Dear Dave,
If you'd like to engage Gerry, his phone number is 570-969-1724. I talked with him for a few hours recently, and he is at least courteous and open to dialogue. He should be back from his current trip around October 8.
I knew that Gerry Matatics had gone off the deep-end and left the Church to promote the Sedevacantist heresy, so I'm not surprised that he's also, like Bob Sungenis (who at least isn't a Sedevacantist -- yet?), an anti-Semitism conspiracy kook. Paul VI and John Paul II possible Crypto-Jews, eh? What next, quotes from the Protocols of the Elders of Zion?
What would be the point? This stuff is so far beyond rational, I don't see how talking would make any sense at all, or have any remote chance of success. Pope John Paul II was a promoter of Communism? Yeah, right. It'll take a miracle to disabuse him of this craziness.
It is true he is courteous and friendly. He was, very much so, when I talked to him in person a few years back for some 45 minutes.
As with anti-Catholics and liberals, it is the false ideas that are the problem, as I see it, not the character of the person (in most cases, anyway). I see them as victims and dupes far more so than promulgators.
I should announce that I am partly Jewish, just to have a bit of fun. We could get a ruckus going for weeks on end, with no end of folly and silliness . . .
JUST kidding . . . .
Ben, what good would come of a conversation between Dave and Gerry? Dave is firmly committed in the belief that Vatican II was and is a valid council and believes the Popes since are validly leading the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church.
Gerry believes the exact opposite of what Dave believes, since Vatican II.
I do not see Dave as attacking Gerry, just commenting that it is sad that such a brilliant mind is off in the world of sedevacantism.
Gerry's fame and entire site at this point is dedicated to making the claims that our current popes and church are and is false. He is touring the country and stating this all over God's green earth. Should it not be natural for one to question this?
Why the need to 'engage' Gerry. Iron Sharpens Iron eh?
Popes were Freemason's and communists? - That's outright crazytalk man!
I don't care how many verses of Greek you can parse.
To hell with this sedevacantist, Protestant-esque, splintering of the church.
I have to state that by logic alone, if what the sedevacantists teach has the same or more validity, than what the 5 popes since the council have taught, then it is all a sham.
Yes, all of it.
I'd like to add:
In my now (unfortunately) more frequent dealings with sedevacantists I find many similar threads between them, (ironically) Calvinists (and other fundamentalists) and (even more ironic) hardcore grassy-knoll liberals.
When they get so far out there, it is like a switch has been flipped. No matter how poor their logic, no matter how poorly their argument squares with reality, there is simply no getting through to them. The switch has been flipped - and sadly - usually there is no return.
The world is one big conspiracy to all 3 of these types and there is no dialogue...it becomes nothing but conspiracy monologue.
Absolutely right, Z. I've long held that radtrad traditionalism (of which sedes are the extreme: the wackiest of the wacky) is a combination of both the errors of Protestantism and of liberalism.
Think about it. Who disputes the authority of the pope? Liberals dissent and cast doubt on papal infallibility. Protestants acknowledge no pope whatsoever and often say he is the antichrist. So do the sedes and Gerry in his rhetoric now!
Who denies the authority of ecumenical Church councils. Protestants accept no councils because of the principle of sola Scriptura. Liberals deny this authority because they deny the supernatural guidance from the Holy Spirit. Sedes go after Vatican II on no reasonable grounds. But they come out just like Protestants and liberals do!
Who denies the validity of the Mass? Liberals disbelieve in the Real presence, whether it is valid or not. Protestants do the same and anti-Catholics (and Luther and Calvin) add that the Sacrifice of the Mass is blasphemous and idolatrous. Gerry and the seds are right along with 'em!
Who accepts private judgment over against the authority of the Church? Liberals pick and choose (cafeteria catholicism). Protestants make it their formal principle. And now Gerry and the sedes know better than the popes and councils and the entire Church. it is private judgment to the extreme. I had immense respect for JPII even as a Protestant. But Gerry thinks he is a Communist and a Mason and Jewish agent.
It's like you say, as if Gerry has brought the goofiest, weirdest aspects of Calvinist fundamentalism into the Church with him. He's still thinking like a Protestant. He takes it to its logical, non-Catholic conclusion: no popes, no councils (just like Luther), no real mass, and the individual reigns supreme and makes himself a Super-Pope (again, very much like Luther and Calvin).
The amazing thing about cases like Gerri is before I heard of people like him I found it HARD TO BELIEVE those teachings in the Bible about many people falling away from the faith. I just couldnt visualize once strong Catholics like Gerry going off the deep end, but the Bible was right, many will deceive and be deceived themselves.
Sedevacntism is simply a mental disorder, no other way to put it. The Pope is "valid" when the INDIVIDUAL feels like it and "invalid" when he doesnt feel like it....it is nothing short of Protestantism.
