Gerry Matatics’ Ministry is Simply Not Catholic
© Copyright 2024, T. Stanfill Benns (All emphasis within quotes added by the author)
Introduction
I have been asked by readers to assess the work of the ordained Presbyterian minister Gerry Matatics, who became a Lefebvre Traditionalist in 1986, then later embraced sedevacantistism, finally promoting a twisted version of the pray-at home position. Matatics is responsible for founding the “recusant Catholic” group. This non-Catholic sect professes Feeneyism and practices Jansenist rigorism, as has been demonstrated here before. Matatics is joined in his beliefs by another individual who also was mentioned by name on this site as a recusant “Catholic,” Patrick Henry. The two men, and others associated with them, can all be linked to a destructive rigorist sect targeting families, popular in the mid-1980s. And they have carried this rigorism into the recusant sect.
I have nothing personal against Gerry Matatics, or for that matter Patrick Henry. At one time I enjoyed relatively friendly relations with each of them. But that was before I realized their connection to each other and the above-mentioned sect. And it was prior to the establishment of the “recusant Catholics” site. What I am objecting to here is their falsification of the Catholic faith and their deliberate attempt to create a “pope-free,” pray-at-home alternative to accommodate LibTrads. This in the hope of diverting as many as possible from the proofs presented at betrayedcatholics regarding absolute papal primacy and the binding nature of papal teaching, even in matters of opinion. It can easily be determined that Matatics’ and Henry’s intent is to promote the belief that the hierarchy yet exists, and valid bishops are “out there somewhere,” when without the papacy, the head bishop, and the ability to canonically elect a true pope, this is an absolute impossibility. And Pope Pius XII’s Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis infallibly proves this, yet they refuse to even acknowledge this papal constitution.
We read in Fr. Leonard Goffine’s sermons this past Sunday about Christ’s hatred of hypocrisy. Hypocrisy is defined as: “Behavior that contradicts what one claims to believe or feel; feigning to be what one is not” (Merriam-Webster). Fr. Goffine tells us that: ”Christ has denounced no sin more emphatically than this one… Cain, Joab, Judas… such false men are accursed by God.” If one claims to be a faithful Catholic yet refuses to recognize the supreme jurisdiction of the Roman Pontiff which alone makes the Church Catholic, also the necessity of bishops to be subject to him to possess any power or standing at all, what claim have they to this venerable name of Catholic or for that matter, any title at all? Were we not warned to expect hirelings in our midst, who for sheer love of money would place the sheep in danger and eventually abandon the flock?
We end this introduction with an excerpt from Pope Pius XII’s instruction Si diligis, a caution on failing to submit to the teaching authority of the Church:
“There never has been, there is not now, and there never will be in the Church a legitimate teaching authority of the laity withdrawn by God from the authority, guidance, and watchfulness of the sacred Teaching Authority; in fact, the very denial of submission offers a convincing proof and criterion that laymen who thus speak and act are not guided by the Spirit of God and of Christ. Furthermore, everyone can see how great a danger of confusion and error there is in this “lay theology”; a danger also lest others begin to be taught by men clearly unfitted for the task, or even by deceitful and fraudulent men, whom St. Paul described: “The time will come when men . . ., always itching to hear something fresh, will provide themselves with a continuous succession of new teachers, as the whim takes them, turning a deaf ear to the truth bestowing their attention on fables instead” (cf. 11 Tim. 4:3 f.). Far be it from Us by this admonition to turn away from a deeper study and dissemination of sacred doctrine those men, of whatsoever class or group, who are inspired to it by such a noble zeal.”
Let us then devote ourselves NOT to the mindless perusal of lengthy videos — produced by those who may appear to profess the Catholic faith but in truth are not Catholic — but to a deeper study of sacred doctrine. For as we will see below, such devotion to this study, to accomplish God’s will and submit ourselves entirely to ALL His teachings, is the only guarantee that the Church Christ now presides over today as Supreme Pontiff will indeed last “unto the consummation.”
