Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => Crisis in the Church => Topic started by: 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.
-
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".
-
Thanks, but I don't consider AQ to be the most credible source on that topic.
-
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
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
Well said Elizabeth! :applause:
-
Gertrude, I don't consider Grasmeir very credible either, for obvious reasons.
Also, how was Fr. Malachi Martin a heretic? Can you prove that?
-
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.
-
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 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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
So, did you read the docuмents?
Or just Fr. Martin's books?
-
I think maybe Gertrude the Great was speaking of reading the docuмents referred to, not Fr. MM's books.
No, I meant the books. Have a look at Hostage to the Devil or Windswept House. They're both heterodox in morals, and Hostage to the Devil is at least erroneous in faith. Martin actually says that the priest is the one most at risk in an exorcism. What puerile, absurd, unorthodox, CRAP. He also carries on in an unorthodox manner about the contest of wills which he insists takes place between the devil and the exorcist. That's complete codswallop. He naturalises everything, ironically by pretending to talk about the supernatural. He was as much a naturalist, probably more so, as JP2.
Martin is on record confirming what old friends of his are on record asserting, which is that he lost the faith in the 'sixites, specifically in relation to the Person and natures of Our Lord Jesus Christ, as well as the Resurrection. He said that his fellow Jesuits started avoiding him because of his open heterodoxy. That might be true, but I'd say it was as much to do with his adultery as anything else. The man was a walking scandal, a wreck of a priest, and a wreck of a man.
He described in an interview later that his faith came back when he hit rock-bottom, driving a cab in New York. Yet he never made any public retraction of his public errors, nor did he ever make any kind of retraction of his assistance of the enemies of the Church at Vatican II.
In my judgement Martin was certainly guilty of adultery with Kaiser's wife, and he had other girlfriends as well. He was also demonstratively in the pay of non-Catholics seeking to influence the Council.
Of none of this did he repent in a way that anybody can verify. That should raise alarm bells with anybody who knows anything. But even without that consideration, it remains a public fact that he lost the faith and there is no equally public abjuration of error to undo his heresy. Therefore he stands as an unrepentant heretic.
And his books, as far as I have looked through them, are riddled with errors. They are also obviously works of fantasy. I don't know how much he actually had an agenda of misleading trads by talking about satanic rituals, with all of the technicolor and juicy detail, rather than the errors and heresies of V2 and the new mass. Maybe he was just making money by tailoring some paperback trash for a hungry audience which would be uncritical of anything which reinforced their idea that the Vatican had been taken over by evil, as it had.
Somebody once descibed him as a Walter Mitty. That seems to me very accurate. Consecrated a bishop in secret by Pius XII, allowed to read the Third Secret, running about performing dramatic exorcisms, in the know about everything, etc. It would be hilarious if only so many good people were not so blind about him!
-
He described in an interview later that his faith came back when he hit rock-bottom, driving a cab in New York. Yet he never made any public retraction of his public errors, nor did he ever make any kind of retraction of his assistance of the enemies of the Church at Vatican II.
Wouldn't exposing the evils of Vatican II have been enough to show he repented?
In my judgement Martin was certainly guilty of adultery with Kaiser's wife, and he had other girlfriends as well. He was also demonstratively in the pay of non-Catholics seeking to influence the Council.
"In my judgement" basically means "in my opinion". I'm asking for facts, not opinions. Unless you or someone else can prove to me that he was guilty of adultery, I can't believe it, and surely you can underdstand why.
And his books, as far as I have looked through them, are riddled with errors. They are also obviously works of fantasy. I don't know how much he actually had an agenda of misleading trads by talking about satanic rituals, with all of the technicolor and juicy detail,
No, I don't doubt for a second that there were satanic rituals that took place during Vatican II. As for his writings, he said they were 90% fact and 10% fiction.
rather than the errors and heresies of V2 and the new mass.
First of all, he talked about that in his interviews that can be listened to on YouTube. In his writings, however, he focused on what went on behind the closed doors of Vatican II. If you really believe that Freemasons infiltrated the Vatican then I don't know why you have such a hard time believing that there were satanic rituals.
Somebody once descibed him as a Walter Mitty. That seems to me very accurate. Consecrated a bishop in secret by Pius XII, allowed to read the Third Secret, running about performing dramatic exorcisms, in the know about everything, etc. It would be hilarious if only so many good people were not so blind about him!
All of that strays away from my original challenge of people here to prove he was a double agent. So far, all I have received is the link to a biased docuмentation from an uncredible source who didn't even back up his own claims with credible sources. If you ask me, I think all of this talk about him being a double agent and these other claims were put out there by the Vatican in an attempt to ruin his reputaton and credibility so no one would take his claims seriously.
