Monday, April 8, 2013

Gerry Matatics Wants You to Pay For His Trip So You Can Stay Home Alone!

Enter one Gerry Matatics. A former Protestant minister, he converted to the Vatican II sect when his friend Scott Hahn (also a Protestant minister) converted. Hahn makes money off the Vatican II sect members by peddling books about his conversion and going on speaking tours. Matatics has not done nearly as well. He became a very conservative member of the Counterfeit Church, teaching Bible Studies to the Fraternal Society of St Peter's (FSSP) seminarians. Then he shifted towards the SSPX. He then announced he had become a sedevacantist (True Catholic), but unfortunately, his ideological roller coster ride doesn't stop. Next, he declares himself a Feeneyite (he denies Baptism of Desire and Baptism of Blood), and now he is a "Home-Aloner" (a term coined by Fr. Cekada for those misguided souls who think that after Vatican II, you can't go to Traditionalist clergy but must stay "Home Alone.").

 Like the 1990 movie, Home Aloners worship in their houses like a perpetual spiritual rerun of the film, minus the joyful conclusion. Now Gerry wants to go on speaking "mega-tours" and he wants you to pay for his trips so he can tell other people to stay home alone ("recusant Catholics" is the bogus term he uses). His website, tells you:

"In the process, God in His mercy and undeserved kindness has shown me something that constitutes a quantum leap forward in my understanding of the current crisis in Catholicism, and in my ability to effectively explain the nature, duration, and severity of that crisis. I wish to fully explain this new aspect to my analysis in a lengthy essay I will begin to serialize here on my website beginning the week of Easter.

I will also be implementing this new explanatory dimension in all my recordings and public talks from this point forward, beginning with a new talk I will shortly be giving entitled "New Pope, New World Order: Can Francis I Save the Catholic Church, or Does He Have Another Agenda?" (You can hear a "sneak preview" of this talk on April 15 on; see below.)

God willing, I will be giving this hard-hitting but helpful (and hopeful) talk, beginning in early May in the Baltimore area, in three cities in New Jersey, in New York City, on Long Island, and in the Boston area.
I am also open to giving this talk in your area -- especially if you live near Greenville SC, in Florida, the Midwest, Texas, Phoenix, or anywhere on the West Coast -- provided I can gather the needed funds to cover my travel expenses there. (If you don't live in any of those areas, I'm still willing to discuss the possibility of speaking near you: please contact me if you're interested.)

I announced some time ago that Biblical Foundations International will no longer be selling books, once we've exhausted our current stock. We have already sold out of all but four of our titles, but I still have 14 copies left of the indispensable reference work, Denzinger's Sources of Catholic Dogma. Once these 14 copies are gone, I won't be restocking or selling the book anymore.
(By the way, Denzinger's magnificent volume contains over a half dozen little-known statements in it, each of which PROVES that Francis I cannot be a true pope -- as I'll demonstrate in next week's essay.)
If you don't already own a copy of Denzinger, or if you have a loved one who doesn't own a copy but who would benefit from being able to read for themselves, in black and white, why Francis I is a fraud, and not an authentic Catholic pope, then may I suggest a way we can perhaps help each other do God's work?

