Author Topic: Father Malachi Martin (Read 35183 times)

Elizabeth · « **Reply #120 on:** December 18, 2011, 07:55:50 PM »

Quote from: GertrudetheGreat

I see no evidence that he ever performed an exorcism, but if he did and it appeared effective, that would not prove anything. Signs and wonders to deceive, if possible, even the Elect.

Quote
Dangerous books? "Hostage to the Devil" was not "dangerous" as you describe. It was no "Dante's Inferno," but if you read it, it gets the point across clearly. "Keys to this Blood" was a very good book, as was "Windswept House."

This is the real problem. Anybody who judges those books to be anything but dangerous is lacking catechetical formation. What do you know about exorcism other than what you learned from Martin? He invented the whole thing, and got it wrong, and said ridiculous and even heterodox things, especially his Rocky Balboa Exorcist vs The Devil contest of wills garbage, in which the exorcist risks his soul for the possessed victim. It's all rubbish, and dangerous rubbish.

The defences of Martin all follow the same lines. Any evidence against him is ascribed to evil men, none of it is discussed in detail but rather it dismissed as "selective quotation" or smeared as the product of insanity, and the testimonies of other men who have no evidence except Martin's own testimony are cited as proof of Martin's honesty and goodness.

Hi Gertrude - - These selected quotes reminded me of something you may have believed was heterodox, on the part of MM, somewhere earlier in this robust thread.

I think you said that the exorcist being in the greatest danger was wrong. In the Youtube interview clip with Bp. McKenna, called 'Real Demonic Possession' he certainly seems to agree with MM. Bp. McKenna used to have audio tapes of his exorcisms available, and he collaborated with paranormal investigaters Ed and Lorraine Warren.

Do you believe Bp. McKenna was doing exorcisms?

If memory serves, Fr. James LeBar of the New York Diocese was head exorcist concurrently with MM and they worked loosely together. Scott Peck, M.D., psychiatrist and author of People of the Liewrote that he assisted at a couple of exorcisms with MM. The experience was what convinced him of true evil, as opposed to what is taught in med school.

And is the topic of exorcism off limits in your opinion? (I am assuming you would rightly admonish against any unwholesome fascination.)

I can't prove that MM did exorcisms, but I have no idea how they are proven. Not many people would admit they had needed one, would they?

I see there is a new post beneath this, and it is very interesting. No, two! Thank you, they are food for thought --

Yes, I had forgotten about The Decline and Fall of the Roman Catholic Church and it was a weird and depressing read - I think he was calling for the Church to get rid of all her money among other things - I'll go read what you've written.

Elizabeth · « **Reply #121 on:** December 18, 2011, 08:30:47 PM »

William H. Kennedy seems to have gotten way too caught up in the occult, poor man! His website :scared2:

Poor M. Scott Peck went off the beam into New Age baloney.

I'm too thick to get the quote from Josef Sellmier or how it relates to MM. I THINK MM was ordained in 1954 it is possible he may have been influenced by same?

GertrudetheGreat · « **Reply #122 on:** December 18, 2011, 10:34:51 PM »

Quote from: Elizabeth

I can't prove that MM did exorcisms, but I have no idea how they are proven. Not many people would admit they had needed one, would they?

Fr. Fiore, who I insist was not an authority because he only ever repeated what Martin had told him, said that Martin "assisted at" exorcisms. Maybe that's true, but I wouldn't believe it without evidence.

Certainly I think he never saw an exorcism when he wrote his book describing five cases of possession and a series of exorcisms. He made it all up.

Quote from: Elizabeth

Yes, I had forgotten about The Decline and Fall of the Roman Catholic Church and it was a weird and depressing read - I think he was calling for the Church to get rid of all her money among other things - I'll go read what you've written.

That's right. Fr. Sellmair is describing the age-old heresy of gnosticism, as it perpetuates itself as a tendency in every age. It is rooted in an unbalanced view of man, seeing his body, which is an essential part of his unity, as an evil in itself. This type of belief always manifests the same characteristics - impurity, denial of the necessity of the visible Church, the denial of the Church's right to own property, and demonology. And that is Martin to a "T". If you want examples, read about the Manicheans, the Albigensians, and the Franciscan "Spirituals." These types tend to disaparage holy matrimony and promote the religious life as the ideal for every man, and they love mystery and the notion that some are "adepts" who have secret knowledge (the gnosis) which is revealed to devotees stage by stage.

