Author Topic: Father Malachi Martin (Read 23484 times)

ServusSpiritusSancti · « **on:** December 12, 2011, 08:50:34 PM »

I know this topic has been covered before, but I've been thinking about this alot lately. I know there are a few people here who believe that whole story about him being a double agent, in fact alot of people seem to believe that. Yet, I have NEVER seen anyone provide any proof or even any evidence that he was one.

This thread is for the sake of discussion, not to start an argument. But I am curious. Those of you here who believe he was a double agent, or at the very least believe he was a fraud, why do you believe so? Thanks in advance.

God Bless.

GertrudetheGreat · « **Reply #1 on:** December 12, 2011, 09:11:56 PM »

I don't it's doubtful that he was a double agent at least during the 'sixties. This was proved by John Grasmeir of Angelqueen using unimpeachable docuмentary evidence. Have look for a thread (I think there might have been two threads) entitled something like "Special Angelqueen Investigation".

ServusSpiritusSancti · « **Reply #2 on:** December 12, 2011, 11:07:47 PM »

Thanks, but I don't consider AQ to be the most credible source on that topic.

GertrudetheGreat · « **Reply #3 on:** December 13, 2011, 12:14:51 AM »

Quote from: SpiritusSanctus

Thanks, but I don't consider AQ to be the most credible source on that topic.

Understood. In fact I'd go further - AQ is not a credible source on any topic. In that it is no different from this forum.

But I maintain that the material I am pointing you towards is an exception. The reason is that unlike on every other subject, where people are allowed to make anything up that they like, and father it on the Church (as long as it doesn't tend to the discredit of the particular political positions favoured by the moderators), in this particular case John Grasmeir actually did some original research, obtained docuмents which had not hitherto been available publicly, interviewed primary witnesses, and published the results.

I am not advising you to accept whatever he has discovered on faith. But I would say that anybody who professes to desire the facts about Martin would read that material with great interest.

Here's the (main) thread: http://www.angelqueen.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=14932

Sigismund · « **Reply #4 on:** December 13, 2011, 07:57:31 AM »

Quote from: SpiritusSanctus

Thanks, but I don't consider AQ to be the most credible source on that topic.

In this case, you don't have to like AQ to be unpressed by be impressed by Grasmer's research on this matter.

Elizabeth · « **Reply #5 on:** December 13, 2011, 08:13:23 AM »

I seriously cannot believe that any one would cite Grasamier's slander campaign on Fr. Martin as credible.

For starters-just for starters- he banned scorers of people who offered legitimate evidence contrary to his own admitted agenda. He also erased all of Gerard's excellent research and proofs to the contrary. Grasimier is not credible. Only one who knew he could not back up his claims would resort to such intellectually dishonest tactics.

Certainly we can agree that anyone in possession of irrefutable evidence, facts and so forth would never need to resort to banning each person who presented evidence to the contrary!

Nobody ever proves the calumnies against Fr. Martin. He was heavily involved in exposing V2 satanists and ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ predators. He made deadly enemies in doing so, and some of his colleagues were murdered for their efforts.

Fr. Martin was a pre-V2 Jesuit, before he got special permission to be released from his order and write a scathing critique of the modern Society of Jesus. If we understand a little bit about the Jesuits, we may safely say Jesuit=double agent under the strictest obedience.

Elizabeth · « **Reply #6 on:** December 13, 2011, 08:21:31 AM »

Quote from: GertrudetheGreat

But I maintain that the material I am pointing you towards is an exception. The reason is that unlike on every other subject, where people are allowed to make anything up that they like, and father it on the Church (as long as it doesn't tend to the discredit of the particular political positions favoured by the moderators), in this particular case John Grasmeir actually did some original research, obtained docuмents which had not hitherto been available publicly, interviewed primary witnesses, and published the results.

I am not advising you to accept whatever he has discovered on faith. But I would say that anybody who professes to desire the facts about Martin would read that material with great interest.

Here's the (main) thread: http://www.angelqueen.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=14932

Mr. Grasmeir banned each person who brought research contrary to his agenda, or who defended Fr. Martin, and he erased all evidence contra to his theory.

So one should read the edited version of the material with great skepticism.

GertrudetheGreat · « **Reply #7 on:** December 13, 2011, 08:53:50 AM »

Elizabeth,

I'm sorry, but Martin was a heretic, openly, clearly, on any number of subjects. He was also a pathological liar, as many testified who knew him.

And I suggest that you just read the docuмents. Don't worry about the commentary.

s2srea · « **Reply #8 on:** December 13, 2011, 08:56:59 AM »

Well said Elizabeth! :applause:

ServusSpiritusSancti · « **Reply #9 on:** December 13, 2011, 09:38:55 AM »

Gertrude, I don't consider Grasmeir very credible either, for obvious reasons.

Also, how was Fr. Malachi Martin a heretic? Can you prove that?

GertrudetheGreat · « **Reply #10 on:** December 13, 2011, 09:46:36 AM »

Quote from: SpiritusSanctus

Also, how was Fr. Malachi Martin a heretic? Can you prove that?

Yes, easily. But let me say before anything else that I regard it as proof of deep ignorance of the faith that any person isn't disturbed by what he wrote.

Now if that applies to you, either you haven't read anything by him or you need to ask yourself some hard questions.

Elizabeth · « **Reply #11 on:** December 13, 2011, 12:25:13 PM »

I have read everything except Vatican, Pilgrim and a title which escapes me.

If I recall, there are problems with some earlier works written under a pseudonym?

I know that Scott Peck (psychiatrist and author who went way off into the New Age after The Road Less Travelledand People of the Lie) said something about Fr. MM's honesty..others said he lied about being a priest, but his Superior recanted the lies told before he died..

The charge of being a pathological liar is pretty harsh. Who exactly says this, and why?

If I possess a deep ignorance of the Faith I am heartily sorry.

SJB · « **Reply #12 on:** December 13, 2011, 12:38:43 PM »

Quote from: Elizabeth

I have read everything except Vatican, Pilgrim and a title which escapes me.

If I recall, there are problems with some earlier works written under a pseudonym?

I know that Scott Peck (psychiatrist and author who went way off into the New Age after The Road Less Travelledand People of the Lie) said something about Fr. MM's honesty..others said he lied about being a priest, but his Superior recanted the lies told before he died..

The charge of being a pathological liar is pretty harsh. Who exactly says this, and why?

If I possess a deep ignorance of the Faith I am heartily sorry.

I think maybe Gertrude the Great was speaking of reading the docuмents referred to, not Fr. MM's books.

ServusSpiritusSancti · « **Reply #13 on:** December 13, 2011, 03:32:33 PM »

Quote from: GertrudetheGreat

Yes, easily. But let me say before anything else that I regard it as proof of deep ignorance of the faith that any person isn't disturbed by what he wrote.

Now if that applies to you, either you haven't read anything by him or you need to ask yourself some hard questions.

I don't think I've ever read anything he wrote, though I have listened to a few interviews with him on YouTube.

As for the docuмentation on him by Grasmeir, I looked at it and it is about what I expected: a docuмentation that didn't really provide any sources to back up its claims. And yet only a few people questioned it, most others simply flung themselves into accepting it.

Elizabeth · « **Reply #14 on:** December 13, 2011, 04:29:48 PM »

Quote from: SpiritusSanctus

And yet only a few people questioned it, most others simply flung themselves into accepting it.

As I pointed out, scores questioned the "exclusive expose" and were banned on site. Also the person who methodically countered the claims point-by-point had all of his information deleted by Mr. Grasmier.