My travel fund is completely empty. I don't even have the minimal funds necessary to drive to Maryland, New Jersey, New York, and Massachusetts next month to give the aforementioned new talk.
But if you are one of the next 14 people to send me a helpful donation of $100 or more to help me leave on this week-long lecture tour, I will send you not only a free CD recording of this new talk on Francis I but also a free copy of Denzinger -- a $34.95, 800-page hardcover book -- with an exclusive pamphlet by me (available nowhere else) showing you how to use the book to PROVE that Francis I, and Vatican II, and the New Mass, etc. are all fraudulent -- part of the vast global deception Scripture tells us (e.g., in Luke 18:8; Matthew 24:10; 2 Thessalonians 2:2,10-12; 1 Tim 4:1; Apocalypse 13:3,8) will precede the return of Jesus Christ in glory to usher in the new heavens and new earth and the triumph of His Mother's Immaculate Heart.
I need to call the hotels the week after Easter, if possible, to secure and pay for the meeting spaces for these talks. I will need that much lead time to adequately advertise the talks, to design the fliers and begin to mail them out to the thousands of people on my mailing list who live in these areas, so as to give them adequate time to learn about and pre-register for these events. That's why I need to hear from you as soon as possible. Can you help?"
Oh, boy! He also wants to sell you CDs and recordings that:
"enable you to make the case that the authentic alternative to Vatican II Catholicism is NOT the unauthorized, illicit, anarchic, and sacrilegious scene at the chapels served by the illicitly ordained (i.e., in the post-Vatican II era) "traditionalist" priests and bishops, whether of the SSPX, SSPV, CMRI, or independent variety."
Now a few notes on Home Aloners:
According to Fr. Cekada,
"Typically, some layman with an ax to grind will get hold of an English paraphrase of the Code of Canon Law (the official text exists only in Latin), and, like a Protestant handling scripture, will treat his discovery as a handy source for “proof-texts” he can use to dismiss everyone else in the traditional movement as “non-Catholic.” He has no idea that, as with scripture, there are authoritative principles and rules which must be followed for applying the particulars of the Code. And as the would-be lay canon lawyer circulates his articles condemning everyone else for not adhering literally to the canons, it never occurs to him that his own project is equally“illicit” — for his writings do not bear the official Imprimatur required by Canon 1385.
In either case — statements from the modernist establishment or polemics from self-styled lay canonists — Catholics who go to a traditional Mass sometimes find such accusations troubling. Good Catholics, we know, should try to obey the law. Is what we do really against canon law, or somehow illicit, and therefore wrong?"
No! Here are the guiding principles:
The goal of all law is to promote the common good.
Canon law falls under the heading of human law.
The common good the Church intends for canon law is“the worship of God and the supernatural sanctification of men.”
A specific human law may be just in general, but taken literally in circumstances unforeseen by the lawgiver may in fact contravene either natural justice or what the lawgiver intended.
In such a case one may apply equity — deciding that, because of the harm which would result, the lawgiver didn’t intend a particular case to be included under his general law.
In certain circumstances where harm to the common good would result from a literal application of a law, it is bad to follow the law.
Applying equity is licit or lawful.
The salvation of souls is the supreme law.
When a lower law conflicts with the divine law, the obligation to observe the lower law disappears.
The application of equity to a law must be controlled by prudence.
Practically, this means that Our Lord wills that we be saved, and He instituted the seven sacraments as the principal means for us to sanctify ourselves and obtain salvation. In virtue of the divine law, therefore, Catholics have a right to the sacraments.
The human law of the Church (canon law) protects that fundamental right, and at the same time places certain restrictions on how it can be exercised. (To confer sacraments legally in a diocese, for instance, the Code requires that a priest obtain faculties from the bishop.) The legislator promulgated all these restrictions, and indeed the whole Code, on the assumption that a normal situation obtained throughout the Church.
The situation for Catholics since the Second Vatican Council can hardly be termed normal. By Vatican decree, a new Mass, protestantized and stripped of sacredness, has been introduced into our parish churches, together with the officially-sanctioned and utterly sacrilegious practice of Communion in the hand. Bishops and pastors — the men who under the Code would have possessed the power to grant other priests faculties to confer sacraments — tacitly condone or explicitly promote doctrines which contradict the Catholic faith.
If in the face of this disaster you insist that equity does not apply and that all the Code’s provisions on sacramental faculties still bind, you arrive at one of two practical alternatives:
(A) Traditional Catholics must approach the Novus Ordo establishment to obtain faculties for sacraments; or
(B) Because traditional Catholics cannot obtain the faculties and permissions required by canon law, they must henceforth forego receiving any sacraments, apart from baptism conferred in proximate danger of death.
As regards the first alternative, it is hardly reasonable to imagine that we Catholics who have a right by divine law to Catholic sacraments and Catholic teaching would have an obligation by canon law to request permission for these things from the very men who took them away in the first place.
The same Code of Canon Law that lays down requirements for granting faculties also protects Catholics from these wolves in sheep’s clothing. Church officials who have manifestly defected from the Catholic faith lose not only all jurisdiction in the Catholic Church (c.188.4), but even their membership in it.
Thank you Fr. Cekada for your always erudite writings! As to Mr. Matatics, let him stay home and ponder this one: Where do you get the jurisdiction to publish your works without an Imprimatur?
 Further, any attempt to interpret the Canons of Trent without ecclesiastical approbation results in laetae sententiae (i.e. automatic) excommunication (See Pope Pius IV’s Bull Benedictus Deus (26 January 1564)). On one hand, logic dictates that he consider himself excommunicated; on the other, he denies that anyone still has the authority to lift an excommunication. It will be interesting to see the explanations Mr. Matatics will offer to deal with these inconveniences besides "buy my CD and find out." Yeah. Find out you've been duped out of your money by a man who wants to travel on your dime and keep everyone else under a spiritual house arrest. Caveat Emptor.


