Author Topic: Father Malachi Martin (Read 33463 times)

s2srea · « **Reply #45 on:** December 14, 2011, 02:53:16 PM »

All I can say, is 'by their fruits you shall know them.'

I think Fr. MM had tremendous amounts of good fruits in the way of helping many traditional Catholics and MANY NO priests become Traditionalists. Why would a heretic or evil person wast their time (and he did take much time in doing so) do this? Everything else is hearsay IMO.

Elizabeth · « **Reply #46 on:** December 14, 2011, 03:23:00 PM »

Quote from: SJB

What we know are the externals, and he never did this.

He was required to abjure his very public errors, and he never did. He cannot be thought of as anything but an unrepentant heretic.

How would you know if he abjured or not?

Elizabeth · « **Reply #47 on:** December 14, 2011, 03:33:24 PM »

I thought it took two witnesses for an abjuration and an oral and written renunciation of whatever material needed to be dealt with.

The fact is you really don't know whether or not the person you accuse of dying an
unrepentant heretic deserves your harsh condemnation.

People desperate enough to use Fr. Casey's letter as" proof "of Fr. Martin's adultery

need to be much more diligent when condemning a priest to eternal Hell in public.

ServusSpiritusSancti · « **Reply #48 on:** December 14, 2011, 04:08:44 PM »

Very good points, PFT. Again I say that all of these claims against him are baloney. The only one that think may be true is the one that he "lost his Faith" in the 60s but even if that's true he obviously repented.

I still cannot grasp why so many people have a hard time believing that there was a satanic ritual of some sort (possibly even numerous satanic rituals) in the Vatican after Paul VI was elected. Gertrude, you ask me for proof about that, though you have yet to provide proof that Fr. Martin had affairs. And why do you doubt that there were satanic rituals that took place? Do you doubt it just because Fr. Malachi Martin said so? Come on folks, this goes way beyond whatever MM wrote. If you believe that Freemasons infiltrated the Vatican yet at the same time can't grasp how there could have been satanic rituals, then your reasoning is out of line somewhere. That's not to say that what MM described is exactly what happened, it may have been slightly different. But he's not the only one to claim that satan was enthroned in the Vatican, other people have as well, people who's credibility is stronger.

Of course, I don't agree with Fr. Malachi Martin on everything. He, for example, was a believer of the Siri thesis, that Cardinal Siri was elected Pope during the 1958 conclave but was forced to step aside and make room for John XXIII. The Siri thesis is not a credible position. Siri publicly celebrated the Novus Ordo, denied being elected, and accepted Vatican II and its "popes". So even if he WAS elected, his "papacy" would have been questionable anyway. A true Pope doesn't chicken out of his reign and submit to men who's views were clearly contrary to the Catholic Faith.

Regardless, MM without a doubt was Traditional. Just recently I came across a quote from him, where he says it's unfair that modernist theologians were patted on the wrist, but people like Archbishop LeFebvre were excommunicated for defending the Traditional Latin Mass. So while I don't agree with him on everything, these claims against him seem utterly false and come off as calumny. No one can back them up!

GertrudetheGreat · « **Reply #49 on:** December 14, 2011, 04:18:37 PM »

Quote from: parentsfortruth

I love these people who try to say he was in it for money.

I'm sure most of these same people trying to argue that, were not even aware that he was offered a HUGE deal with a big movie company for his book, "Hostage to the Devil" that was supposed to be bigger than one of the most popular movies of all time, "The Exorcist." He was offered a VERY LARGE sum of money... a sum that even Mel Gibson probably wouldn't be able to say no to.

But, guess what? He said, "NO."

Proof for that claim?

Quote

Another thing that just boggles my mind, are these people that continue to slander him about him having an affair, when they have ABSOLUTELY ZERO evidence that he ever had an adulterous affair with anyone except the rantings of a CLEARLY INSANE man who checked himself into a MENTAL HOSPITAL because of his insano self. I wonder if people are even checking out the history of the man lodging most of these erroneous allegations about Father Martin?

I posted a docuмent, of an eyewitness, who asked Mrs Kaiser directly, and she confirmed it. You're free to ignore evidence that doesn't suit you, but don't say we have no evidence except that of a nut.

Fr. Fiore didn't notice the problems of the Novus Ordo for decades, and instead thought that NATURAL evils such as abortion were the main problem of the day. I don't expect people who are infected by the same naturalism to see the point, but for those of you who do understand the difference it should be a strong argument.

You're also refusing to say yes, Martin was a public heretic until at least 1975. Why is that?

GertrudetheGreat · « **Reply #50 on:** December 14, 2011, 04:24:11 PM »

SS,

I asked you for evidence of satanic rituals. You decline to offer any.

Like you, I believe things based on evidence. The evidence is that Martin was a heretic until at least 1975.

