IN THIS FILE:
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 Matatics acts as if 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 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 even promotes 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 and mortal 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 condemning as 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 and demonic. 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 There is No Salvation. He rejects it by accepting as Catholics those who reject it. It proves 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 denies the dogma by considering Suprema haec sacra to not be heretical, and by failing to accept 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 his criticism of our position on the status of the absolute necessity of water baptism. It also refutes his claim that St. Thomas Aquinas did not deny the Immaculate Conception (before it was defined).
MHFM: This is a new series of audios refuting the schismatic “No Jurisdiction Position.” This position is held by some in the traditional movement. It has recently 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.
Jurisdiction - Quick Intro [9 min. audio]
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 Jurisdiction Position” 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 the side. This section also addresses many other points, including epikeia, the external and internal forum, and a book called Supplied Jurisdiction According to Canon 209.
This book, which Gerry Matatics wrongly says “devastates” the other side, actually devastates his position and that of other advocates of the “No Jurisdiction Position.” This audio covers, with supporting citations from the book, the extent of supplied jurisdiction, doubt of fact, doubt of law, colored title, putative title and more. It explains what these mean and why they are significant to this issue. The facts in this section serve to further completely refute the schismatic “No Jurisdiction Position.”
Jurisdiction Part 4 - More points and La Salette [20 min. audio]
Note: This part 4 contains some important information. It will not be as interesting for our general readers as part 5 or some other sections. The information in this part is for those who have a deeper interest in these topics. This part also covers a controversy that some of our readers have asked about: did the Holy Office, before Vatican II, condemn commenting on the Message of La Salette? Hear our response to this issue. This section also contains some more important points from Supplied Jurisdiction According to Canon 209. It covers intrinsic cessation of the law. It also covers the dilemma of canonists in determining the precise extent of common error, etc. and how their comments serve to further obliterate the schismatic “No Jurisdiction Position.”
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 the normal canons against preaching, etc. without permission. It focuses in on their hypocrisy, the laws they violate, and how they condemn themselves out of their own mouths. It also covers lessons from Our Lord and the Machabees which further 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 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.
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 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 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.
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 John Lane features a photograph of Gerry with John Lane at the recent Fatima Conference in Spokane 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 The Pope Has Spoken" which convinced him of the magisterial status of the condemnation of Feeneyism by the prelates acting in Pius XII's name…Are you able to shed any light on what is going on with Gerry?
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, John Lane and I spent some time with Gerry Matatics. He told us he no longer denies Baptism of Desire and 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 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…
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 Massachusetts that all who die as non-Catholics are lost (a defined dogma). As we read above, Gerry Matatics actually handed the aforementioned heretical booklet to a 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 Catholic Research Institute. Catholic Research Institute is the same group which publishes a booklet by Fr. Vaillancourt which teaches salvation for those “outside” the Church and for Muslims and Buddhists:
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 whichis 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 Spokane, Wa? Spokane (home of the heretical CMRI) is a stronghold for those who believe in salvation for non-Catholics via “baptism of desire.” It’s a hotbed for those who hate “Feeneyism.” In other words, he was not exactly in an area where a speaker would be very popular adhering to the absolute necessity of baptism for salvation. That’s the point. His change of position conveniently occurred when surrounded by all of these individuals – when surrounded by potential benefactors, potential admirers, and potential “friends.” In this atmosphere, the temptation to overturn his “rigorist” belief was too great to overcome – too great to overcome, that is, for a liberal, compromising, and dishonest person who doesn’t seek to please God alone.
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 Spokane. I quote:
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: GMatatics
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.
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: GMatatics
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 New England to spend two days with me who need to be challenged on these points anyway, and I will have it finished in time to hand to them. When I've added the relevant quotes from popes 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 Time From: GMatatics
…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.
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: GMatatics
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: 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 Time From: 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 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: GMatatics
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: GMatatics
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.
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.
Sign up for our free e-mail list to see future vaticancatholic.com videos and articles.