Stephanos wrote:

No one said anything about his person

You must be joking. Or perhaps you need to read this thread again.

I see FE has a thread containing an article "correcting" the "myths" about Martin's status as a Judas goat - but it is from a source, WorldNetDaily, that is neo-conservative garbage.  Joseph Farah is himself a Judas goat, claiming to be a "conservative Christian", all the while being very pro-Israel.

Don't get confused, here. One can be very much, pro-Israel, and be Catholic at the same time - even though orthodox rabbis in Israel may have little good to say about Catholics (what they say about Roman Protestants, is beside the point).

Grassmaier, and others, would seem to have Martin dead to rights. They start with an article in LOOK, identifying an 'agent' promoting the cause of those still defending the actions of those of the old Temple against Our Lord. And the agent is given four names, that he uses. One is Serafian. And there is some connection, not airtight, but very suggestive, between Martin and the pen-name Serafian.

And then the question becomes - why? And particularly why would he criticize the 'Satanism within'? Why wouldn't he attempt to pretty-paint everything done under the regimes of the PC 'Popes'?

And so some suggest it was so that his advice - do nothing, attempt no Catholicism, no restoration, etc - would be taken to heart by those opposing 'reform'.

I think what Catholics remember about Martin was that Bell wanted to call him 'Father' Martin and that he actually appeared on the old Art Bell 'pagan mysteries' show. It just didn't seem very Catholic. That doesn't mean that all his complaints about the Jebbies, for example, are misleading or inaccurate. But I think one might do better than waste time with a guy like that.

But the blame for the recent talk about the Jєωs 'waiting' for the great Promised Messiah, which a Roman Protestant denial of Our Lord's Messiahship, is not Martin's fault. Blame should go where it belongs, A) the phony 'Popes', B) the phony 'bishops'. That's it. No one else. Martin could have been ginning up the leftist press. Others might have done so. But so what? That's not where the decisions were made.