Dilemma

[Dave]

Catholic-apologist-turned-radical traditionalist Gerry Matatics is coming to Atlanta tomorrow to speak, and some friends from my (indult Tridentine Mass) parish plan to go hear him. Naturally, that scares me to death, as I don't want them to be led astray. They know how I feel about him, just for the record.

Anyway, the topic of Matatics' talk will be "What Faithful Catholics Should Think of the New Mass." For me that really makes alarm bells go off, especially since I discovered that Matatics will be debating Robert Sungenis (who has also gone in the wrong direction but not nearly as badly) on whether or not the Novus Ordo Mass satisfies your Sunday obligation. And Matatics is arguing that it won't. Of course, the only way the Novus Ordo Mass wouldn't fulfill your obligation is if it were invalid. So I think it's safe to say Matatics considers the Mass invalid and thinks we should only attend the Tridentine Mass.

I'm thinking of going to Matatics' talk with these friends just to observe, if nothing else. But what else should I do? As I said earlier, my friends already know how I feel about Matatics.

[Dave]

Here's some more info on Matatics (this was on the Catholic Answers site at one time):

[b]CATHOLIC ANSWERS FACT SHEET
Gerry Matatics [/b]


[b]Who is Gerry Matatics? [/b]

Gerry Matatics is a convert to the Catholic faith from conservative Presbyterianism. He attended Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary. He is the head of Biblical Foundations International, Inc., an apologetics-related organization. For three school years, Mr. Matatics held a teaching post at the Elmhurst, Pennsylvania, seminary run by the Priestly Fraternity of St. Peter. His contract was not renewed for the 1999–2000 school year.

[b]What is Catholic Answers’ connection with Gerry Matatics? [/b]

Mr. Matatics worked as an apologist at Catholic Answers from June 1990 through January 1991.

[b]Has Catholic Answers mentioned Mr. Matatics in print since he left its employ? [/b]

Yes. He was mentioned in four issues of This Rock. He was mentioned in passing in the November 1994 and June 1995 issues. The March 1995 issue contained a story responding to the editor of a now-defunct Traditionalist newspaper. The response included a discussion of Mr. Matatics’s connections to the Lefebvrist, Feeneyite, and sedevacantist movements. The July/August 1995 issue contained a feature story about the sedevacantist movement itself. The story reported on a speech Mr. Matatics gave to a sedevacantist group in Washington State and on the announcement that he had accepted a teaching position at a sedevacantist seminary.

[b]Is it true that Catholic Answers refused to print a reply from Mr. Matatics? [/b]

No. He was informed that This Rock would print a letter to the editor, but he never submitted one.

[b]Why did Catholic Answers feel a need to mention him then? [/b]

Catholic Answers had been receiving inquiries from individuals who believed Mr. Matatics was still working for us and who wanted to know if we were aware of disturbing comments he had been making in public speaking engagements. For a long time we made no public statement, waiting to see if the inquiries would die off. When they did not, we felt the need to distance our ministry publicly from Mr. Matatics’s activities.

[b]Has Catholic Answers been “persecuting” Mr. Matatics? [/b]

In no way. For months before and after the articles mentioned above were published in This Rock, Catholic Answers’ staffers and others attempted in private to dissuade Mr. Matatics from pursuing the course toward radical Traditionalism that he seemed bent on pursuing. Only as inquiries about him increased and his public behavior became more problematic did Catholic Answers become more forthcoming with what it knew about his activities. Since the publication of the two articles, Mr. Matatics has been more circumspect in his public behavior, and he has not been mentioned by name in Catholic Answers’ publications since the July/August 1995 issue of This Rock. This fact sheet is the first time Catholic Answers has mentioned his name in print since then.

[b]Why has this fact sheet been produced? [/b]

Catholic Answers continues to receive inquiries from individuals who are under the impression, gained from some of Mr. Matatics’s supporters, that it is waging a campaign against him. Our apologetics department determined that the most efficient way to deal with the inquiries was to prepare a standard reply that could be mailed to inquirers.