-
Martin's book "Jesus Now" (1975) had the following on the front cover: "How Jesus has no Past, Will not come Again and in loving actions is Dissolving the Molds of Our Spent Society."
Now just in case you think that clear heresy was a publisher's literary license (even though Martin never disavowed it), take a look inside and discover the most direct apostasy one could imagine.
Here's a tid-bit, but I encourage you to buy a copy and see for yourself.
Jesus was taken away, lived a short while, and then died. A marvellous plot! A complete stranger posing as Jesus carried off the part about the resurrection. There was no real resurrection, of course. It all rather reminds one of the those stories about Hitler being alive and well in Acapulco. P. 166.
Sickening, isn't it?
And trust me, that isn't the worst stuff in there. What he says about the Mother of God is unrepeatable. If Martin were in reach, I'd rearrange his face.
What really amazes me is how open Martin's heresy was, and how nobody who defends him seems to know about it.
-
Very sorry to hear that Pius XII consecrated Martin as Bp in secret. If it was secret, are U sure it is true?
-
Wouldn't exposing the evils of Vatican II have been enough to show he repented?
No, of course not. And he didn't expose the evils of Vatican II. He pushed his own heretical agenda, which centred around the notion that the Church had failed because it was insufficiently "spiritual" by which he meant it had done a deal with the world (at the time of Constantine!) and had been in decline as a result ever since. You know, the typical Gnostic/Albigensian/Spiritualist kind of thing. And as with those predecessors, Martin was fascinated by impurity of all kinds, and it seems, addicted to it as well. This is why all of Martin's books are staurated with two themes - the occult and impurity. And it's also why I say that anybody who can't see there's something wrong either doesn't have any Catholic sense or hasn't read his books.
No, I don't doubt for a second that there were satanic rituals that took place during Vatican II.
So why don't you tell us what evidenced convinced you of this startling claim, and we'll see what we need to produce to convince you of other facts.
So far, all I have received is the link to a biased docuмentation from an uncredible source who didn't even back up his own claims with credible sources.
I don't understand how anybody can say that if they read Grasmeir's docuмents. The actual docuмents are there.
-
Very sorry to hear that Pius XII consecrated Martin as Bp in secret. If it was secret, are U sure it is true?
No, I'm sure it is NOT true, like every other self-aggrandizing claim he made.
-
Thank U
-
Martin is on record confirming what old friends of his are on record asserting, which is that he lost the faith in the 'sixites, specifically in relation to the Person and natures of Our Lord Jesus Christ, as well as the Resurrection. He said that his fellow Jesuits started avoiding him because of his open heterodoxy. That might be true, but I'd say it was as much to do with his adultery as anything else. The man was a walking scandal, a wreck of a priest, and a wreck of a man. So far, the accusation of adultery is very murky.
I am having some trouble with the idea of Jesuits being offended by rumors of adultery or anyone's hetrodoxy--maybe that is because I have been to a number of events and services at Georgetown University over the years. They removed all of their crucifixes from the their hospital, etc. etc. Twenty-five years ago the priest's homilies were anti Catholic IMO.
He described in an interview later that his faith came back when he hit rock-bottom, driving a cab in New York. Yet he never made any public retraction of his public errors, nor did he ever make any kind of retraction of his assistance of the enemies of the Church at Vatican II. I believe he did, he said he could no longer make excuses for JP2. He called Paul VI an anti-pope in The Final Conclave. How public would his retraction need to be?
In my judgement Martin was certainly guilty of adultery with Kaiser's wife, and he had other girlfriends as well. He was also demonstratively in the pay of non-Catholics seeking to influence the Council. So you knew him personally?
This is so at odds with your (justified) policy of thinking the best of people, especially priests! It is as if another person is writing this. How do you KNOW he was guilty of adultery and having girlfriends?
Of none of this did he repent in a way that anybody can verify. That should raise alarm bells with anybody who knows anything. But even without that consideration, it remains a public fact that he lost the faith and there is no equally public abjuration of error to undo his heresy. Therefore he stands as an unrepentant heretic. Fr. Fiore said he died with the Sacraments. How can anyone verify what happens in the Confessional? Alarm bells with anybody who knows anything? Plenty of saints were notorious sinners before they found their way back to God's merciful grace. They made restitution for those they had harmed, did penance and works of mercy. (I am not calling MM a saint.) What does the Church require for satisfaction of what MM is being accused of?
And his books, as far as I have looked through them, are riddled with errors. They are also obviously works of fantasy. I don't know how much he actually had an agenda of misleading trads by talking about satanic rituals, with all of the technicolor and juicy detail, rather than the errors and heresies of V2 and the new mass. Maybe he was just making money by tailoring some paperback trash for a hungry audience which would be uncritical of anything which reinforced their idea that the Vatican had been taken over by evil, as it had. Those who have never seen demonic possession need to be very grateful. The novels would be works of fantasy. Wouldn't it be logical for an exorcist to be more interested in writing about satanic forces in the Church than errors and heresies? Not everybody needs to deal with one single aspect of the crisis in the Church, do they?
