. Gerry left thisletter on his website – which distanced himself from all of the aforementionedpositions and thus implied that he doesn’t find errors in the New Catechism orthink people should avoid the New Mass, etc.– even after he informed me that hedidn’t hold the positions attributed to him in the letter. In other words, he didn’teven agree with what was said about him in the letter anymore; yet it remainedprominently on his website for many months (in order to please people inside the
Vatican II sect), until some time after I sent a strong letter to him basically denouncing him for leaving it up.
On Oct. 24th
, Gerry responded to our recent e-mail about what happened in Washington. He responded with an e-mail which was addressed to Vincent, whichhe also sent to us. The recent e-mail from Gerry didn’t deny anything that Vincent said (for it is true), and confirmed it in so many words. Strangely, however, the e-mail seemed to berate Vincent for having let out what Gerry did in Spokane. Iquote:
Gerry Matatics, 10/24/06 to Vince and MHFM: “Dear Vince: You should havechecked with me first before you started sending out potentially
misleading e-mails about me to others, which are now circulating all over theInternet. People are now asking me for a detailed statement regarding my latestresearches and opinions regarding all the particulars of EENS (Extra EcclesiamNulla Salus) -- something I'm not yet ready to do, because I have more reading,more double-checking of the facts, more reflection and prayer still to accomplish…”
What’s misleading? Everything Vincent said about what Gerry did is true,as was also confirmed by another. But notice that Gerry still berates Vincent – andthis is the key point – for simply telling the truth about what he did and said in Spokane! That’s the point: Gerry didn’t want the “Feeneyites,” whom he is alsotrying to please, to know that he just threw his belief on this issue out the window when surrounded by heretics in Spokane. So, Gerry’s upset with Vincent because what Vincent reported about his activity is bad publicity, even though it’sabsolutely true. This is the true character of Gerry Matatics coming through,unfortunately: he berates an individual for a supposedly misleading report abouthim when all the person did was accurately report what Gerry said to him and gave to him. In our dealings with Gerry Matatics, we discovered the hard way thathe is not an honest person. For instance, Gerry told us many times that he
would provide a link to our website recommending our book Outsidethe Catholic Church There is Absolutely No Salvation. This is just oneof many examples:
Subject: From Gerry Matatics Date: 5/30/2006 10:33:16 PM Eastern Standard TimeFrom: GMatatics
My wife and I just returned today… but I have a statement I should be able to
put on my website sometime tomorrow that includes a paragraph you canexcerpt on your website as well, unequivocally -- unlike my previous statement,Brother! :) -- affirming my adherence both to the dogma extra ecclesiam nullasalus and to the dogma on the absolute necessity of water baptism for salvation,and recommending your book as the best treatment of this entirematter currently in print.
God bless,
Gerry Matatics
This never happened, even though Gerry repeatedly said it would. This is typical of Gerry Matatics. We have to say it: he habitually lies to people. Below you will seenumerous examples where Gerry assured us and others again and again that he’d be posting a detailed statement of his position on this issue immediately, and hedidn’t do it. He would always come up with some excuse; we finally figured outthat he was just lying, and couldn’t have the intention to fulfill what he hadpromised. Here are just a few more examples. There are many.
Subject: Requested public statement from G.Matatics Date: 7/31/2005 1:24:04 AM Eastern Standard TimeFrom: GMatatics
Please allow me, therefore, to append two or three relevant "prooftexts" after eachof paragraphs 1-4 before you post it. It's late now (almost 1:30 am) and I have to getup quite early tomorrow morning (or rather today, Sunday), so I'm afraidI cannot pull out my books to find and type the quotes now, but I will doso tomorrow . I have people arriving tomorrow night from New England to spendtwo days with me who need to be challenged on these points anyway, and I willhave it finished in time to hand to them. When I've added the relevant quotes frompopes and councils, I will e-mail you the final version, and you can post it on your website, and I will post it on mine.
