It is currently Mon Dec 09, 2019 9:32 pm




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 19 posts ] 
 Gerry Matatics - Feeneyism and CMRI orders 
Author Message
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4333
New post Gerry Matatics - Feeneyism and CMRI orders
Email sent to Gerry Matatics this morning. I will also publish the response.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: John Lane
Sent: Friday, 25 July 2008 5:51 AM
To: 'GMatatics@aol.com'
Subject: Feeneyism etc.


Dear Gerry,

X sent to me and others an email yesterday as follows:

<< For the record; Gerry Matatics is not a Feeneyite. At one stage he looked into the position and even thought it might be correct, but he has totally rejected it. >>

I asked him why he sent this and he has told me that it is because people are saying that you are a Feeneyite. This reminds me of the situation which occurred after Vince and I saw you in Spokane, when Vince stated publicly that you had finally rejected Feeneyism and you objected strenuously that this was not the case, and that you were still looking into it. In both cases personal contact was followed by a statement "for the record" by somebody other than yourself.

So, could you please confirm that you accept as the teaching of the Catholic Church the doctrine presented by the Holy Office in the famous Letter of August 8, 1949, attached below?

I was told by those present at your Canberra meeting that you doubt the validity of the Thuc consecrations, and therefore you doubt the validity of the Holy Orders of Bishop Pivarunas and the priests of the CMRI. Could you also confirm or deny this?

Yours in the Precious Blood,
JFL.



Letter from the Holy Office (DS 3870):
From the Headquarters of the Holy Office, Aug. 8, 1949.

Your Excellency:

This Supreme Sacred Congregation has followed very attentively the rise and the course of the grave controversy stirred up by certain associates of "St. Benedict Center" and "Boston College" in regard to the interpretation of that axiom: "Outside the Church there is no salvation."

After having examined all the documents that are necessary or useful in this matter, among them information from your Chancery, as well as appeals and reports in which the associates of "St. Benedict Center" explain their opinions and complaints, and also many other documents pertinent to the controversy, officially collected, the same Sacred Congregation is convinced that the unfortunate controversy arose from the fact that the axiom, "outside the Church there is no salvation," was not correctly understood and weighed, and that the same controversy was rendered more bitter by serious disturbance of discipline arising from the fact that some of the associates of the institutions mentioned above refused reverence and obedience to legitimate authorities.

Accordingly, the Most Eminent and Most Reverend Cardinals of this Supreme Congregation, in a plenary session held on Wednesday, July 27, 1949, decreed, and the august Pontiff in an audience on the following Thursday, July 28, 1949, deigned to give his approval, that the following explanations pertinent to the doctrine, and also that invitations and exhortations relevant to discipline be given:

We are bound by divine and Catholic faith to believe all those things which are contained in the word of God, whether it be Scripture or Tradition, and are proposed by the Church to be believed as divinely revealed, not only through solemn judgment but also through the ordinary and universal teaching office (<Denzinger>, n. 1792).

Now, among those things which the Church has always preached and will never cease to preach is contained also that infallible statement by which we are taught that there is no salvation outside the Church.

However, this dogma must be understood in that sense in which the Church herself understands it. For, it was not to private judgments that Our Savior gave for explanation those things that are contained in the deposit of faith, but to the teaching authority of the Church.

Now, in the first place, the Church teaches that in this matter there is question of a most strict command of Jesus Christ. For He explicitly enjoined on His apostles to teach all nations to observe all things whatsoever He Himself had commanded (Matt. 28: 19-20).

Now, among the commandments of Christ, that one holds not the least place by which we are commanded to be incorporated by baptism into the Mystical Body of Christ, which is the Church, and to remain united to Christ and to His Vicar, through whom He Himself in a visible manner governs the Church on earth.

Therefore, no one will be saved who, knowing the Church to have been divinely established by Christ, nevertheless refuses to submit to the Church or withholds obedience from the Roman Pontiff, the Vicar of Christ on earth.

Not only did the Savior command that all nations should enter the Church, but He also decreed the Church to be a means of salvation without which no one can enter the kingdom of eternal glory.

