It's not only about superstition, it's about the media, stars, celebrity.  People have been trained to worship celebrities. This, unfortunately, is the real legacy of Abp. Sheen, who I'm quite sure was being used by the devil for this purpose.  It's all part of the build-up to Anti-Christ, who will certainly be a media star to the nth degree.  The media, movies, TV, radio, all of this is high-tech magic.  The devil wants to make people trust what they see on TV, trusting notoriety and popularity rather than truth, and eventually he'll use this to spring Anti-Christ on them.  

That is your narrow vision as a new Catholic and former avid movie fan and film-maker, living somewhat near Hollywood. I have spent a lot of time in that area in addition to attending art school on the West Coast-it is safe to say that area of the US has more than its share of celebrity worship.  

 Most traditional Catholics have had an intuitive disdain for celebrity worship and preferred reading books to watching movies and TV.  Not all people have been trained to worship celebrities.  While I agree with your view of the media being high-tech magic,  I believe this is a mistaken attribute  view of traditional Catholics.

I really don't know much about Fr.Malachi Martin, but I can't help but notice that one of the trends I observe in the people who call him double agent, adulterer, etc. is that they often tend to think that the most influence the devil has on earth is a whisper in your ear, that anecdotes of exorcisms and demonic activity are fairy tales and the reported occurrences are hoaxes, Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ is basically non-existent, and that satanists are a bunch of dorky kids gathering around a campfire at night killing a rabbit every once in a while.

I could go so far as to say that they don't seriously believe in the physical existence of the devil. No one needs court docuмents to prove things of this nature because they are visible for all to see.

For me that's a red flag when anything regarding religion is concerned, let alone the reputation of an EXORCIST.

He wasn't an exorcist. And I don't believe he ever performed a single one, but if evidence appears for one, that will change my mind on that fact.  Martin's claim to be an exorcist requires evidence that he had training from somebody authorised to provide it, and an appointment by ecclesiastical authority.  Neither is likely to appear.

You really have no idea of how to approach a claim of fact.  I believe in the reality of the devil, of demonic possession, of Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ, of the infiltration of Freemasons into the Church, of their responsibility for much of the damage of Vatican II, and of the evil motivations of many of the key players in the Church in the last fifty years.

But I don't believe that any individual performed a specific claimed act unless it is evident.  Hence I don't believe that the event described by Martin in Windswept House took place.  Not because I think such a thing in itself impossible or even unlikely (although his story contains details which are exceedingly unlikely, and the unliklihood of him knowing them all is off the scale), but that there is no evidence for the story except the say-so of Walter Mitty II.

Somebody could claim that Montini traveled to Russia and had meetings with the KGB in 1955 and knowing what we do about Montini's life, the story would be in itself plausible, but without evidence my intellect would not move from doubt to assent.  

What does it take for people to understand the depths of the Freemasonic infiltration in the Vatican? Can you prove that what he wrote was fiction?

This quote of yours displays the weirdest intellectual process.  It appears to be the assertion that if any factual claim chimes in with one's general outlook, it is true.  And if anybody disputes it, they must be motivated by a rejection of the general outlook you use to assess claims of fact.  Both parts of this are weird and irrational.  But the most irrational of all is the demand that others prove that what Martin wrote was fiction.  How weird is that?  Even if he didn't openly publish it as fiction, as he most certainly did, why would the onus be on those who withhold intellectual assent from his claims?

Likewise the focus on discrediting Kaiser while ignoring the letter from the priest who is an eyewitness to Mrs. Kaiser admitting to an affair with Martin.  Likewise the ignoring of all evidence (including his own admissions) that Martin was an open heretic.  Likewise the diary of Wilson, who says that Martin had a girlfriend.

I asked you a question above, regarding some claim that you said you accepted, and you ignored it.  I ask again, what evidence satisfies you?