Subject: Reply from Gerry Matatics to your latest (11-04-05) e-mail Date: 11/4/2005 7:28:09 PM Eastern Standard TimeFrom: GMatatics
…Therefore, to avoid giving this impression while taking the time to compose amore detailed defense of my position, I thought it prudent to fire off in themeantime a brief acknowledgement of their e-mail to those who had voiced aconcern that my position on baptism "might not fully adhere to the Church'steaching on such aspects of the issue as the possibility of baptism of desire, baptismof blood, etc.", letting them know that I was working on a statement that would demonstrate that my position does in fact conform to the Church's trueteaching on these matters.
Dear Concerned Friends:
After seeing an e-mail from me posted on another website (not my own), a few
concerned friends wrote me to express their concern that, in their opinion, my position on baptism might not (some of you weren't sure) fully adhere to theChurch's teaching on such aspects of the issue as the possibility of baptism of desire, baptism of blood, etc. I'm sending you this brief e-mail either because youare one of those who wrote to me directly, or you have discussed my position withme or others recently.
I deeply appreciate your concern. I humbly thank you for caring enough aboutChrist's Truth and about me to contact me (those of you who did). And I wish toassure you that I do accept the Church's full teaching on these matters.
I am not a "Feeneyite," as some of you may have thought (though none of you, I believe, actually put it quite that way).
Nor, on the other hand, do I hold to the current, liberal "watering down" (if you'llpardon the pun) of Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus that is current even among many "traditionalist" circles, a liberalization that Pius XII (in his 1950 encyclical HumaniGeneris) rightly said "reduced the dogma to a meaningless formula."
When your e-mail just arrived I was at that very moment composed a lengthy e-mail to the Dimond Brothers, which I need to finish once I'm done dashing off this brief e-mail to you.
The e-mail which I will send them in a few minutes (once I've completed it) willinform them that this weekend, God willing, I will be furnishing them -- andmy own website -- with a complete, comprehensive, and unambiguous statement
of my faith in the absolute necessity of the sacrament of water baptism forsalvation.
Subject: Brief note from Gerry Matatics Date: 11/11/2005 3:14:35 AM Eastern Standard TimeFrom: GMatatics
…I believe your impatience in refusing to wait 2 or 3 more days for my statement, which I told you I would send you this weekend…
Subject: Reactions from Gerry Matatics Date: 11/11/2005 11:32:53 AM Eastern Standard TimeFrom: GMatatics
It is sadly ironic that all the time I have had to spend the past several days replying
to you (and to your follower Padraig and others) could have been more profitably spent finishing and publishing my statement; had you not precipitously put thosethings on your website regarding me and had you instead simply exercisedpatience, as I respectfuly requested, my statement could in al likelihood have beencompleted and posted by now. Now, unfortunately, I face three full days of already scheduled urgent tasks, so I may not even get to making any progress onmy statement until the end of the weekend.
Subject: sample of what people have been sending Matatics Date: 11/19/2005 4:17:12 PM Eastern Standard TimeFrom: GMatatics
I'm currently working on finishing up this weekend my statement topost on my website.
Contrary to what you might think, hundreds if not thousands of people already realize -- and have realized for many months now -- that I've taken a public standfor sedevacantism and against salvation by baptism of desire…
Subject: Reply from Gerry Matatics Date: 11/25/2005 5:57:48 PM Eastern Standard Time
Since speaking with you I've had more computer problems that have
gotten in the way of my modifying or adding things to my website. Apparently the Adobe Acrobat 7.0 which I installed on my computer, which I use tocreate PDF files (several of the files on my website are PDF files) automatically downloaded an update (7.0.5) which has wrought havoc with my ability to createPDF files and upload them; there is some sort of a virus which slipped in throughthat download.
Believe me, I'm as eager to get something up as you are to see it -- it willsave me having to go through these arguments with individuals one at a time, as I
just had to do again for three hours on the phone today with one of my brothers; Icould just say, "Go to my website; it's all there."
I'll send you an e-mail once it's up.
God bless,
Gerry Matatics
So, this is the news on the very sad development with Gerry Matatics. To sum it upsimply: he now accepts as Catholics groups and individuals who hold that souls can be saved in false religions, such as the Spokane Group, etc. He also promotesProtocol 122/49, which is heretical.