[b]If Catholic Answers is not waging a campaign against Mr. Matatics, why does it continue to receive inquiries about him? [/b]

Mr. Matatics continues to charge Catholic Answers with conducting such a campaign. For example, his web site contains a document titled “Open Letter Re: Karl Keating” and advertises for sale a tape titled “Gerry Matatics Answers Karl Keating.” People encountering these items naturally have questions and contact Catholic Answers, which has not sought to sustain controversy regarding Mr. Matatics. If anyone has been trying to sustain controversy over him, it is Mr. Matatics himself.

[b]Is Mr. Matatics’s web site accurate in its representations about him? [/b]

No. For example, at his web site he claims to have been a member of the faculty of the University of San Diego. This is false. He never was a member of that school’s faculty. He also claims that Bishop John J. Myers of Peoria and John Cardinal O’Connor of New York endorse him. This is misleading. While those prelates endorsed Mr. Matatics in the early 1990s, prior to his entry into radical Traditionalism, in 1995 Bishop Myers repudiated his earlier endorsement, and Cardinal O’Connor withdrew his endorsement in a letter to Mr. Matatics. Retired Bishop Paul Dudley, also once an endorser, similarly withdrew his endorsement.

[b]Can Catholic Answers recommend Mr. Matatics as a reliable representative of Catholic orthodoxy? [/b]
No. After leaving Catholic Answers’ employ, Mr. Matatics began what most charitably can be described as a flirtation with the radical wing of Catholic Traditionalism, including the movements known as Feeneyism, Lefebvrism, and sedevacantism. This flirtation, so far as Mr. Matatics’s public statements were concerned, seemed to come to a head in 1995. Since then he has been more circumspect in his public remarks, but he has not clearly and definitively repudiated his connection with fringe movements and consequently cannot be recommended as a reliable exponent of Catholic orthodoxy.

[b]Do you decline to recommend Mr. Matatics because he supports the traditional Latin Mass? [/b]

No. Catholic Answers, following the Holy Father’s lead, endorses a wide and generous availability of the traditional Latin Mass. In fact, several past and present staff members of Catholic Answers attend a diocesan-approved traditional Latin Mass.

[b]What is Feeneyism? [/b]

“Feeneyism” is a name commonly given to a movement begun by Fr. Leonard Feeney, a priest who caused a controversy in the late 1940s by asserting a rigorist interpretation of the doctrine Extra ecclesiam nulla salus (“Outside the Church, no salvation”). According to Fr. Feeney, for a person to be saved, he must die in a state of grace as a full and formal member of the Catholic Church. Individuals who die as well-meaning members of other churches—e.g., Lutherans, Anglicans, Presbyterians, Baptists, Orthodox—could not be saved.

[b]Cite an example of Mr. Matatics’s flirtation with Feeneyism. [/b]

At his seminars, Mr. Matatics has offered, at his literature table, a booklet published by the most radical of the Feeneyite groups, the Saint Benedict Center. The booklet promotes the strictest form of the Feeneyite position.

Mr. Matatics’s web page carries an interview with him that originally appeared in Res Fides—a publication of the Saint Benedict Center—in 1995. In the interview, Mr. Matatics says the following:

Within the past year, I’ve become completely a Traditionalist. . . . [I’ve discovered] the dogma Extra ecclesiam nulla salus, which I was not really aware of—at least in an explicit way—up until about a year ago. It was through reading [Feeneyite] books . . . that I came to see that, judged by the standard of the answer to the question “Are they teaching this dogma?”, the hierarchy in this country, even those bishops who pass for conservatives, are—and there’s no other way to say it—grossly derelict in their duties. And that bodes very ill for this country. In other words, if the hierarchy of the Catholic Church in this country, and in the other countries as well, is not teaching this truth, then God has given us over to a reprobate mind. I mean we are handed over to what I ruefully conclude is almost inevitable judgment. . . .

[M]y enthusiasm over [recent Protestant conversions to Catholicism] is tempered by my concern—what are they converting to? If they are converting to an Americanist, watered-down, compromised Catholicism, then it is not going to do any lasting good. They are going to be just like I was a year ago. When I was out on the stump working for Catholic Answers, people would put tough questions to me, like, “Are you saying that all Protestants are lost?” Like a typical Novus Ordo, Americanist-influenced Catholic, I would say, “No, I'm not saying they’re lost, but I really think they ought to become Catholic.” I just did not see how imperative it was that they become so!