Just curious about:
Fact #5: The fulfillment of these divine prophecies [apostasy from fact#4] is brought about, under God's permissive Providence,...
This language sounds vaguely Reformed (which of course is his background). 'permissive Providence' seems to be pointing towards compatibilism. Is there any basis in Catholicism for this? (Jansenism?).
But maybe he's the basis for a new ecumenism. He's something about which the Reformed and Catholics can both agree upon. :p
"...I'm not surprised that he's also, like Bob Sungenis..."
It would be wrong and careless to lump Gerry Matatics and Bob Sungenis together. We are all supposed to be reasonable. Dr. Sungenis is Catholic and wants to remain within the Catholic fold. Mr. Matatics, while claiming to be Catholic, has placed himself outside and above the Church.
By the way, for those who have access to Mr. Matatics, there are a few questions that Mr. Matatics need to answer: When did you become Catholic? Was it before or after you embraced sedevacantism? Who received you into the Catholic Church? Was it a pre or post Vatican II priest? Which Church received you? Was the Church loyal to post Vatican II pope? If Mr. Matatics was received by a church loyal to JPII, then by his own standards, he has not yet entered the true Catholic Church since he disavows that same Church that received him. If Mr. Matatics became Catholic only after disconnecting himself from the post Vatican II papacy, he simply has to amend his conversion story.
Thomism and Calvinism are not far apart in many respects wrt predestiation, election, etc. Catholics always reject predestination to hell, though.
Thomism and Calvinism are not far apart in many respects wrt predestiation, election, etc. Catholics always reject predestination to hell, though.
Thomism is orthodox. Calvinism is heresy. To me that makes them far apart. Like saying the person who walked up to the edge of a clif did almost the same thing as the person who walked over the edge. The difference is small by some measures but it is huge in the most important ways.
The difference is small by some measures but it is huge in the most important ways.
Yes, but I think Z had suggested that people's brains were somehow broken by Calvinism, as if they couldn't ever think rationally again without drastically revising their entire thought process. That might well be true for fundamentalist Calvinism, but a more scholastically inclined Calvinist might (as Dave noted) find the transition to Catholicism relatively smooth. It's really the fundamentalism, and not the Calvinism, that makes it akin to rad-tradism. I'd note that most radical traditionalists are poor students of St. Thomas, taking the same fundamentalist, anti-intellectual approach to Thomism as fundamentalist do with the Bible. They rarely understand the writings they cite from neo-Thomists like Fr. Garrigou-Lagrange.
Just for amusement's sake, here is Lutheran trash-talker Josh Strodtbeck spouting his ignorance once again (at Boar's Head Tavern):
-----------------
Sedevacantists
I’ve thought for quite some time that if I were a Catholic, I’d probably be a Sedevacantist. Of course, all that does for Catholics is prove that I don’t really understand Catholicism at all, but my opinion of most Catholics is that they’re largely not well-informed about all the issues swirling around what they like to call Tradition. A lot of it comes down to your hermeneutic–do you interpret the councils at Florence and Trent, the bulls of Pius IX, and the decrees of Boniface VIII with the historical-grammatical method, or do you use some more postmodern method (shut up, Joel) where the modern reader determines what the texts mean in a display of power? There are related questions of authority–if Church teaching and papal encyclicals norm Catholic belief in the 21st century, then do Church teaching and papal encyclicals from the 15th century carry the same weight? Why or why not? How do I pick and choose which to believe absolutely? What does this mean for an “unchanging faith?” This is crucial because various ancient canons and even popes teach that the Church can judge whether or not the pope’s teachings are heretical, while most modern Catholics tend to deny this in the most strenuous of terms. Likewise, if hardly anyone from 1545 to 1958 truly understood what the teaching of the Church is, what does that mean? Additionally, it depends on where you come down on John Henry Newman’s doctrine of Tradition. Newman’s doctrine was a genuine theological novelty and directly paved the way for Vatican II. If you interpret what Trent says about Tradition in its historical context, it most certainly does not mean what Newman wanted it to mean.
Just as a note: I do not think people's brain's are broken by Calvinism and did not intend to insinuate so. However, I do not think the switch is flipped primarily by fundamentalism. The fundamentalism is partly due to Calvinism. They are symbiotic. This is what happens when you make yourself your own authority...as with the sede's...as with the grassy-knoll, Bush-and-the-Mossad-were-behind-the-9-11-attack-
liberals.
Regarding Josh Strodbeck's comments on tradition: It seems to me, that Josh has a difficult time understanding the whole picture with Catholicism with respect to Tradition. He seems to think we invented it at Trent, and then never really defined it until Newman.
As with many Protty's on the consta-critical-Catholic train, they often forget to look at our other lung of Christianity - the Eastern orthodox church. Like us, the Eastern orthodox have been yapping about Tradition since only about the beginning years, but according to this follower dedicated to Jesus, through Martin Luther, he probably overlooked that small bit of evidence...