In His infinite mercy God has willed that the effects, necessary for one to be saved, of those helps to salvation which are directed toward man's final end, not by intrinsic necessity, but only by divine institution, can also be obtained in certain circumstances when those helps are used only in desire and longing. This we see clearly stated in the Sacred Council of Trent, both in reference to the sacrament of regeneration and in reference to the sacrament of penance (<Denzinger>, nn. 797, 807).

The same in its own degree must be asserted of the Church, in as far as she is the general help to salvation. Therefore, that one may obtain eternal salvation, it is not always required that he be incorporated into the Church actually as a member, but it is necessary that at least he be united to her by desire and longing.

However, this desire need not always be explicit, as it is in catechumens; but when a person is involved in invincible ignorance God accepts also an implicit desire, so called because it is included in that good disposition of soul whereby a person wishes his will to be conformed to the will of God.

These things are clearly taught in that dogmatic letter which was issued by the Sovereign Pontiff, Pope Pius XII, on June 29, 1943, <On the Mystical Body of Jesus Christ> (AAS, Vol. 35, an. 1943, p. 193 ff.). For in this letter the Sovereign Pontiff clearly distinguishes between those who are actually incorporated into the Church as members, and those who are united to the Church only by desire.

Discussing the members of which the Mystical Body is-composed here on earth, the same august Pontiff says: "Actually only those are to be included as members of the Church who have been baptized and profess the true faith, and who have not been so unfortunate as to separate themselves from the unity of the Body, or been excluded by legitimate authority for grave faults committed."

Toward the end of this same encyclical letter, when most affectionately inviting to unity those who do not belong to the body of the Catholic Church, he mentions those who "are related to the Mystical Body of the Redeemer by a certain unconscious yearning and desire," and these he by no means excludes from eternal salvation, but on the other hand states that they are in a condition "in which they cannot be sure of their salvation" since "they still remain deprived of those many heavenly gifts and helps which can only be enjoyed in the Catholic Church" (AAS, 1. c., p. 243). With these wise words he reproves both those who exclude from eternal salvation all united to the Church only by implicit desire, and those who falsely assert that men can be saved equally well in every religion (cf. Pope Pius IX, Allocution, <Singulari quadam>, in <Denzinger>, n. 1641 ff.; also Pope Pius IX in the encyclical letter, <Quanto conficiamur moerore>, in <Denzinger>, n. 1677).

But it must not be thought that any kind of desire of entering the Church suffices that one may be saved. It is necessary that the desire by which one is related to the Church be animated by perfect charity. Nor can an implicit desire produce its effect, unless a person has supernatural faith: "For he who comes to God must believe that God exists and is a rewarder of those who seek Him" (Heb. 11:6). The Council of Trent declares (Session VI, chap. 8): "Faith is the beginning of man's salvation, the foundation and root of all justification, without which it is impossible to please God and attain to the fellowship of His children" (Denzinger, n. 801).

From what has been said it is evident that those things which are proposed in the periodical <From the Housetops>, fascicle 3, as the genuine teaching of the Catholic Church are far from being such and are very harmful both to those within the Church and those without.

From these declarations which pertain to doctrine, certain conclusions follow which regard discipline and conduct, and which cannot be unknown to those who vigorously defend the necessity by which all are bound' of belonging to the true Church and of submitting to the authority of the Roman Pontiff and of the Bishops "whom the Holy Ghost has placed . . . to rule the Church" (Acts 20:28).

Hence, one cannot understand how the St. Benedict Center can consistently claim to be a Catholic school and wish to be accounted such, and yet not conform to the prescriptions of canons 1381 and 1382 of the Code of Canon Law, and continue to exist as a source of discord and rebellion against ecclesiastical authority and as a source of the disturbance of many consciences.

Furthermore, it is beyond understanding how a member of a religious Institute, namely Father Feeney, presents himself as a "Defender of the Faith," and at the same time does not hesitate to attack the catechetical instruction proposed by lawful authorities, and has not even feared to incur grave sanctions threatened by the sacred canons because of his serious violations of his duties as a religious, a priest, and an ordinary member of the Church.

Finally, it is in no wise to be tolerated that certain Catholics shall claim for themselves the right to publish a periodical, for the purpose of spreading theological doctrines, without the permission of competent Church authority, called the "<imprimatur,>" which is prescribed by the sacred canons.