Somebody once descibed him as a Walter Mitty. That seems to me very accurate. Consecrated a bishop in secret by Pius XII, allowed to read the Third Secret, running about performing dramatic exorcisms, in the know about everything, etc. It would be hilarious if only so many good people were not so blind about him!
This is not convincing me of anything, and if I wrote this about some priest I seriously doubt that you would believe me.
-
Martin's book "Jesus Now" (1975) had the following on the front cover: "How Jesus has no Past, Will not come Again and in loving actions is Dissolving the Molds of Our Spent Society."
Now just in case you think that clear heresy was a publisher's literary license (even though Martin never disavowed it), take a look inside and discover the most direct apostasy one could imagine.
Here's a tid-bit, but I encourage you to buy a copy and see for yourself.
Jesus was taken away, lived a short while, and then died. A marvellous plot! A complete stranger posing as Jesus carried off the part about the resurrection. There was no real resurrection, of course. It all rather reminds one of the those stories about Hitler being alive and well in Acapulco. P. 166.
Sickening, isn't it?
And trust me, that isn't the worst stuff in there. What he says about the Mother of God is unrepeatable. If Martin were in reach, I'd rearrange his face.
What really amazes me is how open Martin's heresy was, and how nobody who defends him seems to know about it.
What if performing an exorcism knocked some sense into him, made a true believer out of him? He would not have been the first soul to have a profound conversion as a result of demonic experiences.
Anyway, just a thought. By the way, my replies in red are not meant to be abrasive; I just don't understand how to intersperse comments with quotes.
-
Elizabeth,
Please read this letter and tell me if you accept that Martin committed adultery.
http://www.angelqueen.org/articles/martin_docs/van_etten.pdf
That alone is conclusive evidence, but combined with the various other sources, including of course poor Robert Kaiser, there can be no reasonable doubt.
-
Hi Gertrudethe Great,,,-thanks for the link. It's almost 1:45 am so I only skimmed. I was amazed to find that this was a letter form a priest. I promise to give it the attention it deserves but at first glance it is very weird. How can he be "best friends" with a couple he knew for 3 weeks?
It appears to be a letter to request a Petition for Nullification of Marraige, but I will read it when less sleepy.
-
Martin is on record confirming what old friends of his are on record asserting, which is that he lost the faith in the 'sixites, specifically in relation to the Person and natures of Our Lord Jesus Christ, as well as the Resurrection.
OK, forget the fact that all Jesuits were not evil heretics and focus on the fact that he was an open heretic by his own admission.
He described in an interview later that his faith came back when he hit rock-bottom, driving a cab in New York. Yet he never made any public retraction of his public errors, nor did he ever make any kind of retraction of his assistance of the enemies of the Church at Vatican II. I believe he did, he said he could no longer make excuses for JP2. He called Paul VI an anti-pope in The Final Conclave. How public would his retraction need to be?
The supernatural virtue of faith has both spiritual and social effects. The heresy we are interested in is not the internal sin, but the externally manifested doubts and denials of the faith. Any exterior manifestation of doubt automatically strips one of membership in the Church. Martin himself stated in the 1970s that he expressed his doubts openly and it caused other Jesuits to avoid him.
[Wilson] reports you as saying to him, that your Jesuit colleagues were beginning to stay away from you because you overtly spoke in doubt about the central items of faith. They too shared those doubts, but it was sort or normative in that Jesuit culture, not to directly confront.
Martin: Not to ask questions.
Rosenberg: Not to ask questions.
Martin: Not to (unintelligible)
Rosenberg: Even though they didn't believe in the full divinity of Jesus either, and were you were questioning that, and questioning.
Martin: I was not, I was not in question to it. I was asking question after question about everything.
Rosenberg: Yeah.
Martin: About everything.
Rosenberg: And it was on that basis that you left. As I've known you for many years...
Martin: Yes.
So Wilson's account in his diary is accurate, confirmed by Martin himself. The other Jesuits might have been heretics too, but they knew it was career-limiting to be that open about it. And that's why Martin left the Jesuits, he says.
So Martin was a non-Catholic then (1965). His books Jesus Now (1973) and The New Castle (1974) display this lack of faith in its fullness. Here he is promoting Jesus Now in an interview:
"Jesus is the expression of man's desire for universal truth and harmony." Martin said almost as a teaser to classic theologians, saying he is not quite that blunt in his book. To do that would risk losing the agreement he wants from readers whom he expects to help save the church from itself. "I must bring the people along."