  1. Currently attending independent traditional chapel.
    The home alone crowd offers some irrefutable arguments.
    Any advice to clarify my attendance at a traditional chapel with no direct mission from the holy see?
    (Not being sarcastic I am in a slight crisis over this)

    1. There is currently no pontiff, and as both Divine and Canon Law tell us, "the Salvation of souls is the Supreme Law." The mission from the Holy See is implied by this principle.

      There is also historical precedent for this situation. Prior to Vatican II, the longest interregnum was from 11/29/1268 to 9/1/1271 (2 years and 10 months)between the death of Pope Clement IV and the election of Pope Gregory X. Several Diocesan Bishops died during this time. Ordinary jurisdiction can only be granted by the pope. However, nearby bishops consecrated a priest of the diocese to act with supplied jurisdiction until the papacy could be restored. What happened when Pope Gregory X was elected? He praised the bishops who so acted for giving the people access to Bishops and the sacraments. The bishops so consecrated, he ratified and then supplied them with Ordinary jurisdiction. Had they done what the Home Aloners claim to be wrong, there would have been sanctions and abjurations would need to have been made. Instead, they were praised.


  2. Gerry Mattatics is a fraud. It's not so much a fraud in the fact that he claims to be Catholic, but he's a narcissistic manipulator. I've listened to virtually all of his tapes and CD's. Something he has repeated many times when referring to finances, "Oh poor me, I don't have much." He's hoping that we will have pity on him and send him some money and buy his stuff.

    Worst yet, either he or one of his sons whom I'll refer to as "Tyler" poisoned my then minor daughter with their denial of baptism of desire and blood. Put another way, Gerry Mattatics connected his adult son with my daughter, then a minor. They violated the authority of the parents.

    It turns out his son Tyler is also a first class narcissist. He's also a fist class manipulator. The saying, "The apple doesn't fall far the tree" is highly applicable in this case.

    I hope to put up a website to expose people that call themselves Catholic but are really frauds. I will show Gerry Mattatics' clever use of language to manipulate and lay guilt trips on people. He is extraordinarily deceitful.

    I know there are other Catholic frauds because I have encountered them. My experience so far with those "home aloners" who articulate the "no unauthorized shepherds" position is two-fold. First, they set themselves up as mini-popes, so they have become the pot calling the kettle black.

    Second, when you cut through the veneer-like facade they put up, you'll find that they are arrogant pricks. They are the vipers as referred to by John the Baptist.

    In addition to being frauds, another attribute of narcissists such as Gerry Mattatics is that they are cowards . Mattatics showed his guile in an exchange of emails that I had with him a while back. It's the same guile as the Pharisees exhibited. Narcissists also tend to be lazy. They don't want to work at true relationships with people as they are wrapped up with themselves.

    Christian humility? Forget it! For a better understanding of just how dangerous a narcissist is, read Joe Navarro's book, "Dangerous Personalities". If the narcissist is also a predator, you have an even more dangerous person to deal with.

    My advice to anyone thinking about supporting Mr. Mattatics. Be careful, you may get burned.

    1. Your comment has certainly been successful in grabbing my attention. You write well and would have a most interesting blog. I would like to make a couple of suggestions:

      1. Much of what you write is anecdotal. To expose someone you must have concrete citations to objective facts.

      2. Unless you are a trained psychologist, don't give a "diagnosis." I agree with you that he appears full of himself but let your readers draw their conclusions.