Denying infallible teaching
It is very difficult when one must course through literally hundreds of videos and purchase various CDs to discover what Matatics actually teaches regarding papal primacy. And there is no statement reflecting his position on his website. If it exists at all, it is buried in tortuous hours of Internet “debates.” One would think that a true apologist would begin his mission by establishing the Church’s center of unity and the obligation of obedience to papal decrees even in the absence of a true pope, grounding his followers in the basics of the faith. Not so with Matatics, although his statements on other matters offer clues to where he really stands. Matatics’ website bio states:
“Gerry is the only one of the dozens of Protestant-minister “converts” of the last twenty-five years to end up fully embracing the traditional Catholic Faith, abstaining (as did the Catholic recusants during the English Reformation) not only from the “New Mass” but also from those pseudo- Tridentine Masses offered by invalidly or illicitly ordained Catholic priests, or offered according to the unauthorized 1962 Missal of antipope John XXIII…”
Who are invalid and who are illicit? Matatics obviously believes those ordained in the revised Novus Ordo rite are invalidly ordained and LibTrads are validly ordained but are illicit. There should be no fuzzy thinking on this crucial topic, but he fails to address it head-on. If he truly believes John 23 is an antipope, this is a contradiction in terms. That all those claiming to be clerics are illicit but valid is a statement contrary to faith, as Pope Pius XII infallibly taught in his Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis. It is a statement that denies both the necessity of determining canonical election, a dogma of faith as discussed in our last blog, as well as the supreme jurisdiction of popes over the approval and supervision of bishops.
The mandate necessary for valid episcopal consecration can come only from the pope and cannot be presumed or otherwise supplied during an interregnum, since Pope Pius XII forbids it as a usurpation of papal jurisdiction. The pope automatically invalidates any acts presuming papal consent which are posited during an interregnum. This would also include the erection of seminaries and the “calling” of candidates to the priesthood, invalidating all LibTrad ordinations, since Lefebvre and Thuc, by refusing to renounce the usurpers and signing Vatican 2 documents, lost their offices as bishop (Canons 147 and 188 §4).
Only a canonically elected pope could determine the validity of the ordinations conferred by Lefebvre and Thuc. Even if there was a possibility such ordinations were valid, the exercise of these orders during an interregnum is infallibly declared as null, void and invalid by Pope Pius XII (see HERE). But this is only one of several truths of faith Matatics and his recusants deny. So Matatics must prove that what is said in blue above is true, when VAS and Cum ex… are the only documents which govern us today. He must prove VAS is not binding, when it is listed in the Acta Apostolica Sedis. Canons 1812 and 1816 clearly state that “…acts of the Supreme Pontiffs, issued in the exercise of their office… are public documents, and “…prove the facts that are directly and principally asserted. No further proof is required…” VAS is the equivalent of an absolute presumption which does not admit proof to the contrary. (Can. 1825).
And under its prohibitions, set out in the first three paragraphs — which treat of papal jurisdiction according to Divine Law — any violation of Canon Law, any change or dispensation from it during an interregnum, is null, void and invalid. So anything contrary to the teachings of VAS committed during an interregnum is considered as non-existent by Pope Pius XII.
“Perpetuity of the powers of the Church is a necessary consequence of her perpetual indefectibility. It follows also from the very purpose for which the Church was instituted, namely, the glory of God and the salvation of souls” (The Church of Christ, Rev. E.S. Berry, 1927).
We notice in the above that while LibTrad pseudo-clergy are eager to seize on the secondary part of this institution, the salvation of souls — which they falsely lead others to believe they can effect by their simulation of the Sacraments — they ignore the part regarding the glory of God. This effectively directs the primary purpose of the Church to man and his needs, not God and his right to due honor and glory. We glorify God by obeying His laws, championing His rights and by frequent prayer and penance. We obey his laws when we faithfully follow the teachings of the Roman Pontiffs, Canon Law, and the Ten Commandments. We champion His rights whenever we call attention to the violation of His laws in order that others are not led astray.
The Church, just as every other society, must function within given parameters. She must possess a head, She must observe and enforce Her laws. She must make her laws and teachings available to the faithful, provide for Her members, assist the unfortunate, correct Her members when they err, punish offenders, demand restitution for those injured by others and much more. Even though the Church is without a visible head, Christ rules as the head of His Mystical Body. His laws and teachings, the Deposit of Faith, guarded and preserved for nearly two millennia, are eternal and yet stand. “The doctrine of Christ, being the central part of His religion, will remain in His Church forever. The Church received its perpetual constitution and power for the continuance of Christ’s religion and consequently of His doctrine. Therefore Christ’s doctrine is no less imperishable than the Church itself or its constitution and prerogatives” (Handbook of the Christian Religion, W. Wilmers, S.J., 1891).