"I'm not traditional, I'm not heretical." Martin said, reaching down to knead his right calf beneath the steel support. "I've put it too carefully for that."
That's a heretic, telling us he doesn't believe, but that he has disguised his unbelief in order not to lose people. But his judgement was bad - his book is certainly heretical, actually, the most blasphemous thing I've ever read. I do not exaggerate.
And this is after his "conversion because he was poor, driving a cab" episode.
So this non-Catholic needed to re-enter the Church. To do so he would have had to publicly retract his errors (abjuration of error) and make a profession of faith. This is canonically required, and it is required by the very nature of the Church as a visible unity of those who outwardly profess the faith.
There is no suggestion, not to say evidence, of this occurring. He just started chameleonising into a semi-trad.
-
I couldn't help re-reading it.
The author sounds effeminate and gossipy, doing a favor for his nutty friend. Is this Theology professor correcting the errors of V2?
-
Elizabeth,
He's an eyewitness providing written testimony to a court. That's a weighty docuмent, by any standard.
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.
For some reason Martin's defenders also believe Modernist Jesuits who release things via Yahoo Groups.
The clarification appeared on the Malachi Martin yahoo e-group posted by a member who communicated with Fr. Tom Widner SJ, Secretary for Communication of the US Jesuit Conference, concerning Martin’s status. Father Widner questioned Father O’Keefe – now retired – and he recalled Martin’s receiving a special dispensation relieving him of all his vows except for chastity.
...
I spoke with Fr. Vincent O'Keefe, former vicar general of the Society of Jesus who is now retired. According to Fr. O'Keefe, Malachi Martin was indeed dispensed from his vows of poverty and obedience but not the vow of chastity. At the time Martin requested such dispensation, the Vatican was not dispensing priests who so requested such dispensation from the vow of chastity or celibacy. Fr. O'Keefe pointed out that Martin never married. His obituary in the New York Times, however, points out that Martin lived with a female companion.
Fr. Widner
Tom Widner SJ
Secretary for Communications
U.S. Jesuit Conference
1616 P St. N.W., Suite 300
Washington, D.C. 20036-1420
202-462-0400
Fax: 202-328-9212
Yet for some reason other Modernists who are not recalling something from forty years ago, but have access to the records, are not believed, when they contradict the Jesuits.
Malachi Martin states, and the Holy See will confirm if asked, that "In 1965, Mr. Martin received a dispensation from all privileges and obligations deriving from his vows as a Jesuit and from priestly ordination." [Congregation for Institutes of Consecrated Life and Societies of Apostolic Life, 25 June 1997, Prot. N. 04300/65].
http://www.ewtn.com/expert/answers/malachi_martin.htm
Martin was laicised - in 1965, when his girlfriend, another man's wife, was awaiting him in the USA so that they could get "married."
But of course Martin, faithless towards his Creator, was hardly going to fulfil his promises to a mere creature, and he broke her heart.
-
Elizabeth,
He's an eyewitness providing written testimony to a court. That's a weighty docuмent, by any standard.
Which court? A Marriage Tribunal or Divorce Court? He writes how Sue became "sexy" and goes on and on about how immature she was. Her husband went to a mental institution. They were partying in Rome. How much alcohol was consumed, for example. Where is the scrutiny of the priest who wrote this gossipy letter? You are trivialising the good work of Fr. Fiore , but silent about Fr. whats-his-name. (I need to take notes-not intending to be disrespectful of the Jesuit.) Where is the scrutiny of the character of Kaiser's wife, who sounds mentally ill. The Jesuit himself makes her sound extremely unstable, and his accusations sound petulant in the extreme.
Why do people who won't believe other non-traditionalist sources believe what Fr. Fiore says? I like to think that I look for Catholic truth whenever and wherever it appears. I absolutely trust Stephen Brady of Roman Catholic Faithful, for example.
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. Perhaps you have a strong opinion as to the precise nature of the problems in the Church as a layperson, who may be much younger than Fr. Fiore. He was a good priest, and if he thought that legalised abortion was the crime of the century, please have some charity. He took a lot of abuse for his position, and the American bishops run by Bernadin caused untold horrors.
I am shocked to hear you say "he was hardly a great judge of orthodoxy, or in fact anything else". You say you don't know much about him-but you are damning him with faint praise. He was a validly ordained Roman Catholic priest. "He didn't seem to notice the problems in the Church and their real causes for thirty or forty years" -- but again there he was fighting the good fight against sex education and abortion!! Maybe you are more brilliant than this simple priest, and feel that his efforts for souls were meaningless because they were too simple? Look at the times! Total revolution in the US during that time- Kennedy Assassination-crazy upheaval. Remember the huge exodus from the Church? He stayed and fought for the unborn and for parents who were rightfully horrified by sex ed in the schools!