Martin's final book, which he said would be the most controversial of all, was to be the revelation of his thesis in full regarding the visible Church, and how it was no longer necessary. His earlier books had already said everything he would have said in the last book, but in peacemeal fashion, not in one unified theory. He was drawing trads along, loosening their love of the Church and teaching them to love his mysteries, so that he could establish his new religion more openly.

I regard it as additional proof of this that his followers are so cemented to his cult of personality that even when confonted with the worst heresies they have ever seen, they try and find ways to justify the creature as a good and holy priest. Tell me honestly, have you ever seen anything as bad as this anywhere? Luther was not as bad as this open blasphemy:

Quote

The god of Christians was then pictured as making an offering to ‘natural’ man: ‘You do this, okay? And I’ll do that, okay? Don’t eat those apples, and I'll make you tremendously happy for ever.’ The Deal. Naughty man, ‘Adam and Eve’, that miserable primal couple, would go and eat that apple. Original Sin! God’s plans were in fragments. What to do? God decides to tack on something to man: supernature, the supernatural. Hence Jesus, God’s son, jumps into human time and space from ‘eternity’, dies on a cross, thus satisfying God’s anger and offended honour, and ‘winning’ the super-nature for ‘natural’ man. Jesus then jumps out of human time and space back into ‘eternity’. Hence the Church, the Churches, the Sacraments, the Commandments, Hell and Heaven.

I promise you, that is not taken out of context, and believe it or not, it is not the worst material in that book. It boggles the mind.

GertrudetheGreat · « **Reply #123 on:** December 18, 2011, 10:37:01 PM »

Quote from: Elizabeth

William H. Kennedy seems to have gotten way too caught up in the occult, poor man! His website :scared2:

Poor M. Scott Peck went off the beam into New Age baloney.

I'm too thick to get the quote from Josef Sellmier or how it relates to MM. I THINK MM was ordained in 1954 it is possible he may have been influenced by same?

The New Age is a gnostic movement. These people are gnostics. That's why they defend each other and promote each other.

Sellmair was good. He was condemning this stuff. He didn't influence Martin - if he had, Martin might have come back to centre and not lost himself in the Dead Sea Scrolls (and in the arms of a series of women).

Elizabeth · « **Reply #124 on:** December 19, 2011, 08:56:13 AM »

Quote from: GertrudetheGreat

Quote
The god of Christians was then pictured as making an offering to ‘natural’ man: ‘You do this, okay? And I’ll do that, okay? Don’t eat those apples, and I'll make you tremendously happy for ever.’ The Deal. Naughty man, ‘Adam and Eve’, that miserable primal couple, would go and eat that apple. Original Sin! God’s plans were in fragments. What to do? God decides to tack on something to man: supernature, the supernatural. Hence Jesus, God’s son, jumps into human time and space from ‘eternity’, dies on a cross, thus satisfying God’s anger and offended honour, and ‘winning’ the super-nature for ‘natural’ man. Jesus then jumps out of human time and space back into ‘eternity’. Hence the Church, the Churches, the Sacraments, the Commandments, Hell and Heaven.

I promise you, that is not taken out of context, and believe it or not, it is not the worst material in that book. It boggles the mind.

:cry: Reminds me of the leaden homilies by Jesuits at Georgetown in DC. :cry:

Pepsuber · « **Reply #125 on:** December 19, 2011, 09:50:17 AM »

Quote from: Elizabeth

If memory serves, Fr. James LeBar of the New York Diocese was head exorcist concurrently with MM and they worked loosely together.

Fr. Lebar said that Martin referred some people to him for exorcism and nothing more.

http://angelqueen.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=13066

Quote

Father says that during the time he held the position of Chief Exorcist of the Archdiocese of New York, the only authorized, legitimate exorcisms would have been done by him and his team of exorcists, which numbered four or five priests at any given time. He says that he knew Malachi Martin when he was alive and the two never spoke about exorcism, except on the infrequent occasion when Martin would refer a candidate to Father Lebar. He makes it clear that at no time did Martin have anything whatsoever to do with his team. Fr. Lebar agrees to go on the record during a second telephone conversation and gives his permission for the conversation to be digitally recorded, which is has been.
...
When asked about Malachi Martin, Father says that he had met him on several occasions, had listened to him on the radio and had read several of his books. He has no knowledge whatsoever of Martin ever taking part in any exorcism, at any time, in any way in the state of New York or anywhere else. In fact the only instances where the subject of exorcism ever arose between the Chief Exorcist of the Archdiocese of New York and self-proclaimed exorcist Malachi Martin, was on the few occasions when Martin had referred a potential candidate for exorcism to Father Lebar's team.