Christ entrusted the keys to St. Peter to bind and loose, and St. Peter’s successor, Pope Pius XII, bound Catholics to believe that (a) in the absence of the hierarchy, the laity must take up all their responsibilities; (b) bishops receive their power to rule and govern from Christ, but only through the Roman Pontiff; and (c) no one may usurp papal power or change or dispense from Canon Law or papal laws during an interregnum, and if they even attempt to do so, the attempt is null, void and invalid. All these laws and teachings, and all that went before them, whether from the ordinary or extraordinary magisterium, still bind and will forever bind. We have always exercised great care that teachings of the Roman Pontiff, especially those relevant to our situation today, are brought to the attention of readers. We are now bound under the authority of the Divine Head Himself, and while some may believe that without a true pope we can play fast and loose, the opposite is true. We are bound even more firmly to the teachings of Christ’s Vicars as the only anchor of our faith today. But always there will be those who pervert and deny the doctrine of Christ. All the more reason to bring it ever into clearer focus.
The Feeneyite heresy
According to a 1994 article posted to EWTN, Extra ecclesiam nulla salus: Father Feeney Makes a Comeback, originally written for Fidelity Magazine, Michael J. Mazza tells us that Matatics was a Feeneyite even in his early years. “One prominent example of a Lefebvrist sympathizer coming over to Feeneyism is that of Gerry Matatics… In mid-October of this year, Matatics spoke at the 8th Annual Convention of the Tridentine Rite Conference in Hyannis, Massachusetts… The conference was decidedly pro-Feeneyite, as was Matatics himself, according to Pat Romano, editor of the traditionalist paper the New England Catholic News…” Mazza reports that a week later, Matatics appeared at another conference where he also promoted Feeneyism, noting that Matatics “…kept referring to the oft-quoted phrases of the Church Fathers and medieval councils, that, as we have seen, have so often been misused by Feeneyites.” Mazza concludes his article with the remark that: “The attempt on the part of the Feeneyites to downgrade the authority of documents by popes and councils that contradict their positions bear a striking resemblance to similar attempts by modernists like Fr. Charles Curran and Fr. Richard McBrien made in recent years in matters of sexual morality.”
To this day the following remains on Matatics’ outdated “Biblical Foundations Intl.” site, despite objections posted long ago by this author and other readers regarding it’s contradiction of papal teaching:
“Some of these websites take too unacceptably liberal a view of this dogma (“outside the Church no salvation”), holding, for example, that those who do not profess the Catholic Faith could still be saved — despite the clear teaching of the Athanasian Creed and infallible papal pronouncements to the contrary,” (https://www.gerrymatatics.org/GRIsGerrySede.html — see Conclusion).
As repeatedly stated on my website, this is NOT a liberal view and is in fact the teaching of the Church from antiquity. Readers report that both Henry and Matatics teach that it is very rare for anyone but catechumens to be saved without water Baptism. They thereby contradict Pope Pius IX’s instruction not to speculate at all on the number that is saved owing strictly to God’s mercy. By maintaining their position they are denying truths of faith defined by the popes and setting themselves up as pope.
In Pt. I, p. 1 of Msgr. Joseph C. Fenton’s The Catholic Church and Salvation (1958), Fenton lists the documents he will examine in the course proving the Church has always upheld the doctrinal teaching on baptism of desire: A profession of the Catholic faith issued by the Fourth Lateran Council, the twelfth in the series of Oecumenical Councils, in 1215, during the pontificate of Pope Innocent III; the Bull Unam sanctam; the decree for the Jacobites, the Bull Cantate Domino; Pope Pius IX’s Singulars quadam and Quanto conficiamur moerore; Pope Pius XII’s Mystici Corporis Christi, Suprema haec sacra and Humani generis.
He then comments: “As authoritative statements of the teaching Church, all of these pronouncements of the Holy See and of Oecumenical Councils must be accepted with true internal consent by all Catholics. What they teach on the subject or this dogma is what all Catholics are bound in conscience to hold. It is definitely not enough for Catholics to receive these declarations with what has been called ”respectful silence.” It is not sufficient that they merely refrain from overt statements rejecting what has been taught in these authoritative documents of the ecclesia docens. Every Catholic is strictly bound in conscience to make what the Church has taught in this way his own view, his own conviction, on this subject. And, as a result, it is objectively wrong for any Catholic to hold an explanation of the Church’s necessity for salvation which is in any way incompatible with what the Church has taught authoritatively about this dogma… The first three of these pronouncements are contained in documents of the Church’s solemn teaching activity. THE OTHER FIVE BELONG TO THE ORDINARY MAGISTERIUM OF THE HOLY SEE. THE HOLY OFFICE LETTER SUPREMA HAEC SACRA IS AN ACT OF A ROMAN CONGREGATION. THUS, ACCORDING TO THE RULE SET FORTH IN CANON 7 OF THE CODEX IURIS CANONICI, IT MUST LIKEWISE BE CONSIDERED AND DESCRIBED AS AN ACT OF THE HOLY SEE.