-
Good points, Elizabeth. I have some thoughts of my own but don't have enough time to post them all right now. I'll share them this afternoon.
And you can quote different parts of someone's post by copying and pasting what you want to respond to, then type in (the name of whoever you're replying to). After you've pasted it, next to the last word, press the space bar once and then put in
. Then press ENTER twice so that you're two lines below the quote, then type in your response. Hope that helps.
-
LOL, my help didn't even come out right. Matthew needs to fix this quote feature.
-
Elizabeth,
Please read this letter and tell me if you accept that Martin committed adultery.
http://www.angelqueen.org/articles/martin_docs/van_etten.pdf
That alone is conclusive evidence, but combined with the various other sources, including of course poor Robert Kaiser, there can be no reasonable doubt.
This letter is total hogwash. I think if you re-read it you will come to the same conclusion. It goes toward establishing that she was too unfit to have made a valid marriage to Bob.
He goes on and on about Sue's instability, low intellect, flightiness, a child bride. He is just a "friend" What happened to him being a priest? Then he mentions how she got more "sexy". He spreads rumors.
Sue left her husband and got a divorce, and now this "friend" is helping them petion for an annulment! He makes her sound like a very bad mother, stupid, throwing herself at a priest. Does he counsel her to stop trying to seduce a priest? No. He's just pretending that she is innocent. Did he tell his friend to take better care of his feckless wife? Nope.
Nobody is going to believe this hogwash unless they have an axe to grind with Fr. Martin. This letter says more about its author than the serious charge of adultery that you have made.
-
I hate it when the posts get pushed to the side and formatting messes up.
-
It's doing it to my posts also.
-
Fr. Casey writes page after page about how "psychically" unfit Sue is, on and on about how she is too insane to have made a valid marraige contract to Bo, what a lying unfaithful wreck she is.
But we are supposed to believe this lying mentally impaired, immoral psychopath's version when it suits Fr. Casey's goal to acquire an Annulment for Bob?
Fr. Casey calls Sue a psychopath. All psychopaths do is tell lies and hurt people.
Fr. Casy says Fr. Martin wrote a letter to Sue in code! :jester He readily believes the worst about Fr. Martin, froma woman whom he describes thusly:
"All the circuмstances taken together add up conclusively and certainly to the fact that Sue Kaiser did not have simply a weak character or a momentary lapse ofrom virtue but rather a personality that never matured and a psychic life that never evolved from its state of psychological immaturity. Any woman who would do what she did, in the substance and the manner and the timing of her actions, would clearly and certainly indicate by these actions that she had been psychically incapable of giving the proper and mature consent required for the validity of her original marriage contract. Susan Mulcahey's actins did not proceed from a temporary weakness in her character but from a psychopathological[my emphasis] state in her personality that rendered her incapable of entering upon a marriage contract with Robert Kaiser with that type of consent required for the validity of such a contract."
Fr. Casey is no eyewitness to adultery.
Who were Fr. Martin's other girlfriends, GertrudetheGreat?
-
It's doing it to my posts also.
:tv-disturbed: I thought I'd broken my laptop!
-
Probably some of you could figure I would show up in this thread.
Here are a couple of things to ponder:
http://www.williamhkennedy.com/articles/highrankMM.html
Please scroll down to page 129 in this docuмent on this link:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/41862308/Occult-History
+RIP Father Martin
-
I think maybe Gertrude the Great was speaking of reading the docuмents referred to, not Fr. MM's books.
No, I meant the books. Have a look at Hostage to the Devil or Windswept House. They're both heterodox in morals, and Hostage to the Devil is at least erroneous in faith. Martin actually says that the priest is the one most at risk in an exorcism. What puerile, absurd, unorthodox, CRAP. He also carries on in an unorthodox manner about the contest of wills which he insists takes place between the devil and the exorcist. That's complete codswallop. He naturalises everything, ironically by pretending to talk about the supernatural. He was as much a naturalist, probably more so, as JP2.
Martin is on record confirming what old friends of his are on record asserting, which is that he lost the faith in the 'sixites, specifically in relation to the Person and natures of Our Lord Jesus Christ, as well as the Resurrection. He said that his fellow Jesuits started avoiding him because of his open heterodoxy. That might be true, but I'd say it was as much to do with his adultery as anything else. The man was a walking scandal, a wreck of a priest, and a wreck of a man.
He described in an interview later that his faith came back when he hit rock-bottom, driving a cab in New York. Yet he never made any public retraction of his public errors, nor did he ever make any kind of retraction of his assistance of the enemies of the Church at Vatican II.