Elizabeth · « **Reply #126 on:** December 19, 2011, 10:02:27 AM »

Thanks, Pepsuber.

rowsofvoices9 · « **Reply #127 on:** December 19, 2011, 01:24:11 PM »

I want to to personally thank you Gertrude the Great for the excellent job you've done in exposing the fraud Malachi Martin. Maybe now some of those trads who in the past that were so enamored by him will have to veil lifted from before their eyes and stop drinking his poisonous kool aid.

ServusSpiritusSancti · « **Reply #128 on:** December 19, 2011, 04:48:42 PM »

Quote from: rowsofvoices9

I want to to personally thank you Gertrude the Great for the excellent job you've done in exposing the fraud Malachi Martin. Maybe now some of those trads who in the past that were so enamored by him will have to veil lifted from before their eyes and stop drinking his poisonous kool aid.

Yet no one can provide proof he was a double agent! That was the whole purpose behind me starting this thread.

GertrudetheGreat · « **Reply #129 on:** December 19, 2011, 05:14:26 PM »

Quote from: rowsofvoices9

I want to to personally thank you Gertrude the Great for the excellent job you've done in exposing the fraud Malachi Martin. Maybe now some of those trads who in the past that were so enamored by him will have to veil lifted from before their eyes and stop drinking his poisonous kool aid.

Thank you, but I've done little. John Grasmeier really did the hard yards.

Quote from: SpiritusSanctus

Yet no one can provide proof he was a double agent! That was the whole purpose behind me starting this thread.

The allegation that he was a double agent needs to be re-structured. What needs to be proved is that Martin returned at some point after 1975 to working for the Catholic Church, for the defence and exaltation of Holy Mother Church, that he returned to the true faith.

Did you read this article, and click each of the links to view the docuмents?

http://angelqueen.org/articles/07_06_martin_ajc_connection.shtml

GertrudetheGreat · « **Reply #130 on:** December 19, 2011, 05:15:32 PM »

Quote from: Pepsuber

Quote from: Elizabeth
If memory serves, Fr. James LeBar of the New York Diocese was head exorcist concurrently with MM and they worked loosely together.

Fr. Lebar said that Martin referred some people to him for exorcism and nothing more.

http://angelqueen.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=13066

Quote
Father says that during the time he held the position of Chief Exorcist of the Archdiocese of New York, the only authorized, legitimate exorcisms would have been done by him and his team of exorcists, which numbered four or five priests at any given time. He says that he knew Malachi Martin when he was alive and the two never spoke about exorcism, except on the infrequent occasion when Martin would refer a candidate to Father Lebar. He makes it clear that at no time did Martin have anything whatsoever to do with his team. Fr. Lebar agrees to go on the record during a second telephone conversation and gives his permission for the conversation to be digitally recorded, which is has been.
...
When asked about Malachi Martin, Father says that he had met him on several occasions, had listened to him on the radio and had read several of his books. He has no knowledge whatsoever of Martin ever taking part in any exorcism, at any time, in any way in the state of New York or anywhere else. In fact the only instances where the subject of exorcism ever arose between the Chief Exorcist of the Archdiocese of New York and self-proclaimed exorcist Malachi Martin, was on the few occasions when Martin had referred a potential candidate for exorcism to Father Lebar's team.

Well there you have it. What a house of cards.

ServusSpiritusSancti · « **Reply #131 on:** December 19, 2011, 09:07:54 PM »

Jon Grasmeir and AQ: not credible. The docuмents look somewhat interesting but not convincing.

Elizabeth · « **Reply #132 on:** December 23, 2011, 02:28:22 PM »

OK, I have given some thought, and while I can't bear to despise MM, or think the very worst of him..

Some things don't add up right. I'm on the fence.

What caught my eye was someone's reference to our ( MM nuts) 'naturalism'.

What's this about? How do we learn more about naturalism in its Catholic application?

If we have been mistaken in our admiration for Catholic religious, we will need the tools to avoid misplacing our trust in the future, without risking our faith.

GertrudetheGreat · « **Reply #133 on:** December 23, 2011, 11:23:44 PM »

Quote from: Elizabeth

What caught my eye was someone's reference to our ( MM nuts) 'naturalism'.

What's this about? How do we learn more about naturalism in its Catholic application?

Naturalism is the opposite of supernaturalism. It's the belief that the answer lies in nature. Some of the characteristic beliefs of naturalists are the Pelagian heresy - that man makes the first act of movement towards God, without the assistance of grace; the denial of Original Sin - that man can perfect himself by his own efforts; the materialist philosophy - that there is no supernatural order; the rationalist error - that all worthwhile truth can be known by unaided human reason, etc.