[b]What is Lefebvrism?[/b]

“Lefebvrism” is a name commonly given to the movement stemming from the late Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, founder of the Society of St. Pius X (SSPX). In 1988 he consecrated four bishops against direct papal instruction not to do so. Consequently, as explained by Pope John Paul II in his apostolic letter Ecclesia Dei, Lefebvre and the four new bishops went into schism:

[This ordination] constitutes a schismatic act. In performing such an act, notwithstanding the formal canonical warning sent to them by the cardinal prefect of the Congregation for Bishops last June 17, Archbishop Lefebvre and the priests Bernard Fellay, Bernard Tissier de Mallerais, Richard Williamson, and Alfonso de Galarreta have incurred the grave penalty of excommunication envisaged by ecclesiastical law [Ecclesia Dei 3].

[b]Cite an example of Mr. Matatics’s flirtation with Lefebvrism. [/b]

Mr. Matatics—who used to attend Masses at SSPX chapels and “independent” chapels associated with or recommended by the SSPX, in lieu of attending Mass at diocesan-sanctioned parishes—said the following in an audio tape titled “Six Strategies for a Traditionalist Takeover”:

[I]f my son Daniel comes to me and says, “Daddy, I do want to be a priest. Where should I go to get my training?” I would, you know, I would say to him, “You'll see me in hell before I’ll let you go to a diocesan seminary in this country.” . . . The only seminary I could send my son to would be a seminary of the Society of St. Pius X—if I wanted him to be trained to be a priest—or some other Traditional seminary that remains faithful to the traditions of the Church and teaches him to offer the Mass of all time and teaches him the dogmas of the faith without watering them down.

[b]Can one be a good Catholic, in harmony with the wishes of the Pope, and support the SSPX? [/b]

No. In Ecclesia Dei the Holy Father implored all the faithful to cease any support for the SSPX:

In the present circumstances I wish especially to make an appeal both solemn and heartfelt, paternal and fraternal, to all those who until now have been linked in various ways to the movement of Archbishop Lefebvre, that they may fulfill the grave duty of remaining united to the Vicar of Christ in the unity of the Catholic Church and of ceasing their support in any way for that movement. Everyone should be aware that formal adherence to the schism is a grave offense against God and carries the penalty of excommunication decreed by the Church’s law [Ecclesia Dei 5].

[b]Has Mr. Matatics urged people to support the SSPX? [/b]

In “Six Strategies for a Traditionalist Takeover,” Mr. Matatics stated:

We need to pray for and support the priests who have remained faithful to Tradition and the brothers who have, like the brothers here at Most Holy Family Monastery [a now-defunct, non-canonical “monastery” of Catholic laymen who purported to be Benedictine brothers]. I hope that you pray for them every day. I hope that you offer up rosaries and novenas and Masses for them. And pray for Fr. [Nicholas] Gruner and Fr. John O’Connor and for the priests of the Society of St. Pius X and for the other great, faithful, Traditional priests who are persecuted and marginalized. Let them know that you support them emotionally and spiritually and socially and financially and vocationally! They need your prayers and support! And so do our children as they aspire to those vocations!

[b]What is Mr. Matatics’ position on the revised rite of the Mass? [/b]

In September 1997 Mr. Matatics orally told Catholic Answers that he believed it would be “sinful” for him to attend and receive Communion at a Novus Ordo Mass, even one celebrated reverently and according to the rubrics by a properly-intentioned and orthodox priest. He had said the same thing on earlier occasions. So far as we know, this remains his opinion.

[b]What is sedevacantism? [/b]

“Sedevacantism” is a name commonly given to a movement that asserts that today there is no pope, that John Paul II is an anti-pope, and, according to many adherents of the movement, that his three immediate predecessors—John Paul I, Paul VI, and John XXIII—were anti-popes.

[b]Cite an example of Mr. Matatics’s flirtation with sedevacantism. [/b]

Following a talk he gave on January 28, 1995, to the Mount St. Michael sedevacantist community outside Spokane, Washington, Mr. Matatics was asked by attendee Brian Jacobs, “Yes or no—is there a current pope?” Mr. Matatics responded, “I honestly can’t say.”

