Just a reminder

Yes, he created lots of "impressions" usually by stating things as truth based upon secret knowledge that others couldn't check.  People often realise that many of the things they think they know about Martin are actually "impressions."

Things he claimed, without providing any evidence:

Episcopal consecration by Pius XII
Reading the Third Secret
Satanic rituals in St. Peter's
Secretly orthodox JP2 surrounded by bullying baddies
Offers of huge sums for making a movie of his book
8000 witches covens across the USA, infant sacrifice, etc.
Exorcisms he supposedly performed
At least one murder involving Cardinal Bernardin

He also made a habit of writing evil history of the Church, adopting all of the worst slanders against as many popes as possible, carefully omitting to provide any footnotes, and presenting it all as undisputed fact.  He added spicy inventions such as a meeting between Pope Sylvester and the so-called blood relations of Our Lord Jesus Christ.  

He trashed the truths of the Gospel, repeated the vilest slanders against Our Lord and His Blessed Mother, proposed a whole new religion based ostensibly on Our Lord Jesus Christ but abstracting from the historical reality of Our Lord's life and instead redefining Jesus Christ as the perfect human being each believer projects himself as becoming - Gnosticism meets Modernism, if you like.  He specialised in undermining the reality of the visible and hierarchical Church and consistently blamed the "worldly" aspects of the Church for the many crimes he retailed against her down the centuries.  His solution to this was his new gospel of spiritual and not "material" religion.

In his later career he softened his attacks on the institutional Church and morphed them somewhat (but not exclusively) into attacks on the Modernists running the New Church.  A careful reading of this material, however, reveals a consistent ambiguity which enables Indult and SSPX types to understand him in their own way.

He also stepped up his talk about satanism and the occult and tied it in with the problems in the Church, once again usually in an ambiguous way so that any type, from conservative to sedevacantist, could interpet him as agreeing with them.

Nearly all of his books contain a great deal of impurity, either describing things with totally improper detail and with a salacious style, or naming things which need not be named.

Seriously? Another damned thread?!?!

MOVE ON.