Organised naturalism (i.e. Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ etc) has been masterfully expounded by Fr. Denis Fahey in several of his books.

In the practical order a naturalist is somebody who doesn't act from supernatural motives. This is generally true of all non-Christians, but it also true of many, possibly most (but certainly an enormous number) of Catholics. If you don't pray your morning and night prayers and the daily Rosary, assist at Holy Mass frequently (not daily, but more frequently than absolutely required to avoid sin), go regularly to confession, make sacrifices for your sins and for the sins of others, do a little spiritual reading, study your faith beyond the basic children's catechism, do something occasionally for the Holy Souls, and such things, you're somewhat of a naturalist in practice. You are not fostering the supernatural life as you ought.

I don't want to suggest that somebody who doesn't meet these criteria is a bad Catholic. That's not the point. It's merely that such a person is not fully living the life that God has bestowed. It's His own life, the life of God, that He has infused into our souls. We need to take that seriously. We all know people who do so, and we all know people who don't. Sunday Catholics, we call them. They're naturalists.

This naturalism cannot but be manifested in various ways. The pride of life (inordinate desire for success), the love of money, lack of humility (especially the intolerance of criticism by others, and the tendency to judge others as bad solely because they don't like oneself), horror of physical suffering combined with a lack of concern for truth or sound morals, inordinate fear of death, lack of joy, admiration for worldly people such as rock stars or actors and a lack of interest in the saints and spiritual men in general, interest in signs and wonders but no great interest in Holy Scripture or the astonishing reality of the indwelling of the Holy Ghost in one's own soul, a practical belief in the efficacy of talking to or persuading others but no real practical belief in the far greater power of prayer, no real salutary fear or contempt for "the world" - and this is usually if not always accompanied by complacency about venial sin, attachment to sensuality in any of its common forms - especially sensual (i.e. rock) music, and in women this sensualism is especially common in the vanity which places admiration by others ahead of concern not to be an occasion of sin, an inordinate interest in crimes like abortion without any apparent horror at the immeasurably worse evil of heresy, inordinate interest and concern with worldly "cօռspιʀαcιҽs" (usually because these threaten our income, our personal liberty, our way of life in this world) without a corresponding emphasis on the truth that the greatest damage that these do is to the faith itself, and that any realistic reaction must begin and must mostly consist of the renovation of our own souls, etc.

Fr. Faber is a good writer on these themes. Absolutely supernatural in his outlook, and very practical.

I'm not condemning anybody. Some of these things are only too true of me. We all have work to do!

St Jude Thaddeus · « **Reply #134 on:** December 24, 2011, 01:22:51 PM »

That was a great post, Gertrude! You summed up very well in the first paragraph the different kinds of naturalism. Almost every single inhabitant of the Western World is some kind or other of naturalist. I've lived in the so-called "Third World" before and I can immediately tell the difference between the thinking processes and reactions of supernaturally-based people and those of us naturalists. For all of their obvious faults, many of those rural Third-Worlders really do have a truly deeper faith in God and His Works than almost any of us, because of the naturalistic, rationalistic background that we all come out of.

For example, when facing any new or challenging situation, the first reaction of supernaturally-minded people is to pray, accompanied by some offering or promise to God or a Saint. Our first reaction is to try to think or work our way through it, and we only have recourse to prayer if our own methods fail, i.e. if a crisis situation develops.

When disaster strikes, the supernaturally-oriented shrug their shoulders, accept God's Will, and move on. We immediately begin to play the "blame game." We run around looking for who or what was "responsible", and we cannot rest until we have assigned a punishment. Afterwards, the victims, unable to forgive on a supernatural level, remain "traumatized" for the rest of their lives, recurring to and ultimately finding no relief in psychiatry, politics, hedonism, or weird cults.

When told about someone's failings to do what they are supposed to, they recognize that humans are naturally sinful and that it is fallacious to expect good things out of them. We, on the other hand, are outraged that the person has not conformed to certain standards of behavior, and desire to see the person severely castigated.

When necessary, they punish quickly, with a beating or expulsion from the community, and then forget about it. We insist on long prison terms and huge fines, and even then the guilty party's sins are never really expunged, but remain forever on some kind of computerized "rap sheet" that will accompany him for the rest of his life like the albatross around the Mariner's neck in the famous poem.

I learned a lot about my faith living among these people, who in spite of often being poorly catechized and riddled with superstitions, as well as plagued with various vices such as drinking too much or sleeping around, do nevertheless seem to have a better grasp of the idea of God being in control and of the contrast between His Perfect Justice and Mercy and our human frailties.