“In Tuas Libentur, Pope Pius IX taught: “…It is not enough… to receive and to venerate the… dogmas of the Church, but it is also necessary that they [German theologians attending a convention the Pope was addressing] subject themselves to the doctrinal decisions of the Pontifical Congregations and to those points of doctrine that are considered by the common and constant agreement of Catholics as theological truths and conclusions which are so certain that opinions opposed to these points of doctrine still merit some other theological censure, even though they may not be designated as heretical” (end of Msgr. Fenton quotes. See also the Vatican Council, DZ 1820, Canon 1324.)
Furthermore, Humani generis, released two years prior to Suprema haec sacra, teaches infallibly that the pope has the power to permanently end theological discussions and disputes, and in Suprema haec sacra, also Feeney’s later excommunication, there can be no doubt that this is exactly what Pope Pius XII and the Holy Office intended to do. From Humani generis: “If the
Supreme Pontiffs in their official documents propose to pass judgment on a matter up to that time under dispute, it is obvious that that matter, according to the mind and the will of the same Pontiffs, cannot be any longer considered a question open to discussion among theologians.”
It is ludicrous to assume that Matatics, educated in a Protestant seminary and never formally reconciled to the faith by a canonically elected pope or approved bishop, should be ranked superior to and more believable than Msgr. Fenton, who was a papally decorated prelate and papal chamberlain, a member of the Pontifical Roman Theological Society and an advisor to the Sacred Congregation of Seminaries. Yet that is what Matatics and his fellow Feeneyites are asking their Facebook followers to do. For a complete review of the Feeneyite heresy and a refutation of the many false claims made by its proponents, see HERE.
Are Catholics allowed to debate non-Catholics?
We are obligated by Canon 1325 §1 and §2 to profess our faith and defend it publicly whenever silence, subterfuge or our manner of acting would indicate our acceptance of such errors. Pope Pius XII commissioned us to act in the stead of the hierarchy whenever they are absent, as long as there are no violations against the will of the Church, faith and morals or ecclesiastical discipline. But Can.1325 §3 must also be carefully considered: “Catholics shall not enter into any disputes or conferences with non-Catholics, especially public ones, without the permission of the Holy See, or in urgent cases, of the local ordinary” (Revs. Woywod-Smith commentary). Revs. T. Lincoln Bouscaren and Adam Ellis comment on this canon: “This prohibition applies only to matters of faith and to public discussions viva voce; printed debates or conferences are subject only to the rules regarding books.” Dom Charles Augustine states in his commentary on this same canon: “The Sacred Congregation has often expressly forbidden [such debates] on the ground that they do more harm than good, since false eloquence may cause error seemingly to triumph over truth… When such disputations are expressly permitted, care should be taken that only capable and prudent speakers be employed to defend the Catholic side.” Certainly Matatics, in several of his debates, has appeared to be bested by his opponents. But then to argue truths of faith, you must first know and practice them.
Here we see yet another violation of Canon Law, contrary to VAS, and this one involves a usurpation of papal jurisdiction, because it presumes not only fitness to publicly engage in apologetics and debattes, but the permission of the Holy Office to do so.
Those watching and promoting such debates are guilty of cooperating in the sin of the one conducting them, since the Church forbids it. Here we see the value of obedience, not attachment to our own will and the desire to engage in worldly novelties. This is the reason for not presenting our own suppositions and opinions, to obey the teachings of the Continual Magisterium and those theologians approved by the Church and not follow those who have never been approved by the Church to instruct or debate. In this way those approved by the pre-1959 Church are still teaching us, even if we place these teachings in context regarding our current situation.
Simoniacal practices
We noted in our Jan. 22 blog this year that recusants, Matatics included, are practicing a form of simony according to the definition of this crime as provided by the Church. Is it charitable to accuse Matatics of a form of simony and his followers of cooperation in it? It would be a definite lack of charity NOT to warn others against them if what they are doing fits the definition of simony from approved Catholic sources below.
