IN THIS FILE:
-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
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 he teaches
heresy?
Unfortunately,
yes it can be said. There is new
information which demonstrates this 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 full agreement. We have
always wished for his best. We
acknowledge Gerry’s tremendous 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 a
difficult 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. Tom Droleskey 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 this file. 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 did not 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 be saved. (Tom was too cowardly to
debate us, by the way, because his heretical position would be exposed and
refuted.). Not only does Tom obstinately
deny the dogma, but he attacks those who hold the true position. In short, Tom D. belongs to the crowd of
baptism of desire heretics who not only believe that souls can be saved in
false religions, but who detest and wish to extirpate faith in Jesus’ dogma
that “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
the false 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 considers people who believe that souls can be saved in false
religions to be Catholic. Gerry is a
heretic. As much as one might want to
deny it, it’s just a fact. Gerry holds
that one can believe that Jews who reject Christ are saved and be Catholic
(e.g., Tom D.). 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 and promotes the worst of the false traditionalist
enemies of the dogma in our day: the tenacious “anti-Feeneyites.”
This
summer we also wrote to Gerry and asked him if he would be interested in a
recorded debate/discussion on the baptism of desire issue. We received no response. As stated in the update to this file, one of us also spoke with Gerry
for five 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 sent the tapes. (That
shouldn’t be a surprise. It’s consistent
with the activity described in the file above.)
In that conversation, Gerry confirmed that he does not hold the infamous
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 who are 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 his
current activity and public teaching.
Gerry currently holds that people should not attend any Mass where
Benedict XVI is prayed for in the canon.
As we’ve articulated, we believe that one can go to only a certain
number of such Masses: the priest would have to meet certain conditions and one
couldn’t agree with or support the priest.
We do not believe that going signifies an acceptance of Benedict
XVI. 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
be consistent 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 sort of praying with Benedict XVI (a
claim we reject), then obviously that person is expected to remain consistent
with that position and not pray with anyone who 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 the people with whom he prays also
reject Benedict XVI. If he doesn’t, he’s
a horrible hypocrite.
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 the aforementioned 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 the sedevacantist position.
She responded by saying that her group “does not take a position 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 invincible ignorance salvation
heresy). Gerry offers a public prayer
with her every month; he calls 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 a monthly public prayer with a woman who doesn’t even reject Benedict
XVI’s claim to the Papacy and who promotes non-sedevacantists. He probably hasn’t even asked her what she
holds on that issue, nor told her what position she must hold on that
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 these
terms: “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 is wrong with the human condition…” He describes the Protestant named Chuck as
someone 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 some form of
the false no-jurisdiction position. That
position is refuted in this 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 funerals and weddings.
One person in New Jersey went to such a non-Catholic service passively
after hearing him speak. Those errors
are significant. However, his most
significant problem was described above.
It’s his acceptance of the heresy that people 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 him as
a Catholic or promote him as one.
Update
on Gerry Matatics 10/1/08 – Another conversation with
Gerry
By Br. Peter Dimond, O.S.B.
10/1/08-
In the fall of 2007, I (Bro. Peter Dimond) had a lengthy telephone conversation
with Gerry Matatics.
The conversation lasted about five hours. We discussed 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 send me 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. Although
disappointing, this failure to live up to his word on this matter is consistent
with the activity described below.
In
the lengthy conversation with Gerry, I tried again and again to get him to
admit that Protocol 122/49 (also known as Suprema haec sacra) is indeed a heretical
document (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 pointed out 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 says that he doesn’t personally 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 heretical documents
which teach and justify that very heresy, and if he doesn’t denounce as
heretical “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 recorded telephone conversation on
the salvation issue, in which we could discuss/debate the issue. I haven’t received any response.
Update
on Gerry Matatics, 11/7/06 – Gerry sells out to those
who believe in salvation 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 and Baptism of Blood, as evidenced by some
e-mail responses from him featured some short while ago on your website.
But a discussion forum moderated by
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 convinced that 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 in Memphis and
Nashville…I'd like to contact [x] and encourage him to attend [my talks] as
well, along with any other persecuted sedevacantists/"Feeneyites" in his circle of friends. It sounds as
though they could use some in-person Catholic 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 on the salvation issue. For instance, after a conversation he had
with a priest of the Society 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: “… I never stated
that I would go to the SSPV chapel… We will pray the Mass at home rather
than commune with a public heretic.”