In my judgement Martin was certainly guilty of adultery with Kaiser's wife, and he had other girlfriends as well. He was also demonstratively in the pay of non-Catholics seeking to influence the Council.
Of none of this did he repent in a way that anybody can verify. That should raise alarm bells with anybody who knows anything. But even without that consideration, it remains a public fact that he lost the faith and there is no equally public abjuration of error to undo his heresy. Therefore he stands as an unrepentant heretic.
And his books, as far as I have looked through them, are riddled with errors. They are also obviously works of fantasy. I don't know how much he actually had an agenda of misleading trads by talking about satanic rituals, with all of the technicolor and juicy detail, rather than the errors and heresies of V2 and the new mass. Maybe he was just making money by tailoring some paperback trash for a hungry audience which would be uncritical of anything which reinforced their idea that the Vatican had been taken over by evil, as it had.
Somebody once descibed him as a Walter Mitty. That seems to me very accurate. Consecrated a bishop in secret by Pius XII, allowed to read the Third Secret, running about performing dramatic exorcisms, in the know about everything, etc. It would be hilarious if only so many good people were not so blind about him!
Thanks Gertrude. I've never read any of his books although I have a copy of The Keys of the Blood, or something like that, but never read any of it. Someone gave it to me who read a little and thought it was garbage, but I never even opened it.
-
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."
So if he were in it for the money, and so self-absorbed, prideful, et cetera, why didn't he say, "Yes!" to such a large offer?
I'll let you come to that conclusion yourself.
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?
People doing that should really check their sources.
Really? You'd rather side with a certified lunatic rather than Father Martin?
He was very benevolent with his money. Ask anyone who knew him. He gave most of his money away! He didn't -want- the money. He helped so many people out. Gave a lot to charity.
I wonder if any of you even knew Father Fiore. That was one of his BEST FRIENDS, and the people slandering Fr. Martin should be ashamed of themselves! Fr. Fiore was a very reputable, devout man, and I doubt he could make such a mistake of character about one of his best friends.
-
I had heard about the money offer for "Hostage".
-
I have heard many people say they returned to a devout practice of the Catholic faith after reading Hostage to the Devil.
I have heard people complain about its graphic nature. I would compare that to people complaining about the use of graphic pictures to show what abortion is.
Plenty of people are in denial and people can only learn by graphic example. There are others who already know. That's life.
-
Martin's book "Jesus Now" (1975) had the following on the front cover: "How Jesus has no Past, Will not come Again and in loving actions is Dissolving the Molds of Our Spent Society."
Now just in case you think that clear heresy was a publisher's literary license (even though Martin never disavowed it), take a look inside and discover the most direct apostasy one could imagine.
Here's a tid-bit, but I encourage you to buy a copy and see for yourself.
Jesus was taken away, lived a short while, and then died. A marvellous plot! A complete stranger posing as Jesus carried off the part about the resurrection. There was no real resurrection, of course. It all rather reminds one of the those stories about Hitler being alive and well in Acapulco. P. 166.
Sickening, isn't it?
And trust me, that isn't the worst stuff in there. What he says about the Mother of God is unrepeatable. If Martin were in reach, I'd rearrange his face.
What really amazes me is how open Martin's heresy was, and how nobody who defends him seems to know about it.
What if performing an exorcism knocked some sense into him, made a true believer out of him? He would not have been the first soul to have a profound conversion as a result of demonic experiences.
Anyway, just a thought. By the way, my replies in red are not meant to be abrasive; I just don't understand how to intersperse comments with quotes.
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.
-
SJB...
Can heretics perform exorcisms that work? A priest has to be in the state of grace to perform exorcisms with any effect whatsoever.
Please explain that even up to his death, he was performing exorcisms, and they were effectual.
I argue that one in the state of mortal sin (which is what a heretic is, in fact, publicly denouncing a truth of the Catholic Church, spreading scandal to others by publicly holding an heretical position, leading others to apparent error) cannot effectually do an exorcism that would do any good whatsoever, because the devil still has the priest trying to do such a thing in his grip.
If you knew the circuмstances in which his death occurred, you would be praying for him rather than regurgitating the rantings of an insane person and repeating unsubstantiated claims of adultery about a struggling soul. He was, during his life, no different than the people on this forum.
He was a man. He had great responsibility, he did his best to expose those that are currently in power. He wasn't perfect. He was edifying to a great many people.
His last moments of consciousness were a plea to the people that were there with him, to pray for him, in his final sufferings and battle with the Devil before his judgment.
Please pray for the repose of his soul, as you should for any traditional Catholic that left this world with the monstrous temptations that effect us at the inevitable moment of death.
-
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.
-
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?
-
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.
-
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!
-
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?
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?
-
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.
-
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.