The moral theologians Revs. McHugh and Callan define simony as: “…the studied will to buy or sell for a temporal price or consideration something that is spiritual, either intrinsically or extrinsically” (2318). The spiritual is that which proceeds from God or tends to Him as the Author or End of eternal salvation (viz., the destiny, law, means, works, etc., proposed to us in Christian revelation and religion). Among these things those are intrinsically spiritual that pertain to the supernatural order on account of some inherent character of their own (e.g., grace, Sacraments, Mass, miracles) or some intimate union with things spiritual (2317e). The temporal price in simony
is some temporal good or advantage.”( Ed. — The means to salvation, which all these sects pretend to offer for a price of some sort, be it membership in the sect and contributions or some fixed fee for services, falls in the extrinsically spiritual category, meaning it comes from the outside but acts upon the part as a whole.)
Continuing with McHugh and Callan: “[Pope] St. Gregory the Great distinguishes three kinds of simoniacal prices as follows: (a) the price from the hand…is either money or things that have a money value, such as movable or immovable property, corporeal or incorporeal rights. It would be simony to give a benefice in exchange for a sum of money, for a loan, for real estate; (b) the price from the tongue… is any kind of patronage, such as praise, recommendation, protection, defense, opposition to competitors, etc. (c) the price in service… is any kind of temporal labor or assistance given for another’s benefit, such as the management of his business or the instruction of his children” (2319). (End of McHugh and Callan quotes)
It follows, then, that if someone offers others membership in a group with fringe benefits, such as the purchase of goods, property, special instruction or so on — based on the specific acceptance and profession of certain spiritual beliefs appearing to be or presented to others as Catholic — then this seems to fit the definition of simony. And certainly if one benefits from the sale of things purportedly Catholic, and repeatedly requisitions those s/he is “serving” for funds to continue this service, this fits the definition of simony above. Matatics has produced hundreds of videos, CD’s and podcasts over the years and there is no way of knowing the extent of his profit margins from these. He presents himself as a professional Catholic apologist, an internet influencer and an expert in the field despite any self-deprecating remarks he may make to the contrary.
So again — those who promote Matatics and pay for his videos, tours and online offerings are just as guilty of simony as he is — simony of the tongue, as St. Gregory describes it. It is one thing to accept donations to help pay the costs of necessities, such as website and printing fees, computer maintenance and online security, etc. It is quite another to spend an entire lifetime routinely and actively soliciting funds, something Matatics has been doing for decades, as his sole occupation. And this income has been further supplemented by the sale of non-Catholic works.
Of course no one knows the true extent of the donations he received, or the money made on YouTube videos. But several readers and even those commenting on various online forums have lamented his seeming insensitivity to his wife’s illness before her death, having interpreted remarks made on his website during that time as more focused on his “appearances” and video schedule than her illness. They also were offended that with the announcement of her death came the request for funds to bury her. A gofundme site raised over $2,100 for Matatics and his family during his wife’s illness. Her Facebook obituary ended with the following: “In lieu of flowers, donations to help defray funeral expenses may be made by check payable to “Gerry Matatics” and mailed to PO Box 569, Dunmore PA 18512, or by PayPal paid to gmatatics@aol.com.” Despite the loss of his life partner and the mother of his children, Gerry was still working the money angle.
Non-Catholic works on Biblical Foundations Intl.
“Fr.” Saenz-Arriaga
For several years, Matatics has sold The Plot Against the Church, a 16-part CD series split into two sets for a grand total of $100! (See here). This book was the product of a founding father of Mexican and American Traditionalism, the Mexican priest and real author of the book, Rev. Joaquin Saenz-Arriaga, (who had others ghost write the work for him). Saenz was later discovered to have been a Freemason, as proven HERE. His Mexican Traditionalist organization was later reported to be infiltrated by the worst kind of degenerates, as reported by Traditionalist “priests” serving under the organization’s umbrella (request a copy of The Tecos Letters here). The “Plot” book and the rest of Saenz’s works bear no imprimatur, having been written in the 1960s and 1970s. Saenz held a pre-V2 degree in Canon Law, so it must be assumed he knew better. Had he obeyed the canons and ceased to minister to the faithful, had he not helped spread Traditionalism throughout the North American continent, had he not been a Freemason, his works might be trustworthy where matters of faith are concerned. But this was not the case.
Moreover, The Plot Against the Church does not express and in fact only obfuscates the Church’s true teaching on what the Catholic attitude towards the Jews must be, despite their role in the destruction of the papacy. It blames Jewry primarily, not Freemasonry — or the apostate hierarchy
— for the subversion of the Church. And this, as has been explained at length before, is not only contrary to Church teaching but an error of fact. In upcoming blogs, we intend to provide a link to a well-rounded pamphlet that fully explains the Church’s true position on the Jews and what Catholics are obliged to believe concerning them.