However,
Gerry Matatics was recently caught in the Pacific
Northwest distributing 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 Church There
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,
“One of the main citations that helped him see the error of the Feeneyite and Dimond 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, I HIGHLY recommend this little booklet that Gerry Matatics
gave me… in Spokane Wa. It
fills in the gaps regarding Fr. Feeney's excommunication giving the true
outline, 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 Suprema haec sacra,
which is the heretical 1949 letter of Cardinal Marchetti-Selvaggiani
to Archbishop Richard Cushing of Boston concerning Fr. Feeney. It is also called Protocol 122/49. Even someone such as Msgr. Joseph Clifford
Fenton – who was also forced to contradict Suprema haec sacra’s false teaching on the Body
of the Church, as proven in our article:
www.mostholyfamilymonastery.com/fenton_book.html - admitted that it’s not
infallible:
Msgr. Joseph Clifford Fenton, The Catholic Church and Salvation, 1958,
p. 103: “… the teachings contained in Suprema haec sacra
are not to be accepted as infallibly true on the authority of this particular
document.”
This heretical letter Suprema haec sacra
(which is covered in our book) teaches that souls “invincibly ignorant” of the
Catholic Faith can be saved. It also
teaches the heresy that souls who do not belong to the Body of the Church can
be saved. It also teaches that baptism
of desire saves, not only unbaptized catechumens, but
those 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 in
Fr. Kevin Vaillancourt,
I Baptize With
Water, p. 17: “Are there any more
‘good faith’ pagans in existence? Is
it possible for the Communists of China or the faithful adherents of Buddhism
and Mohammedism of the Near and Far East to either
have never heard the Gospel, or else had the Gospel presented to them in an
erroneous light?... Can the Chinese
Communist, or the Indian Buddhist
or the Pakistani Muslim be included in such a consideration [of
invincible ignorance]? Only God knows,
and it is not up to me to decide for Him. I write here merely to uphold the dogmatic
principle of the possibility of such cases 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 a
hypothetical one. In certain particular
circumstances, for example, in the case of the invincible ignorance or of
incapability, actual membership in the Church can be supplied 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 will of God. In this way those who are outside
the Catholic Church can achieve 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 which is published by the heretical “Catholic Research Institute” – a
group which teaches that there is salvation “outside” the Church and for
Muslims, Buddhists, etc. Gerry Matatics is thus an enemy of the dogma Outside the Church
There is No Salvation, despite whatever protestations to the contrary he might
make. True Catholics who adhere uncompromisingly to the salvation dogma and
the necessity of water baptism – and stand against the multitude of heretics
who use “baptism of desire” to justify salvation for members of false religions
– should completely shun Gerry Matatics, his speeches
and not support him at all. In
certain respects, 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. But Gerry Matatics gives true Catholics who defend the dogma the
false impression that he stands with them, only to compromise and change his
position when surrounded 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 as Jews, etc. to be saved without
even believing in Jesus Christ – as documented above in the quotations from the
book by Vaillancourt, published by C.R.I.)
Furthermore, isn’t it interesting that Gerry Matatics
was caught changing his position in
While on this trip, Gerry violated the
scriptural teaching to avoid heretics (Titus 3:10). He had dinner with the likes of the heretic
John Lane, a man who attacks the necessity of water baptism with
obstinacy. John Lane has indicated that
he has no 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 a mortal sin against the Faith. But Gerry Matatics,
liberal lover of man more than lover 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 as merely 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’s the one who also recently attempted to debate on behalf of
the sedevacantist position. 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 II
antipopes – he (incredibly) didn’t bring up even one heresy of Vatican II, nor
one act 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 the heretical teaching that non-Catholics may lawfully receive Holy
Communion. He mentioned 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 a liberal heretic
who hates the necessity of water baptism?
Mr. Lane also supports the SSPX, and considers their position which
rejects sedevacantism “legitimate to hold.” Thus,
he’s not even really a sedevacantist.)