-
Like you, I believe things based on evidence.
Ok, so can you provide me some evidence that MM had affairs?
-
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?
-
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.
-
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. :laugh1:
-
I was under the impression that Martin repented but it sure doesn't look like it from what I have read in this discussion.
-
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.
-
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?
-
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.
-
Wanted to add, that I know, personally, an EYE WITNESS that saw his episcopal robes.
Yes, and I've seen David Bawden's. On video, but I don't doubt they're real, not photoshopped.
-
what does the personal state of his soul have to do with his remarkable theological knowledge?
This has nothing to do with judging the state of his soul, and is exclusively to do with whether or not he is a reliable source of fact, and a sound teacher of doctrine.
I say he was an inventer of fact, and a heretic.
But please, tell us what leads you to believe that he possessed "remarkable theological knowledge"?
-
I've heard that old cowboy movies usually had the good guys in white hats and the bad guys in black hats. I'm not sure why some Catholics decided on MM being a good guy based upon a couple of fiction works that seemed to put Martin in the white hat club.
Now we are to understand that proof of his episcopal validity is possession of the correct costume.
In any case, he is a wispy straw blowing in the wind, a manufactured headliner in his own play.
The modern world has so few real saints that they grasp at such straws.
The world will little know nor long remember him.
-
The world will little know nor long remember him.
Perhaps, as any human creature should be, for we are really nothing, except to God.
To the people he profoundly affected, his memory will live on, and the prayers for his immoral soul will continue to pour out from the people who recognized what struggles he endured through his lifetime.
-
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?
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?
It is evident you didn't read the links I provided. Since you seem not interested in finding out the truth of the matter, here's a "proof" from the reference I provided.
"Another point which evades Cuneo is the fact that Father Martin was involved in exorcism for over twenty years after the publication of Hostage .
Martin never made a red cent off of these cases nor did he openly discuss the real life identities of the victims of these cases again to ensure the privacy of those involved. Father Malachi Martin never wrote a sequel to Hostage even though he was offered huge sums by major US publishers for both book and film rights.
If Martin were merely an exploiter and opportunist as Cuneo claims, he certainly would have taken up one of these multi-million dollar offers and sold his case studies for cold hard cash. Another case in point is “Son of Sam” serial killer David Berkowitz. After his arrest for various murders Berkowitz requested to see Father Malachi Martin for spiritual guidance. Martin visited Berkowitz in his jail cell and concluded that the young postal worker turned murderer was demonically possessed. After Berkowitz was sentenced to along prison term various publishers offered Martin vast sums to write a book on the “Son of Sam” murders and his relationship with this deranged killer. Berkowitz himself wanted Martin to write the account. However, Martin refused all offers claiming that authoring such a book would be a petty exercise in exploitation and sensationalism."
So, what say you now?
-
Anyone that believes this Kaiser fellow should be :fryingpan:
HE HAD ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ FEELINGS for Malachi Martin.
Here's one of his bizarre statements:
…I had a primal dream. I was in a large room kneeling on the floor in a large circle of Novices. One of them was unmistakably Malachy Martin, who stood and announced to the group that I had been rejecting him. He proceeded to remove his cassock, lay it down and put his arms around my neck. Just as he was about to kiss me I woke up.…Now what, I asked myself, was this all about? A Freudian Psychiatrist would undoubtedly call this a ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ dream. If it was, however, I didn’t see it as a sign of my ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖity, but of Malachy’s. My dream was a warning that Malachy wanted me.
(Kaiser: 178)
Whiskey tango foxtrot?
You're going to believe this insano? Really? REALLY?
:stare:
REALLY?!
Keep shooting. I'm reloading.... :boxer:
-
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
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.
-
Anyone that believes this Kaiser fellow should be :fryingpan:
HE HAD ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ FEELINGS for Malachi Martin.
So if someone has a dream in which he is the object of ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ desire, it means he has ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ inclinations in actual life?
-
Anyone that believes this Kaiser fellow should be :fryingpan:
HE HAD ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ FEELINGS for Malachi Martin.
So if someone has a dream in which he is the object of ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ desire, it means he has ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ inclinations in actual life?