It would be wrong and careless to lump Gerry Matatics and Bob Sungenis together.
Gerry Matatics and Bob Sungenis are both anti-Semites and go in for nuitburger anti-Semitic conspiracy theory, so it is right to point out that they are in the same category. No, Sungenis isn't a sedevacantist (as I'd already said) -- he's anti-Semitic, a geocentrist, and his book "Not By Bread Alone" denies the Church's faith that God is immutable, but at least he's not so far out as to have lapsed into sedevacantism. Hopefully he won't ever follow Gerry Matatics, and hopefully he'll also shed his radical traditionalism. To my mind, Matatics and Sungenis never quite left their fundamentalist mindset behind, for whatever reason. Unless their learn how to think with the Church, that will ultimately cause a spiritual shipwreck, as it has with Matatics, and as Sungenis is dangerously close to.
"To my mind, Matatics and Sungenis never quite left their fundamentalist mindset behind, for whatever reason. Unless their learn how to think with the Church, that will ultimately cause a spiritual shipwreck, as it has with Matatics, and as Sungenis is dangerously close to".
Jordan, I think that you are making a lot of imprudent remarks on an issue you are clearly incompetent to judge and you probably have inadequate information to make the kind of judgment you think you have the duty to make. Sungenis’ bishop has taken note of him and the wise thing for a serious catholic to do would be to let the proper authorities sort things out with Dr. Sungenis.
Perhaps predictions of spiritual shipwreck are imprudent but it is surely true that "Sungenis never quite left [his] fundamentalist mindset behind".
Also too bad regarding Sungenis. So much potential there, as with Matatics. I agree on both not having fully left the Protty (Calvinist in specific) 'your own pope' mindset behind.
Dear Dave,
I question whether it is possible to separate moral character from theological beliefs in the way you do. There is only one Truth, so the grace of God is leading everyone in the same direction. I would submit that anyone who is rational, honest, morally upright, and diligent in his search for truth should end up in the same place. If someone embraces a position which is utterly and irredeemably false, that's probably because they weren't so deeply committed to the truth as they may have appeared to have been. So, I don't see how it is possible to simultaneously affirm that (a) there's no grave problem in Matatics' moral character, and (b) that his sedevacantism is sheer nonsense, unless you are going to argue that he is mentally ill. Barring seriously screwy brain chemistry in Matatics, either proposition (a) or proposition (b) is going to have to give way.
The way I'd resolve this contradition is to admit a significant kernel of truth in his criticisms of the conciliar and post-conciliar Popes.
Anyway, the purpose of talking with Gerry would be to understand his position and the arguments he uses in support of it, with a view to rebutting them in a public forum so that those who find his arguments convincing or disturbing will be able to access a ready answer. Gerry rarely publishes his arguments on the internet or in print, so if you want to know what line he is taking so that you can answer him, you have to talk to him.
Dozie,
I agree that it is wrong to lump Sungenis together with Matatics, but for a completely different reason. It is grossly unfair to Matatics. That which he believes to be the Catholic Church, Matatics obeys. He doesn't obey his local bishop in Scranton because he does not believe that he is a Catholic bishop. Sungenis, on the other hand, pays lip service to his bishop in public and then seeks subtle ways of subverting his authority. Rest assured, bishop Rhoades is going to wise up, and if Sungenis doesn't fall in line for real, he's going back under interdict. Furthermore, if you knew about the personal issues between Sungenis and matatics, you would be astonished that Matatics was still showing Sungenis Christian charity.
On the Jewish issue, Gerry has fortunately replaced the words "a Jew" with "Jewish" in his statement. This makes it clearer that he is referring to religion and not to race.
As for Gerry's alleged anti-Semitism, I've yet to be sold on it. Anti-Semitism is prejudice (pre-judgment) against Jews, that is, a negative judgment about Jews which occurs prior to dispassionate consideration of rational evidence. It causes the anti-Semite to habitually form negative judgments about Jews all out of proportion to what is merited by the facts, to be incapable of justly and charitably interpreting Jewish texts, and so forth. So, a person making a very harsh judgment about Jews is not in itself sufficient evidence for anti-Semitism. One will have to examine the evidence based on which the person came to that judgment. If it becomes obvious that he is grasping at straws and looking for any excuse to condemn Jews, that he is habitually dishonest and tendentious with the evidence, that he does not take care to throughly understand the material and look for possible means of exculpating the people he would indict, then he is an anti-Semite. If, on the other hand, he comes to his harsh negative judgment justly, he is not an anti-Semite, no matter how harsh is judgment may be.