Switching back to Gerry’s change of position in Washington, what’s
interesting is that 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 – giving
both sides the impression that he stands with them (or is looking into
their position), thus pleasing as many as possible.
When we found out about this, we contacted Gerry to make sure that
what was stated by Vincent was true. In
charity we wanted to give him a chance to deny the accusation if, for some
reason, he had been calumniated. We did believe it to be true, 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 baptism of desire: see e-mail from Gerry 10/29/05
below. Another example of
compromise/dishonesty about what he claimed to believe occurred when Gerry was
a 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 letter distanced Gerry Matatics from sedevacantism, “Feeneyism,” accusations of error in the New Catechism, and
a denunciation of people who go to the New Mass – all things which the heretic
Karl Keating had accused Gerry of holding. Gerry left this letter on his website – which
distanced himself from all of the aforementioned positions and thus implied
that he doesn’t find errors in the New Catechism or think people should avoid
the New Mass, etc.– even after he informed me that he
didn’t hold the positions attributed to him in the letter. In other words, he didn’t even agree with
what was said about him in the letter anymore; yet it remained prominently 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, which he 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
Gerry Matatics,
10/24/06 to Vince and MHFM: “Dear Vince: You
should have checked with me first before you started sending
out potentially misleading e-mails about me to others, which are
now circulating all over the Internet. People are now asking me for a detailed
statement regarding my latest researches and opinions regarding all the
particulars of EENS (Extra Ecclesiam Nulla 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 –
and this 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 also trying 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’s absolutely true. This is the true character of Gerry Matatics coming through, unfortunately: he berates an individual
for a supposedly misleading report
about him 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 that he is not an
honest person. For instance, Gerry told us many times that he would
provide a link to our website recommending our book Outside the Catholic Church There is Absolutely No Salvation. This is just one of many examples:
|
Subject: |
From
Gerry Matatics |
||
|
Date: |
5/30/2006
10:33:16 PM Eastern Standard Time |
||
|
From: |
|||
|
|||
Dear Brother Peter:
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 can excerpt on your website as well, unequivocally -- unlike my previous
statement, Brother! :) -- affirming my adherence both to the dogma extra ecclesiam
nulla salus and
to the dogma on the absolute necessity of water baptism for salvation, and recommending your book as the best
treatment of this entire matter 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 see numerous 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 he didn’t do it.
He would always come up with some excuse; we finally figured out that he
was just lying, and couldn’t have the intention to fulfill what he had
promised. 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 Time |
|
From: |
Please allow me, therefore, to
append two or three relevant "prooftexts"
after each of paragraphs 1-4 before you post it. It's late now (almost 1:30 am)
and I have to get up quite early tomorrow morning (or rather today,
Sunday), so I'm afraid I cannot
pull out my books to find and type the quotes now, but I will do so
tomorrow. I have people arriving tomorrow night from
|
Subject: |
Reply
from Gerry Matatics to your latest (11-04-05)
e-mail |
|
Date: |
11/4/2005
7:28:09 PM Eastern Standard Time |
|
From: |
…Therefore, to avoid giving this
impression while taking the time to compose a more detailed defense of my
position, I thought it prudent to fire off in the meantime a brief
acknowledgement of their e-mail to those who had voiced a concern that
my position on baptism "might not fully adhere to the Church's
teaching on such aspects of the issue as the possibility of baptism of desire,
baptism of 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 true teaching on these
matters.
![Text Box: From: GMatatics@aol.com [mailto:GMatatics@aol.com]
Sent: Saturday, 29 October 2005 9:56 AM](Gerry_Matatics_files/image002.gif)
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 the
Church'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
you are one of those who wrote to me directly, or you have discussed my
position with me or others recently.
I deeply appreciate your concern. I humbly thank you for caring enough about
Christ's Truth and about me to contact me (those of you who did). And I wish to
assure 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'll pardon the pun) of Extra Ecclesiam
Nulla Salus that is current
even among many "traditionalist" circles, a liberalization that Pius
XII (in his 1950 encyclical Humani Generis) rightly
said "reduced the dogma to a meaningless formula."
Instead, I am simply a Catholic who accepts all the Church's perennial teaching
on this much-misunderstood issue.