In an audio tape titled “Burning While Rome Fiddles,” Mr. Matatics outlined several ideological positions harshly critical of recent popes, including sedevacantism, which he refused to dismiss, saying that he desired to “remain open” and “continue learning” regarding it:

There are people, for example, at one end of the spectrum who would say, “Well, the last four popes—John XXIII, Paul VI, John Paul I, John Paul II—we have essentially good men here, who are surrounded by bad men who are out to countermand and checkmate all of their good intentions and their good actions.” . . .

And there are people, maybe one notch off to the side of them, that say, “Well, maybe the last four popes have not been so good—maybe a mixed bag, some better than others, some having better days than at other times—but they’re still popes. But perhaps these popes have been weakened by philosophical and theological errors which they’ve imbibed, which make them vulnerable to being misled—and even sometimes actively aiding and abetting the architects of confusion and error in the Church.”

And then there are people off to the right of them that say, “Well, maybe the last four popes really aren’t popes at all, due to . . .”—whatever theories they have as to irregularities in the conclaves, or their being actual heretics at the time of their election, or their being clandestine members of secret societies, which would invalidate their election, or whatever other theory they may have. . . .

My view is, personally, somewhere in the middle. But I want to remain open out of a sense of desire to be humble—and to continue learning.

By stressing that he wished to “remain open” to these positions—including sedevacantism—Mr. Matatics indicated his refusal to reject sedevacantism.

In 1995, schismatic bishop Daniel Dolan (not a member of the SSPX) announced that Mr. Matatics had accepted a position to teach Church history, sacred Scripture, and apologetics at a proposed sedevacantist seminary in Ohio. In a telephone interview with Catholic Answers, Mr. Matatics confirmed that he had accepted the position but was reconsidering. In the end, he decided not to teach at the seminary.

Are there other examples of Mr. Matatics’s flirtation with radical Traditionalism?

Yes. Mr. Matatics at times has been highly critical of both the Catechism of the Catholic Church and the revised rite of the Mass.

In “The Arsenal,” a catalogue he released shortly before the Catechism of the Catholic Church appeared in English, Mr. Matatics slammed the new catechism with an unfavorable comparison to the Roman Catechism (also called the Catechism of St. Pius V), which “The Arsenal” described as “the best full-size catechism available today, far superior to the Universal Catechism [i.e., the Catechism of the Catholic Church] which is already sparking so much controversy.”

In the question period following the January 28, 1995, talk he gave to the sedevacantist Mount St. Michael community, Mr. Matatics was asked to clarify his position regarding the revised rite of the Mass. He responded, in part, by calling it a “monstrosity”:

I believe that people of good will and intellectual honesty will come to the same conclusion . . . that the New Mass is a seriously defective rite. . . . All kinds of bizarre abuses and confusion and chaos and heresies [have arisen since the introduction of the vernacular liturgy]. In part these are produced by this monstrosity of the New Mass.

[b]Do the above examples represent Mr. Matatics’s current viewpoints? [/b]

This is unclear. Since 1995 Mr. Matatics has been more circumspect about making radical statements in public. On the other hand, he has not distanced himself, clearly and definitively, from these views (for example, his web page includes a copy of the Res Fides interview in which he expresses Feeneyite sentiments). We can only hope that these are not his current views and that, in the future, he will make a definitive, public break with them and with the groups espousing them.








[b]Catholic Answers
2020 Gillespie Way
San Diego, CA 92020

Orders: 888-291-8000
Phone: 619-387-7200
Fax: 619-387-0042
Web: www.catholic.com [/b]

[luciana]

I'll pray for you, Dave.

Maybe you can get together with your friends afterwards and discuss the talk if they insist on going.

[MC Just]

I'll be praying for ya..

[cmotherofpirl]

I would certainly go, and have a talk over coffee with your friends afterwards
Print out tthe stuff from Catholic answers and take it with you.

[Sirklawd]

this stuff is crazy. i would def go just to see what this guy is saying to your friends, and afterwards see what they think of it. and then do your best to make sure they dont get fooled.

sedevacantiism is such a crazy idea. i wouldnt have believed until like just a few months ago my mom told me that one of the ladies she works with WAS a sedevacantist.

its like.. who even comes up with the idea of an anti-pope. /siiiigh

anyway. i hope everything works out!