Therefore, let them who in grave peril are ranged against the Church seriously bear in mind that after "Rome has spoken" they cannot be excused even by reasons of good faith. Certainly, their bond and duty of obedience toward the Church is much graver than that of those who as yet are related to the Church "only by an unconscious desire." Let them realize that they are children of the Church, lovingly nourished by her with the milk of doctrine and the sacraments, and hence, having heard the clear voice of their Mother, they cannot be excused from culpable ignorance, and therefore to them apply without any restriction that principle: submission to the Catholic Church and to the Sovereign Pontiff is required as necessary for salvation.



In sending this letter, I declare my profound esteem, and remain,

Your Excellency's most devoted,

F. Cardinal Marchetti-Selvaggiani.

A. Ottaviani, Assessor.

(Private); Holy Office, 8 Aug., 1949.

_________________
In Christ our King.


Thu Jul 24, 2008 9:53 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Mon Aug 20, 2007 4:56 am
Posts: 46
Location: In Partibus Infidelium...
New post Re: Gerry Matatics - Feeneyism and CMRI orders
John Lane wrote:
Email sent to Gerry Matatics this morning. I will also publish the response.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: John Lane
Sent: Friday, 25 July 2008 5:51 AM
To: 'GMatatics@aol.com'
Subject: Feeneyism etc.


Dear Gerry,

X sent to me and others an email yesterday as follows:

I was told by those present at your Canberra meeting that you doubt the validity of the Thuc consecrations, and therefore you doubt the validity of the Holy Orders of Bishop Pivarunas and the priests of the CMRI. Could you also confirm or deny this?
Yours in the Precious Blood,
JFL.


At his presentation earlier this year, he said that he doubted the validity of this line, furthermore, if it were valid, it would still be illicit. thus, his reasoning for not assisting at Thuc line masses.
He does not readily discuss the "feeneyite" controversy.

_________________
Error, cui non resistur, approbatur; et Veritas, cum minime defensatur.


Fri Jul 25, 2008 4:53 am
Profile

Joined: Fri May 19, 2006 1:54 am
Posts: 147
New post Re: Gerry Matatics - Feeneyism and CMRI orders
I can understand disagreements on una-cum masses and a number of other disagreements had within Traditional Catholic circles. This denying of Bp. Thuc's ordinations and consecrations is just beyond me though. I don't get why anyone would think his line is invalid...


Fri Jul 25, 2008 4:55 am
Profile
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4333
New post Re: Gerry Matatics - Feeneyism and CMRI orders
Colin Fry wrote:
This denying of Bp. Thuc's ordinations and consecrations is just beyond me though. I don't get why anyone would think his line is invalid...


Well, they have their reasons, which are not as foolish as you might think. I say that even though I disagree with them 100% on the matter.

The point is to know where people stand, and not have doubt and confusion. On a prior occasion somebody (quite reasonably) stated publicly Gerry's position as expressed in private conversation, and Gerry was not happy - he wanted to state his position himself. That was fair enough, but the trouble is that he doesn't live in a vacuum - people who hear him speak, and support him, wish to know where he stands on key issues. He needs to say where he is, even if it is "I don't have a firm view at this stage." Now, once again, somebody has thought it worthwhile to state from their own certain knowledge based upon private conversation with Gerry, where Gerry stands on the Feeneyite controversy. This is an opportunity for Gerry to put it to bed once and for all. Likewise his stand on the Thuc line is of interest and has been commented upon recently, so it would be good if he cleared that up also.

As G.I. has said above, Gerry is rumoured to hold the views that the Thuc line is definitely illicit and probably or possibly invalid also. It has also been suggested to me that Gerry regards the Lefebvre line as illicit and possibly invalid also, so that he avoids Masses offered by priests of both lines of Orders. This would put him in the "Hutton Gibson" school, which would not particularly surprise me, but it would be good to know for sure.

_________________
In Christ our King.


Fri Jul 25, 2008 9:08 am
Profile E-mail

Joined: Mon Aug 20, 2007 4:56 am
Posts: 46
Location: In Partibus Infidelium...
New post Re: Gerry Matatics - Feeneyism and CMRI orders
John Lane wrote:
Colin Fry wrote:
This denying of Bp. Thuc's ordinations and consecrations is just beyond me though. I don't get why anyone would think his line is invalid...