The evidence is that Martin was a deceiver in matters of doctrine, at least until 1974. That's what he admitted to in an interview.

This admitted apostate and deceiver is supposed to have converted at some point, but there is no evidence for that.

And his final words were about the Devil. I am so not surprised. Impurity and demons, his intense focus and interest in the latter part of his life, as Gnosticism and pretty girls were his focus for the earlier part.

ServusSpiritusSancti · « **Reply #51 on:** December 14, 2011, 04:28:06 PM »

Quote from: Gertrude

I asked you for evidence of satanic rituals. You decline to offer any.

The "evidence" of satanic rituals is in the Freemasonic infiltration itself. I believe there was some sort of satanic enthronement ceromony regardless of what MM said.

ServusSpiritusSancti · « **Reply #52 on:** December 14, 2011, 04:29:58 PM »

Quote from: Gertrude

Like you, I believe things based on evidence.

Ok, so can you provide me some evidence that MM had affairs?

s2srea · « **Reply #53 on:** December 14, 2011, 04:43:31 PM »

Quote from: SpiritusSanctus

Quote from: Gertrude
Like you, I believe things based on evidence.

Ok, so can you provide me some evidence that MM had affairs?

He did. Prior pages.

However, evidence or not, affairs or not, I believe MM had a conversion, at some point or another. I know and think he was a liberal, but eventually converted. The proof is all of the work he did to advance traditionalism. Is he a saint, I hope so. Would it ever be held as such by the Church, I don't think so. Regardless, he did do a lot of good towards the end of his life, and he did possibly many not so good things. I also think there was a smear campaign, but those are just my thoughts. But are we not judged the end of this life based on the state of grace we're in upon dying?

GertrudetheGreat · « **Reply #54 on:** December 14, 2011, 05:09:15 PM »

Quote from: s2srea

But are we not judged the end of this life based on the state of grace we're in upon dying?

Yes, of course, but this has nothing to do with whether he was saved. I hope he was, may his soul rest in peace.

People who won't accept evidence for Martin's affairs and open heterodoxy and deceitfulness, are willing to believe that he converted and re-entered the Church without the slightest evidence.

Re-entering the Church after apostasy must be, always is, a public act, testified to by witnesses. There is no such event on record. Not one of his defenders claimed that this occurred, because none of them ever admitted (and probably didn't know) that Martin was an open heretic earlier in his life.

The issue with Martin is the books he wrote and the speeches and interviews he gave. He expended a huge effort spreading the line that JP2 was a good pope surrounded by enemies. His so-called traditionalist books are dangerous and immoral. They focus on worldly concerns, such as the nєω ωσrℓ∂ σr∂єr, or demons and impurity. His Gnosticism riddles his books and other words. The only safe approach to him is not to read him at all.

I know people who came to tradition via the Rosary, which they were stimulated to pray by Medjugore. That doesn't make Medjugore a good thing, and in fact it was a satanic deception. No doubt some people, even may people, returned to the practice of the faith via Malachi Martin's work. That proves nothing, since God can and always does bring good from evil. It is Catholic doctrine that God permits evil ONLY because He will bring greater good from it.

Elizabeth · « **Reply #55 on:** December 14, 2011, 06:01:00 PM »

Quote from: GertrudetheGreat

I posted a docuмent, of an eyewitness, who asked Mrs Kaiser directly, and she confirmed it. You're free to ignore evidence that doesn't suit you, but don't say we have no evidence except that of a nut.

Fr. Casey obtained "confirmation" from a person he described as a psychopath. If Fr. Casey is to believed, the never-truly-married Mrs. Kaiser is a nut.

roscoe · « **Reply #56 on:** December 14, 2011, 06:41:07 PM »

I was under the impression that Martin repented but it sure doesn't look like it from what I have read in this discussion.

GertrudetheGreat · « **Reply #57 on:** December 14, 2011, 10:57:34 PM »

Quote from: roscoe

I was under the impression that Martin repented but it sure doesn't look like it from what I have read in this discussion.

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.

curiouscatholic23 · « **Reply #58 on:** December 15, 2011, 12:16:23 AM »

Even if Fr. Malachi Martin violated violated the 6th and 9th commandments with another man's wife (which I don't believe he ever did considering all the marxist jesuits that hated him and also considering he publically denied this type of accusation on the Art Bell show), what does the personal state of his soul have to do with his remarkable theological knowledge? The two are completely seperate issues.

And even if those allegations were true, (which I doubt) why does that give him a black eye for life? If God could can forgive a catholic for sins of this nature, why can't we?

parentsfortruth · « **Reply #59 on:** December 15, 2011, 01:30:14 AM »

Wanted to add, that I know, personally, an EYE WITNESS that saw his episcopal robes.

Just so you know, Gert. You can take that FWIW.