[Donna]

To be fair, [i]The Wanderer [/i]newspaper, about the time of 95'/96' printed the first of what was to be an explosive series on Matatics' [i]schism[/i]. There was never a Part II or part anything else - the series was abruptly yanked.

About this same time Gerry himself took out ads stating "Gerry SCHIS-Matatics?" At least he had a sense of humor.

I'm a little tired of the 2 sides having bitten at one another (and I reckon Mr. M. may have nipped a bit more!).

Surprising to hear of the Sungenis/Matatics debate. But the latter will probably invoke the [i]De Defectibus Decree [/i]of Pius V (on defects in form, etc;) and will cite the "pro omnes" in the consecration -[i]for all[/i]- vs the "pro multis" - [i]for many[/i], as evidence for his conviction. I don't know if that helps or not, to know what may be argued. (And I'm just guessing...I don't keep up w/ either of those men).

But Dave, where have I been? You are now apparently in a new town, attending a parish (if not the Latin Mass itself) housing the indult...and friends with folks who are interested in such a debate?

Seriously, it must be difficult to be friends with these? Sometimes, anyway?

Dear Dave, trust God that it'll work out, in His good time, in His way. Your buddies know where you stand, and why, I assume.

You will be attending? How come?

[Dave]

Hi Donna, to answer your questions, I'm actually still in the same town. I just switched parishes. I had a bad experience at my previous parish (it had nothing to do with heterodoxy but rather someone there said something false about me). The parish I switched to is one I've visited a few times, and it's staffed by the FSSP. The Tridentine Mass is addictive!

And yeah, my buddies know where I stand on this and why. I'll also be going to the talk just to observe so that I can be of help if any of my friends get confused by the things Matatics says.

[Dave]

Well, it was as bad as I had expected ... maybe worse.

Matatics claimed that the Novus Ordo Mass might not be valid, and yes, he used the "pro multis" argument, claiming that it changes the meaning of the Mass and stuff (yeah right). Even worse, he claimed that since Pope Paul VI allegedly changed the ordination rite, it's possible that those who were ordained bishops after 1968 might not truly be bishops, in which case the ordinations to the priesthood they perform would be invalid as well. In fact, Matatics said that while he used to attend an FSSP parish, he now attends an SSPX chapel, the reason being that most FSSP priests were ordained by bishops who assumed that position after 1968 (oh brother).

I knew his claims were a bunch of malarkey, and so did my friends from church -- they all agreed he'd gone too far. But I recognized some other people from the parish as well, and I sure don't want to see them or anyone else get led astray!

Just for the record, during the question-and-answer period I challenged some of the statements he made, and his responses were unconvincing.

After leaving the talk I went to talk to my priest about it in the hope that he'd warn the congregation of Matatics' errors. But Father was like, "Well, that's just [Matatics'] opinion." And he also said he didn't think we had to worry about anyone getting led astray; that surely those from our parish knew that his position was erroneous. But how can he be so sure?

[luciana]

Dave, it's great that you challenged his statements and that your friends saw the talk for what it was.

Did Sugenis do a better job than Mattics? Who sponsore this talk?---Is there a SSPX chapel in the area that any of these other parishoners may unfortunately consider attending?
Maybe , if you're familiar w/ any of the other parishioners you can strike up a conversation w/ them re. their feelings on the debate?

I agree w/Donna, what a weird pair to debate

[Dave]

No no no ... the debate with Sungenis is going to be later this month -- in California. It was just Matatics today. No debate -- just a talk.

And yes, there's an SSPX chapel in the Atlanta area.

[luciana]

[quote]. The parish I switched to is one I've visited a few times, and it's staffed by the FSSP. The Tridentine Mass is addictive![/quote]

The FSSP is awesome. They staff a parish in far North Jersey where Fr. Baker is in residence?! I wouldlike to check it out one day, or an indult mass which is about 30/40 min. from me., but haven't gotten around to it yet.

[God Conquers]

Man.... you know it's rubbish when the argument is that almost every single priest alive today is not validly ordained!

[Dave]

Ain't it the truth!

[DemonSlayer]

It's disappointing what happened to him, the first apologetics tape I listened to (or read) was one of his talks, too bad the guy I borrowed it from didn't tell me (or knew) of his status.