Elizabeth,


Fr. Fiore is one of those mysterious characters who appeared out of the blue, and was hailed immediately as a hero of the resistance, yet nobody seems to have any information on what he did from 1962, when he was ordained, until he joined the Fraternity of St. Peter, in the 1990s (or was it later?).  I recall his magical appearance, and I recall being surprised at the praise heaped on this newcomer by people whom one would think would be a little less excited by such an apparition, but I don't recall when this happened.  Even the published obituaries seem strangely silent about his history.  The little I can dig up on him reveals a man whose prime interest was in cooperating with various Protestants in fighting for home-schooling, right-to-life, and against anti-religious forces in general.  All good stuff in itself (although one of his associations, The Religious Roundtable, was essentially ecuмenist, holding an annual prayer breakfast to "pray for America"), but typically naturalistic in focus as is the case with all such Novus-entrapped people.

Why do people who won't believe other non-traditionalist sources believe what Fr. Fiore says?

And I am not asserting that Fr. Fiore was a bad man.  I am simply pointing out that he didn't seem to notice the problems in the Church and their real causes for thirty of forty years, so he was hardly a great judge of orthodoxy, or in fact anything else.  He is exactly the type to get taken in by Malachi Martin.

The obituaries were strangely silent about his work as an exorcist, for obvious reasons.

How merciless you are about Fr. Martin's associate Fr. Fiore, Gertrude.  What you dismiss as 'naturalistic' is a priest who assisted victims of clerical sex abuse, long before anyone would even believe there was such a thing.  

From Leon Podles

"Fiore said that he discovered sɛҳuąƖ abuse at his first asignment and was deeply disturbed by the way it was covered up by the hierarchy.  Over the years he assisted about a hundred victims of sɛҳuąƖ abuse.  With aid from Kunz Fiore prepared a dossier on the problems of the Catholic Church in the United States and had it delivered to the pope by a friend of Msgr. Dziwisz, the secretary of Pope John Paul.  The pope ignored the dossier."

http://podles.org/case-studies/files/Alfred-Kunz-Murder.pdf

R.I.P. Father Fiore.  

The obituaries were strangely silent about his work as an exorcist, for obvious reasons.

Fiore was an exorcist too?

 How merciless you are about Fr. Martin's associate Fr. Fiore, Gertrude.  

So if I question the judgement of a man whose judgement was manifestly unsound, I am "merciless"? I specifically stated that I was not questioning that he was a good man.

See what irrationality one adopts in the attempt to believe that Martin was a good guide of souls.

Quote from: GertrudetheGreat

When did this blasphemer re-enter the Church, abjure his errors before witnesses, decry them publicly as manifest sins, and make a profession of faith?

 I have no idea, but if your research is as cavalier as your dismissal of Fr. Fiore, maybe you missed it.  Where are the records of all abjurations kept?  

It would be recorded by the priest before whom it was made.  But there is no claim that he made one, by himself or by his friends.  You go look for one, Elizabeth, but keep in mind you are looking for something that nobody in the whole world says exists.  That ought to be an interesting search.

Quote from: GertrudetheGreat

.  What you have presented is a friend of Martin repeating things Martin told him, without the slightest evidentiary basis.

 As have you claimed that MM committed other adulteries (aside from the Kaiser claims) without evidence.

Wilson's diary.

And before you dismiss Wilson off-hand, recall that Martin himself was confronted in an interview by facts stated by Wilson in his diary, and Martin did not discredit Wilson but rather he confirmed the truth of those assertions.

It would be recorded by the priest before whom it was made.  But there is no claim that he made one, by himself or by his friends.  You go look for one, Elizabeth, but keep in mind you are looking for something that nobody in the whole world says exists.  That ought to be an interesting search.

We could use his letter about his reputation as evidence of why he chose not to answer his enemies.

So you mean to say if nobody claimed he made an abjuration he could not have possibly done so?  It could not have happened because no one has come forward?   What if a priest had been trained to never defend himself, for example?

That was the way my Irish Catholic parents were formed. (They both attended the same elementary school.)   Nobody was allowed to defend himself or allow anyone else to do so.  (I have no idea if that was an error, but I know it was the cultural norm -for lack of another term-the same as never breathing a word against a priest or nun, no matter what.