Well, they have their reasons, which are not as foolish as you might think. I say that even though I disagree with them 100% on the matter.

The point is to know where people stand, and not have doubt and confusion. On a prior occasion somebody (quite reasonably) stated publicly Gerry's position as expressed in private conversation, and Gerry was not happy - he wanted to state his position himself. That was fair enough, but the trouble is that he doesn't live in a vacuum - people who hear him speak, and support him, wish to know where he stands on key issues. He needs to say where he is, even if it is "I don't have a firm view at this stage." Now, once again, somebody has thought it worthwhile to state from their own certain knowledge based upon private conversation with Gerry, where Gerry stands on the Feeneyite controversy. This is an opportunity for Gerry to put it to bed once and for all. Likewise his stand on the Thuc line is of interest and has been commented upon recently, so it would be good if he cleared that up also.

As G.I. has said above, Gerry is rumoured to hold the views that the Thuc line is definitely illicit and probably or possibly invalid also. It has also been suggested to me that Gerry regards the Lefebvre line as illicit and possibly invalid also, so that he avoids Masses offered by priests of both lines of Orders. This would put him in the "Hutton Gibson" school, which would not particularly surprise me, but it would be good to know for sure.


No, not a rumor, he said so in the Q & A of his presentation [that he doubted its validity and licitness].

True, he does avoid Thuc line sacraments. I won't vouch for his position on BOD, since he is so reserved about it, wanting to avoid the controversy surrounding it, he may not be happy with my squealing about it, besides, he's enough on his hands as it is without the added controversy. His attention is focused on telling people about Ratzinger and the NO, his apologetics efforts are not concerned with Feeneyism.

_________________
Error, cui non resistur, approbatur; et Veritas, cum minime defensatur.


Fri Jul 25, 2008 6:25 pm
Profile

Joined: Tue May 23, 2006 9:03 pm
Posts: 515
New post Re: Gerry Matatics - Feeneyism and CMRI orders
Grand Inquisitor wrote:
John Lane wrote:
Colin Fry wrote:
This denying of Bp. Thuc's ordinations and consecrations is just beyond me though. I don't get why anyone would think his line is invalid...


Well, they have their reasons, which are not as foolish as you might think. I say that even though I disagree with them 100% on the matter.

The point is to know where people stand, and not have doubt and confusion. On a prior occasion somebody (quite reasonably) stated publicly Gerry's position as expressed in private conversation, and Gerry was not happy - he wanted to state his position himself. That was fair enough, but the trouble is that he doesn't live in a vacuum - people who hear him speak, and support him, wish to know where he stands on key issues. He needs to say where he is, even if it is "I don't have a firm view at this stage." Now, once again, somebody has thought it worthwhile to state from their own certain knowledge based upon private conversation with Gerry, where Gerry stands on the Feeneyite controversy. This is an opportunity for Gerry to put it to bed once and for all. Likewise his stand on the Thuc line is of interest and has been commented upon recently, so it would be good if he cleared that up also.

As G.I. has said above, Gerry is rumoured to hold the views that the Thuc line is definitely illicit and probably or possibly invalid also. It has also been suggested to me that Gerry regards the Lefebvre line as illicit and possibly invalid also, so that he avoids Masses offered by priests of both lines of Orders. This would put him in the "Hutton Gibson" school, which would not particularly surprise me, but it would be good to know for sure.


No, not a rumor, he said so in the Q & A of his presentation [that he doubted its validity and licitness].

I would be more interested in why he doubts them. He is just a layman making an argument.

Grand Inquisitor wrote:
True, he does avoid Thuc line sacraments. I won't vouch for his position on BOD, since he is so reserved about it, wanting to avoid the controversy surrounding it, he may not be happy with my squealing about it, besides, he's enough on his hands as it is without the added controversy. His attention is focused on telling people about Ratzinger and the NO, his apologetics efforts are not concerned with Feeneyism.

Shouldn't he clarify his own position on Feeneyism first?


