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 cite even one heresy of Vatican
II or one act of false ecumenism of the Vatican II antipopes (such as kissing
the Koran, Assisi, etc.). 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/image003.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.
www.mostholyfamilymonastery.com