CathInfo.com

Quote

This, said in a thread that has been running for 5 months, with no end in sight, ...

Well, its end was in sight until you reached back two months and tried to get the fire going.

You're not going to believe this, but I have to tell you anyway: I didn't notice the last post was in March. I was used to looking at the General section, and this section (Crisis in the Church) doesn't move that fast.

Quote

This, said on the 13th year after his death,

This, said under a forum post that was started 12 years after he died.

Well you are preaching to a weird little choir here. Stand up at the checkout counter at your local grocery and ask how many people know who he is.

I'm not so sure that's a valid test. I can stand up at the checkout counter and ask how many people know what the Second Vatican Council is and get blank stares. But everyone I know at Traditional Mass sites (almost) has heard of MM. And their impressions are vastly different. Most priests want to steer clear of MM, I suppose it's because of his penchant for impurity in his writings. I'm beginning to see that now. He wrote at a time when that was a new fad, but coming from what was ostensibly a good priest, it wasn't right. I'll give you that. Just because the Index was out of business doesn't mean it's open season on gutter talk.

Quote

Why focus on him?  

Read much? There are plenty of others that get their knuckles rapped around here.

Sorry, do you have a link for the knuckles thing? No intiendo.

I suggest you let the poor man rest in peace.

You're right, we should pray for the repose of his soul, as well as all the souls of the faithful departed.

Quote from: GertrudetheGreat

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 from: Malachi Martin

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.

What boggles the mind is that a argument is made, substantiated by the man's own writings, and people here pretend like you never said it. A few weeks later, all is forgotten and they drink from the same poisoned well.

How can one ignore the man's own writings?