Fri Jul 25, 2008 6:46 pm
Profile

Joined: Fri Apr 27, 2007 9:13 am
Posts: 138
New post Re: Gerry Matatics - Feeneyism and CMRI orders
Robert Bastaja wrote:
Shouldn't he clarify his own position on Feeneyism first?


Yes, he should. For if he gets this wrong, then his credibility on anything he might have to say about disputed issues, is undoubtedly, doubtful.

AMW


Fri Jul 25, 2008 11:26 pm
Profile

Joined: Sun Jan 28, 2007 3:42 am
Posts: 740
Location: Moscow, Idaho, U.S.A.
New post Re: Gerry Matatics - Feeneyism and CMRI orders
AMWills wrote:
Robert Bastaja wrote:
Shouldn't he clarify his own position on Feeneyism first?

Yes. He should.

I and my Wife were present in Spokane and at the same table with Vince and John and Gerry when the discussion John mentioned above took place. It was my distinct impression then that Gerry was not convinced, but had nothing further to say on the subject as he was not sure of what response to make.

We (my Wife and I) had hopes that John's (mostly) and Vince's (well done) arguments would eventually have a happy effect, but we are still in the dark as to his true beliefs on the matter.

Vince later told me and my Wife that Gerry WAS convinced and had changed his ideas.

Also, shortly thereafter, our "friends" the Zirconia Brothers (Dimonds) publicly called Gerry an heretic for leaving the strict Feeny-ite position. Such an accusation was published on their website, and, as far as I know, has never been retracted.

However, Gerry, himself, has never, as far as I am aware, ever made it clear what his certain beliefs are on the subject of "Feeny-ism", so-called.

_________________
Kenneth G. Gordon CinC
Moscow, Idaho
U.S.A.


Mon Jul 28, 2008 2:58 am
Profile E-mail

Joined: Mon Sep 26, 2011 10:00 pm
Posts: 12
New post Re: Gerry Matatics - Feeneyism and CMRI orders
" It has also been suggested to me that Gerry regards the Lefebvre line as illicit and possibly invalid also". On what grounds would Mr. Matatics consider the Lefebvre line invalid? There are certain arguments to be made against the validity of certain of the Thuc-line bishops (arguments that I do not agree with, by the way), but the fact that any Catholic with any knowledge of basic sacramental theology would deny the Lefebvre line's validity is utterly baffling to me.


Mon Oct 10, 2011 12:54 am
Profile E-mail

Joined: Tue Oct 17, 2006 5:32 pm
Posts: 136
Location: Spokane
New post Re: Gerry Matatics - Feeneyism and CMRI orders
Mario Derksen gave an excellent lecture last night at the Fatima Conference for Mount St. Michael on this subject.

For those of you who missed it, but have time to review his study, here is his link.

http://tinyurl.com/3pvxdzt

_________________
Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today and forever and so is His Church.


Mon Oct 10, 2011 1:45 am
Profile

Joined: Tue Sep 20, 2011 12:31 am
Posts: 696
Location: Moscow, Idaho, U.S.A.
New post Re: Gerry Matatics - Feeneyism and CMRI orders
Myrna wrote:
Mario Derksen gave an excellent lecture last night at the Fatima Conference for Mount St. Michael on this subject.

For those of you who missed it, but have time to review his study, here is his link.

http://tinyurl.com/3pvxdzt


Yes. We (my wife and I) were there, along with three of our children. Mario's lecture was absolutely excellent and should be reviewed by anyone who is concerned with these matters.

_________________
Kenneth G. Gordon


Mon Oct 10, 2011 2:54 am
Profile E-mail

Joined: Tue Oct 17, 2006 5:32 pm
Posts: 136
Location: Spokane
New post Re: Gerry Matatics - Feeneyism and CMRI orders
Oh Ken so sorry I missed you, it would have been nice to meet you there.

I was so proud of Mario, such a young man and here he is, doing this research to defend CMRI and the Thuc line. I love to see anyone defend the truth, but especially they younger generation. I am sure God is very pleased with his work, I hope everyone reads his study now.

There is a priest here in Spokane who also defends Archbishop Thuc, it is my understanding he knew him personally and claims he, Thuc, knew exactly what he was doing. This is a novis ordo priest so he has nothing to gain by his statement about Thuc.