Edward N. Peters
The Pio-Benedictine Code of Canon Law for sale here is another non-Catholic work produced by a Traditionalist-minded member of the Novus Ordo sect, the Latinist Edward N. Peters, who received his Canon Law and language credentials from Novus Ordo institutions (see here). Peters appears to have always been an active member of the Novus Ordo sect. This is a translation made by Peters from the original Latin of the 1917 Code of Canon Law, and it scarcely needs to be said that it is not an approved work. Such translations, especially of something so vitally important as the Sacred Canons, would bear a most diligent scrutiny by true members of the hierarchy. In the introduction to his work, Peters admits taking liberty with the Latin wording and phraseology used by Peter Cardinal Gasparri in his original edition of the Code. Why this book is for sale on Matatics’ site when other versions of the Code are available for free download online is a mystery.
In both cases, encouraging others to read the works of non-Catholics and thereby presumably funding and promoting these authors by selling their books and CDs is cooperation in heresy, just as the assistance given to building a non-Catholic church is considered cooperation in heresy (Canons 1258, 2316). No one truly Catholic would deny that a man who is a professed Freemason is an apostate, especially one who violates VAS by usurping papal jurisdiction and flouting Canon Law. Nor would anyone, even in the sedevacantist camp, deny that a member of the Novus Ordo sect is outside the Church. It must also be mentioned that anyone who publishes and comments on Holy Scripture incurs ipso facto (non-reserved) excommunication. (An exception might be made, however, for commenting on commentaries written by approved authors on the end times, since even these authors leave it to those living in those times to “read the signs.”) There are approved, reliable commentaries on the Bible available to Catholics, and the observations of a (former) Protestant minister certainly cannot be considered as any substitute.
Conclusion
It is enough to show that Matatics does not accept the supreme jurisdiction of the Roman Pontiff and is engaged in the Feeneyite heresy; this should warn away all who have frequented him until now. But we know that warnings such as these have had little effect in the past and will have even less effect in the future, as the last generation dies who knew the Church as She once existed. Matatics seems to gravitate to the younger set, many of them disaffected youth lacking any true grounding in Catholic teaching who are enamored with social media. These individuals greatly enjoy the relative ease of getting their daily or weekly spiritual “fix” from those saturating the internet with their personal take on things Catholic. They have abandoned any real attempt to cultivate the interior life, the hard work necessary to learn the basic truths of faith before even attempting apologetics or the conversion of others.
But one must “be,” before they can effectively “act,” as St. Thomas Aquinas teaches. Dom J.B. Chautard, in his The Soul of the Apostolate, quotes Pope Pius XII as follows: “Give the very first place to the formation of the interior spirit, without which all exterior action is futile and must be looked upon with suspicion.” As Chautard also notes, “A life of action keeps many busy, the contemplative life introduces us to the reign of the highest truths, without drawing our attention away from the principle of all life… [In the words of] St. Bernard of Clairvaux: ‘In this life man lives more purely, falls more rarely, recovers more promptly, advances more surely, receives more graces, dies more calmly, is more quickly cleansed and gains a greater recompense.’”
Chautard continues: “The end of a good work should be interwoven with the interior life, a good work worthy of the name, I mean. For some in our day do not merit the title: many are enterprises organized under the appearance of piety but with the real object of getting a reputation of very great ability for their founders along with the applause of the public: for the success of these, all means — very often even the least warrantable — are employed if necessary.” And it appears that this has been the case with Matatics, a man sporting many awards and accolades from the Protestant and secular Catholic realm, Traditionalists included. But do these titles then mean anything? Is education in a non-Catholic institution, or employment as a teacher in such an institution, anything more than a sign that all once learned and given credit for must be unlearned and redirected to Catholic channels, especially if imbibed in secular or non-Catholic institutions existing in the past 75 years?
The interior life is one of prayer and study of the truths of faith. This can only be disturbed, not facilitated, by the endless noise of self-promoting videos, podcasts etc., (unless one is listening to works of the popes or the saints). In order to instruct Catholics, one must first qualify as a bona fide Catholic. As seen above, that cannot be said of Gerry Matatics. Or as one Novus Ordo critic so aptly put it: “In Gerry Matatics’ case, his errors (not all) are explained by his being an ‘insufficiently converted Protestant.’ He needs to fully grasp Catholicism.”
Our Lady of Guadalupe,
Patroness of the Americas and the papacy,
pray for us!