God knows that we have been a true friend to Gerry Matatics. We have always toldhim the truth about his activity, when few others would do so. Due to his owncompromise of the Faith and promotion of materials which attack the salvationdogma, we are now forced, to our dismay, to have to publicly denounce him. When we caught him in compromise after compromise in the past, we gave him every chance to explain himself. This latest incident is merely the last in a litany of things. For us, handing out a book attacking Fr. Feeney and promoting Protocol122/49 (after all the information Gerry has seen on this matter) is the last straw.Not that a true Catholic wouldn’t be willing to forgive Gerry Matatics, if he changed
his position and repented for what he has done – for Our Lord tells us to forgiveseventy times seven times (Mt. 18:22), if the person truly repents – but Gerry Matatics has proven that he is not fit to be a public speaker for the Catholic Faith.Even a believer in baptism of desire agreed with this assessment, as he posted onone of their websites:
Tommy, Sun. Oct. 22, 2006: “It would seem prudent to me if Gerry were to take asabatical [sic] from public speaking and as a leader in the defense of the Traditionalcause until such time as he is committed to a definitive position which he wants todefend. In my humble opinion Gerry spends much of his time contradicting hisown previous positions and apologizing for his public stances, which may haveindeed caused much confusion to the church militant.”
To be a public speaker for the truths of God’s Church one must beuncompromising, undeterred by what people think, and completely honest at all times. Despite his many talents and much knowledge, Gerry Matatics lacks thesespiritual qualities. Gerry needs to spend some time alone with God, rather thanconstantly on the run as he appears to be. His activity demonstrates that he needsto obtain a pure intention for souls and the desire to please GOD ALONE. Untilthen, he will be blinded (as he is now) to his grave sins of compromise and lying (for which we have rebuked him in the past), which he doesn’t seem to think is aproblem or a sin.
When Gerry held the true positions, we generously promoted his speakingengagements with a prominent link, even when he didn’t link to us. We wanted tohelp him out; we thought people could benefit from his talks. But we were sadly betrayed by his lack of integrity and compromising ways again and again.
It was largely through our material that Gerry Matatics became a sedevacantist.But even when he was convinced of the position, he failed to tell people about itpublicly for a significant period of time. At the 2005 St. Joseph Forum, for
instance, Gerry Matatics told the people that he was not a sedevacantist, when hehad told me via e-mail that he was. He later admitted to me that he didn’t feel very good about having betrayed his position in front of the audience. During this sameperiod, we had to charitably reprimand Gerry again and again for failing to gopublic with his sedevacantist position. He finally did, but it was not with alacrity.(We were the ones who actually had to “break the story.”) It was clearly a burdenfor him to tell people truths that some (who had liked him) wouldn’t readily receive. Gerry Matatics has a problem offending people and denouncing heretics,
which often must be done because the truth must be told – no matter how many don’t like it or get upset by it. This inability to disappoint people leads him tocompromise his beliefs so that he becomes more palatable to certain individualsand groups. He thus lacks (at this time) what it takes to be a Catholic apologist – astrict devotion to truth at all costs. This is in addition to the fact that he now
accepts as Catholic those who believe that souls can be saved in Buddhism andIslam.
In closing, we would like to say that we will pray for the conversion of Gerry Matatics to the true positions. We hope that he removes himself from publicspeaking and meetings or disputes with individuals who don’t share his beliefs, which is obviously an occasion of sin for him.
Even though I have taken some time to explain this development, I would like tostress that people shouldn‟t get overworked about what Gerry Matatics
believes. People make far too much ado about individuals such as himand their latest positions. This is because many have, quite frankly, an impure fascination with man, especially with those reputed to be scholars. One gets theimpression that some of these individuals are such followers of man that they would change their position completely if this particular person did.
We thought about not even mentioning his recent lapse into salvation heresy (and acondemnation of Fr. Feeney) on our website, because it’s really not very relevant totrue Catholics who adhere uncompromisingly to the Faith. However, since somestill thought him to be a true Catholic who defends the necessity of the CatholicFaith and baptism for salvation, we felt we had to let people know that this is notthe case. In short, true Catholics shouldn’t worry about what Gerry Matatics believes, for Gerry Matatics certainly doesn’t worry about what true Catholicsthink when he denies their beliefs in fraternal meetings with those who condemntheir position as “mortal sin.” Gerry Matatics worries about what he thinks is“best” for Gerry Matatics.