_________________
Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today and forever and so is His Church.


Mon Oct 10, 2011 4:02 am
Profile

Joined: Tue Nov 28, 2006 3:57 am
Posts: 391
Location: Indiana, USA
New post Re: Gerry Matatics - Feeneyism and CMRI orders
Nicholas Evans wrote:
" It has also been suggested to me that Gerry regards the Lefebvre line as illicit and possibly invalid also". On what grounds would Mr. Matatics consider the Lefebvre line invalid? There are certain arguments to be made against the validity of certain of the Thuc-line bishops (arguments that I do not agree with, by the way), but the fact that any Catholic with any knowledge of basic sacramental theology would deny the Lefebvre line's validity is utterly baffling to me.


I don't think anyone really knows what Gerry Matatics thinks in regards to the traditional clergy. He does not update his website, and has, in the past, alluded to "explosive" revelations concerning traditional bishops in advertisements I have received from him. I have read on other forums people who say that he has publicly stated that Catholics, essentially, cannot attend the services of any traditional Catholic clergy because they have not been "called". They have not been "called" because there is no pope to give them the commission. I don't know what is marketing and what is truly what he teaches. In any event, it appears that he is a "home-aloner" and is teaching others to be so also. But even that is based on "internet rumor". He is not, however, going out of his way to set the record straight.


Mon Oct 10, 2011 12:07 pm
Profile

Joined: Mon Sep 26, 2011 10:00 pm
Posts: 12
New post Re: Gerry Matatics - Feeneyism and CMRI orders
TKGS wrote:
Nicholas Evans wrote:
" It has also been suggested to me that Gerry regards the Lefebvre line as illicit and possibly invalid also". On what grounds would Mr. Matatics consider the Lefebvre line invalid? There are certain arguments to be made against the validity of certain of the Thuc-line bishops (arguments that I do not agree with, by the way), but the fact that any Catholic with any knowledge of basic sacramental theology would deny the Lefebvre line's validity is utterly baffling to me.


I don't think anyone really knows what Gerry Matatics thinks in regards to the traditional clergy. He does not update his website, and has, in the past, alluded to "explosive" revelations concerning traditional bishops in advertisements I have received from him. I have read on other forums people who say that he has publicly stated that Catholics, essentially, cannot attend the services of any traditional Catholic clergy because they have not been "called". They have not been "called" because there is no pope to give them the commission. I don't know what is marketing and what is truly what he teaches. In any event, it appears that he is a "home-aloner" and is teaching others to be so also. But even that is based on "internet rumor". He is not, however, going out of his way to set the record straight.


Well, he definitely should make it clear where he stands. Also, for him to promote a "home-aloner" mentality is especially dangerous, because now more than ever Traditional Catholics need to make use of the true Sacraments and the graces that come from them.


Mon Oct 10, 2011 1:18 pm
Profile E-mail
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4333
New post Re: Gerry Matatics - Feeneyism and CMRI orders
Nicholas Evans wrote:
Well, he definitely should make it clear where he stands. Also, for him to promote a "home-aloner" mentality is especially dangerous, because now more than ever Traditional Catholics need to make use of the true Sacraments and the graces that come from them.


I agree. He is definitely a home-aloner these days. Not sure why anybody discusses his opinion, however, he has wrecked his pulling power and doesn't appear to have any influence these days.

_________________
In Christ our King.


Mon Oct 10, 2011 1:22 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Tue Sep 20, 2011 12:31 am
Posts: 696
Location: Moscow, Idaho, U.S.A.
New post Re: Gerry Matatics - Feeneyism and CMRI orders
My wife and I attended the last talk he presented in Spokane, Washington. Other than ourselves, all the attendees were "home-aloners". At the Q&A session after his talk, I very pointedly brought up to him Canon 2261, paragraph 2, which in my opinion, knocks the main premise of these home-aloners into a cocked hat. He and those others ignored it. This despite the fact that he was selling that Ignatius Press copy of "The 1917 Pio-Benedictine Code of Canon Law" and, supposedly, had read it.

As John says, he has essentially destroyed any credibility he had built up.