I will be posting a full, detailed
statement on my own website (www.gerrymatatics.org) within the next few days
(no later than All Saints Day, I hope), demonstrating that my position is the
orthodox one, in full submission to all the teaching of the Church's Magisterium.
I will send you an e-mail with a link to the article once I have posted it.
Thank you again for your charitable concern. May God bless you.
In the Sacred and Immaculate Hearts,
Gerry Matatics, Founder & President
|
Subject: |
Re:
BoD??? |
|
Date: |
11/10/2005
7:08:26 PM Eastern Standard Time |
|
From: |
Dear Padraig:
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) will inform them that this weekend, God willing, I will be furnishing them -- and my
own website -- with a complete, comprehensive, and unambiguous
statement of my faith in the absolute necessity of the sacrament of
water baptism for salvation.
|
Subject: |
Brief
note from Gerry Matatics |
|
Date: |
11/11/2005
3:14:35 AM Eastern Standard Time |
|
From: |
…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 Time |
|
From: |
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 those things on your website regarding me and had you instead
simply exercised patience, as I respectfuly
requested, my statement could in al likelihood have
been completed 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 on my
statement until the end of the weekend.
|
Subject: |
A
sample of what people have been sending Matatics |
|
Date: |
11/19/2005
4:17:12 PM Eastern Standard Time |
|
From: |
I'm currently working on finishing up this weekend my statement to
post 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 stand for
sedevacantism and against salvation by baptism
of desire…
|
Subject: |
Reply
from Gerry Matatics |
|
Date: |
11/25/2005
5:57:48 PM Eastern Standard Time |
|
From: |
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
to create 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 create PDF files and upload them; there is some sort of a virus
which slipped in through that download.
Believe me, I'm as eager to get something up as you are to see it -- it
will save 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; I could 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
up simply: 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 promotes Protocol 122/49, which is
heretical.
God knows that we have been a true friend to Gerry Matatics. We have
always told him the truth about his activity, when few others would do so. Due to his own compromise of the Faith and
promotion of materials which attack the salvation dogma, 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 Protocol 122/49 (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 forgive seventy
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 on one
of their websites:
Tommy, Sun. Oct. 22, 2006: “It would seem
prudent to me if Gerry were to take a sabatical [sic]
from public speaking and as a leader in the defense of the Traditional cause
until such time as he is committed to a definitive position which he wants to
defend. In my humble opinion Gerry
spends much of his time contradicting his own previous positions and
apologizing for his public stances, which may have indeed caused much confusion
to the church militant.”
To be a public speaker for the truths of God’s Church one must be uncompromising, undeterred by what people think, and completely
honest at all times. Despite his
many talents and much knowledge, Gerry Matatics lacks
these spiritual qualities. Gerry needs to spend some time alone with
God, rather than constantly on the run as he appears to be. His activity demonstrates that he needs to
obtain a pure intention for souls and the desire to please GOD ALONE. Until then, 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
a problem or a sin.
When Gerry held the true positions, we generously promoted his
speaking engagements with a prominent link, even when he didn’t link to
us. We wanted to help 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 it publicly 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 he had 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 same period,
we had to charitably reprimand Gerry again and again for failing to go public
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 burden for 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 to compromise his beliefs so that he becomes more
palatable to certain individuals and groups.
He thus lacks (at this time) what it takes to be a Catholic apologist –
a strict 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 and Islam.
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 public speaking 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 to stress that people
shouldn’t get overworked about what Gerry Matatics
believes. People make far too much ado
about individuals such as him and their latest positions. This is because many have, quite frankly, an impure fascination with man, especially
with those reputed to be scholars. One
gets the impression 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 a condemnation of Fr. Feeney) on our website, because
it’s really not very relevant to true Catholics who adhere uncompromisingly to
the Faith. However, since some still
thought him to be a true Catholic who defends the necessity of the Catholic
Faith and baptism for salvation, we felt we had to let people know that this is
not the case. In short, true Catholics
shouldn’t worry about what Gerry Matatics believes, for Gerry Matatics
certainly doesn’t worry about what true Catholics think when he denies their
beliefs in fraternal meetings with those who condemn their position as “mortal
sin.” Gerry Matatics worries about what he thinks is “best” for
Gerry Matatics.