      3. Refrain from vulgarity. There is no need to use the word "pr*ck." You can express yourself better than that, and I would normally not publish a comment containing such words. I made an exception due to the overall content of your remarks. If you want True Catholics to read what you say, use appropriate language.

      4. Avoid sounding like you have a personal vendetta. If you have a genuine gripe, expose him and the rest, but keep it professional.

      I'd be interested in hearing you out. I agree that the Home Aloners are among the most dangerous to our spiritual welfare.


    2. Though I am quite late to this discussion, I read with interest your remarks on Mr. Matatics. I, too, incidentally, am a so-called doctrinal "home aloner"; however, I am not---nor have I ever have been, a partisan of Mr. Matatics, nor a "supporter" of his in any sense. My goal, and I think it fair of me to say, the goal of so-called home aloners, is to follow the divine laws of the Church, no matter what we may personally rather do. This includes the extant laws on canonical mission and jurisdiction as it governs priestly operations.

      Of note, home aloneism was well operative long, long, before Mr. Matatics came to the scene: We, therefore, owe absolutely *nothing* from a theological or doctrinal standpoint to his "contribution". Home aloneism is as old as its "cousin" traditionalism itself, believe it or not.

      If, as you allege, Mr. Matatics denies the efficacy of Baptism of Blood and Baptism of Desire, that is most unfortunate; more than that, it goes against the ongoing and consistent teachings of the magisterium of Holy Mother Church, a most serious and unfortunate error --- if not worse --- indeed! It is no argument against 'home aloneism' as such, however, anymore than the fact that Feeneyism crops up its unfortunate head ---when they aren't being disingenuous about the matter --- in many Traditionalist Mass centers. Heresy, frankly, is ubiquitous. Again, Gerry Matatics speaks for----Gerry Matatics.

      I understand you having been turned off by many Home Aloners, but I would respectfully encourage you to examine the doctrinal positions as a standalone concept apart from the cult of personality. Many Catholics throughout history have been among the most undesirable lot, yet Our Lord admonished us in the Gospels that both the wheat and chaff would grow side-by-side, until the Final Consummation (or the particular judgement!).

      I wish there were a website that I felt comfortable in recommending to objectively research this matter, but I cannot. I know of one authored by a former partisan of a so-called papal claimant, however some of the accusations you make regarding "mini-popes" might be apropos in that regard.

      The home aloners whom I've met have come across the matter, it seems, tangentially, in many cases ---and well before the Internet was "the thing".

      I personally know of one person, who is perhaps worth $20 or $30 million ---if not more---who has been a "hardcore" home aloner since the 1980's, which of course, is long before the now halcyon days of Internet usage.

      I write these words to you on Holy Thursday, and I bid you well in your journey for Catholic truth as we approach (as of this writing) Easter 2017....

    3. Dear Friend,
      Thank you for a well written and charitable comment. You are quite correct that Mr, Matatics views are his own. He disavowed Fenneyism, and now "teaches" theology on Facebook 5 nights a week. (I have no idea how this man supports his family). It is true that being "Home Alone" was around since the beginning of the Great Apostasy, I think things have become more clear with time. The website you reference is probably that of Theresa Benns who engineered the farmhouse "election" of "Pope" Michael.

      I wish you well and pray for you on this Good Friday 2017. I hope you will soon avail yourself of the graces that come from the Mass and sacraments which God has not completely taken from us. Christ is Risen. So will His Church.


  3. I think it's just wrong to make money for being an apologist. A man like him who has lots of kids and grand-kids needs to get a real job. Not live off giving talks and donations! You don't have to pay me for defending the Faith. I do it for free. What did Our Lord say, "And going, preach, saying: The kingdom of heaven is at hand. Heal the sick, raise the dead, cleanse the lepers, cast out devils: FREELY have you received, FREELY give." Matt: 10:7

    As far as his home alone stance, I don't agree with it unless there is no Catholic Mass within a certain distance and for a lot of people that is a problem. I can only get to Mass to a sedevacantist priest once a month. Other than that, I stay at home because I'm not going to an invalid indult Mass and I'm not going to a schismatic and heretical SSPX Mass, and I'm not going to just any sedevacantist priest (Some believe heretically) within an hour of my house. "He who prays with heretics, is a heretic" according to Pope St. Agatho.