_________________
Kenneth G. Gordon


Mon Oct 10, 2011 4:34 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Sat May 20, 2006 11:46 pm
Posts: 728
Location: Western Washington, USA
New post Re: Gerry Matatics - Feeneyism and CMRI orders
Pax Christi Ken,

Indeed, this is buried on his website. Sad he has fallen into this position.


● In every city where I spoke people saw the logic of the "consistent Catholic" position -- once it's clearly, patiently, charitably explained and all objections to it are answered. By God's grace many as a result have already broken or are in the process of breaking free from the counterfeit Catholicism of both "the left" (i.e., the Vatican II establishment) and "the right" (the unauthorized clergy and chapels of the "traditionalist movement"). I have already received phone calls, emails, and letters from people who attended my talk who have very kindly described it as a turning point in their lives. I will be sharing some of their stories, with their permission, in coming weeks.

● A top seminarian -- a brilliant and exceptionally gifted young man -- in his final (7th) year of preparing for the priesthood at an SSPX seminary, with whom I spent an afternoon at a stop on my trip, pointing out to him the hopelessly inconsistent and indeed illegitimate nature of the SSPX, has left the seminary and returned home, apparently sending a few shock waves through the SSPX seminary community and beyond.

● Other SSPX loyalists I met on the trip have begun to reconsider the Society in the light of the Church's perennial teaching; supporters of the CMRI, of the SSPV, and of other traditionalist clerics have begun to similarly scrutinize the Catholic credentials of these groups. (See below.)

The tour ended on a bang at my final talk on October 25 in Cincinnati. So many people showed up that every seat was filled, people had to stand in the rear of the room and out in the hotel hallway, and we had to set up additional chairs in the adjoining breakfast area and open up a side door through which those sitting in the overflow area could listen. Many of the dozens who came were congregants or former congregants of the various traditional chapels in Cincinnati, as well as a smattering of Novus Ordo Catholics and stay-at-home Catholics (modern-day recusants whose Catholic principles prevent their attending either the "New Mass" at the local parish or the unauthorized traditional Masses at traditionalist chapels, which they believe to be as illegitimate as the former). Some came from the neighboring states of Kentucky and Indiana -- some of these driving as far as 9 hours round-trip to get to the talk -- and one couple actually drove all the way up from Florida (2000 miles round-trip), since this was advertised as my last lecture tour in the US and Ohio was as close to Florida as I would be getting! (I had already taken my megatour around the entire state of Florida in 2008.) The Q & A session actually went on until past 2 am, and afterwards some continued the conversation with me at the all-night Waffle House restaurant down the street until 5 am. Several of those attending have begun to see the problems with the traditionalist movement's lack of mission and jurisdiction, which is the one topic that occupied nearly the entirety of the almost 5-hour-long Q & A session.


Tue Oct 11, 2011 12:25 am
Profile

Joined: Tue Oct 17, 2006 5:32 pm
Posts: 136
Location: Spokane
New post Re: Gerry Matatics - Feeneyism and CMRI orders
How sad to see men once chosen by God to be His instrument, turn against the purpose for their existence, that is to serve God. The Church of Christ can never be conquered by the gates of hell, that is, by heretical opinions which can lead to destruction. Luke 22; 31 “Simon, Simon, behold, Satan has desired to have you … but I have prayed for thee, that thy faith may not fail.”

These "stay at home" folks, when they can partake of God's treasures are acting foolish; worse is to convince others to do the same.

_________________
Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today and forever and so is His Church.


Tue Oct 11, 2011 1:48 pm
Profile

Joined: Tue Sep 20, 2011 12:31 am
Posts: 696
Location: Moscow, Idaho, U.S.A.
New post Re: Gerry Matatics - Feeneyism and CMRI orders
I have spoken to Gerry more than once. He is a good man, who, apparently, is trying to do the right thing. However, it is also apparent to me that his past experience as a Protestant clergyman effects his thinking somewhat in that he, apparently, believes that every idea he has about Catholic doctrine is true and real. This, to me, implies a certain lack of humility. In any case, he is wrong about this matter.

_________________
Kenneth G. Gordon


Tue Oct 11, 2011 4:55 pm
Profile E-mail
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 19 posts ] 


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 6 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group.
Designed by Vjacheslav Trushkin for Free Forums/DivisionCore.