The upshop of this is that it is easy to diagnose anti-Semitism in someone like Sungenis or Michael Hoffman II, but it cannot be diagnosed in Matatics based on the bare fact that he suggests that certain Jews have attempted to infiltrate and subvert the Catholic Church. It may very well be the case that some Jews have. Read what Matatics has read, and if his position is obviously false such that a person of good will could never have come to this conclusion, then call him an anti-Semite.
Of course, there are theological problems with suggesting that a Jewish agent succeeding in gaining the papacy. But Matatics' alleged anti-Semitism and Catholic orthodoxy are two separate issues.
So, if we have to choose between Matatics' moral character and the fidelity of the Church...you say that the Church must be botched up?
Hogwash.
It's a false dilemma. I can give you a pretty long list of Protestants whose lives are beyond reproach morally.
Ben Douglass,
Can you give us some news about where you find yourself now? I recall interacting with you a bit when you worked for Robert Sungenis. I see in your posts above that there has been a split between you and him.
I have long thought you were very good at explaining rather complex concepts -- I recall you gave an explanation of EENS at Sungenis's website that made the doctrine much clearer to me. How are you going about putting your skills to good use now?
As for Sungenis -- what a sad case. His book "Not by Faith Alone" is quite brilliant, and really gave me an understanding of Grace and of the Catholic Church that I had somehow missed until then. I think of him, however, like a Tertullian, who was brilliant in the faith, and then abandoned the faith for a wacky theory that divided him from the rest of Christianity. How sad. I hope he returns.
Dear Reginald,
I do not believe that there are many legitimate complaints against the post-conciliar Popes on the sole basis of Gerry Matatics' character. That's a concluion I reached a while ago, based on more substantial evidence, but I'm not certain it's prudent to discuss the matter any further.
Dear DelRayVA,
You can see what I am currently doing at my website www.pugiofidei.com. By the way, I noticed from your blog that you live in Fairfax. I'm currently in Herndon. We should meet some time.
"That which he believes to be the Catholic Church, Matatics obeys. He doesn't obey his local bishop in Scranton because he does not believe that he is a Catholic bishop."
By the same logic by which Gerry judges his local bishop not to be a Catholic bishop, is Gerry Catholic? When did he become Catholic? If Gerry joined the "church" at a time and under the circumstance where everyone in the same situation was not Catholic, how did he become the only Catholic? It is my recollection that he joined a church loyal to the papacy of JPII. My question then is: If the church he joined was not Catholic, how did he become one?
Ben,
I too have read your items on CAI in the past. You seem to have a good, sharp mind. Glad to see you are still in the Church.
Correct in that there is much to be lamented since VII. However, it is not for me to act as Pope.
What happens is fellas like Matatics and Sungenis, (seemingly similar, but different in nature, spoken of course by a person who does not know them personally) also tend to tune their consciences to a somewhat different frequency than that of the Church. You know the arguments though.
Glad to see that you appear to be a complete gentleman in your manner.
I hope you stay within the Church and eventually write about your reasoning on your website. I hope it expands in due time.
Ben, postscript,
We agree in our defintion of anti-semitism. Definately a phrase that is bandied-about in an all too frequent manner.
Jordan, I think that you are making a lot of imprudent remarks on an issue you are clearly incompetent to judge
How is it clear that I am incompetent to notice that Gerry Matatics has left the Catholic Church ("spiritual shipwreck") and that Bob Sungenis has gone off the deep end in the areas of anti-Semitic conspiracy theory and geocentrism?
and you probably have inadequate information to make the kind of judgment you think you have the duty to make.
No, it's more likely that you have inadequate information to make that judgment about me. I have closely followed the implosion of Sungenis' apologetics work with great sadness. But it does appear that you are incompetent to judge my comments here.
Sungenis’ bishop has taken note of him and the wise thing for a serious catholic to do would be to let the proper authorities sort things out with Dr. Sungenis.
I disagree -- that's not wise at all, not as long as it is possible for people to be influenced and led astray by things Sungenis has been saying and doing.
"I have closely followed the implosion of Sungenis' apologetics work with great sadness."
If you have not tried reasonably to communicate with Bod Sungenis privately, you have no duty to criticize him publicly. In the Catholic Church we have bishops who play certain roles, including making jugdment of who and who is not Catholic and the extent to which they are in or out of communion. I suspect that this is not purely a Catholic issue; there seems to be a Jew/Gentile animosity at play here.
Plenty have tried to deal with Bob privately, to no avail. If he spouts nonsense publicly, we have every right to rebuke his errors publicly, because he is out there representing the Catholic Church, that we also represent and are a part of.
I myself have urged people to do as little of the public rebuke as possible, for various reasons, but I can't say it is wrong to do it, period. If Bob were not teaching this junk publicly, you would be right, but he is, and that is a whole different ballgame. In that scenario anyone can publicly disagree with his teaching, since they are responding to stuff already "out there" in circulation, for all to see.
Commenting by HaloScan