"Nowhere does Kaiser (or anyone else) ever accuse Martin of ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖly seducing them in the real world. Kaiser does not seem to realize that the dream world means nothing in reality. For Kaiser to project (yes I am using Freudian psychology) his own ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ(or bisɛҳuąƖ) feelings onto Father Martin is laughable. It was Kaiser’s own perverted dream not Martin’s. Any reasonable person can clearly see that Kaiser was sɛҳuąƖly attracted to men. His own words are proof enough. Perhaps Kaiser’s own inability to come to terms with his own same sex orientation caused him to lash out at Martin many years later. This leads to what perhaps constitutes the real reason Kaiser attacked Martin’s character after the death of the popular priest. Father Malachi Martin, S.J., Father John Courtney Murray, S.J. and Archbishop T.D. Roberts noticed Kaiser’s disturbed nature and,in the early 1960s, performed what is now known as an intervention. The three clerics persuaded Kaiser to seek psychiatric treatment and, consequently, Kaiser checked himself into a mental institution -- a fact he enjoys making light of in his various public talks.However, the psychiatric hospital where Kaiser was interned evaluated his mental condition and a team of psychiatrists diagnosed Kaiser as suffering from acute paranoia and schizophrenia. (Kaiser: 261)It is a common trend for former psychiatric patients to harbor strongly held resentments against those who suggest they seek professional help. Rather than concede that they suffer from deep-rooted psychological problems such disturbed and unbalanced individuals often lash out against their interveners and accuse them of fantastical cօռspιʀαcιҽs waged against them.Perhaps this accounts for the real motives behind Kaiser’s attack. It is a case of a paranoid attacking the intentions of someone who tried to help him. All of Kaiser’s other claims about his wife and Father Martin must be taken with a large grain of salt. It is really hard to take anything Kaiser says seriously after reading his elongated crazy rant which he published as a book. Kaiser even alludes to an alcohol problem that further added to this break with reality:
IN THE DAYS that followed, I lived mainly on gin, spent most of my nights staring at the ceiling in my bedroom, trying to process everything…
(Kaiser: 239)"
Hmm.... yeah I think so!
-
This Kaiser guy is as deluded as "the little pebble." Are you seriously going to take this insano guy's account of things; a CERTIFIED LUNATIC, over Father Martin? Really?
Also, NOTICE THAT HE DIDN'T PUBLISH THIS BOOK UNTIL AFTER FATHER MARTIN WAS DEAD!
Why?
Maybe because he didn't want a LIBEL SUIT!
-
I've heard that old cowboy movies usually had the good guys in white hats and the bad guys in black hats. I'm not sure why some Catholics decided on MM being a good guy based upon a couple of fiction works that seemed to put Martin in the white hat club.
Now we are to understand that proof of his episcopal validity is possession of the correct costume.
In any case, he is a wispy straw blowing in the wind, a manufactured headliner in his own play.
The modern world has so few real saints that they grasp at such straws.
The world will little know nor long remember him.
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? According to MM himself, his writings were 90% fact and 10% fiction. If anyone can honestly tell me that the enthronement of satan and everything else he talked about that happened in the Vatican was absolute fiction, then it only shows that you do not have a firm understanding of just what happened in the Vatican in the 60s and 70s.
-
Lighthouse said:
The modern world has so few real saints that they grasp at such straws.
The world will little know nor long remember him.
Exactly -- except it's more to the point to say that the world wouldn't know a real saint, they are too superstitious. The fact that Malachi Martin is actually admired is a truly terrifying statement about modern Catholics.
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.
The media is the new version of the "village square" where the saints used to preach, except it is the evil version of that. Whereas before, the people sought out the saints, because they wanted to hear truth and be brought to repentance, now we just want to be in awe of celebrities, turn off our minds, and hear someone lie to us. The media turns the world, vast as it is, into a small village where one man can be heard everywhere. Do you understand how dangerous this is? And who chooses who these men will be that get to have this degree of fame? They are not sought out like they used to be for their humility and wisdom; rather, they are sprung upon us, come out of nowhere, chosen by some invisible committee in the shadows. Abp. Sheen, at least at first, was closer to the truth than later media figures, but he still got people accustomed to being spoon-fed by the TV, or thinking they could trust what they saw there. And eventually he began rhapsodizing about Vatican II.
The proof? Look at how sympathetic people are to Mel Gibson. True, more and more, he is criticized for setting a bad example. But if anyone on CathInfo did even 1% of the evil this man has done in Hollywood, in his blaspheming movies, constantly romanticizing revenge-killing and other sick stuff, there would be no mercy whatsoever. This man is anti-Christ-like in what he's doing, yet people only seem to be bothered that he cheated on his wife, which is the least of his problems. His appalling films are his main problem, they send a negative and obscene message to BILLIONS, and he keeps making them. That shows you the power of charm, of fame, and it's why almost everyone will be fooled by anti-Christ, who will go well beyond Mel Gibson in terms of charm and intellect and artistic power.
Malachi Martin behaved like a charlatan, not like a saint. The fencing, plummy-accented, international man of mystery with deep connections and insider knowledge that he just can't tell us about on national radio or he might be killed... Then why bother to say anything at all, if he has to keep mum? Just so he can be famous? Unless someone can explain it to me better, it seems this man never went beyond saying "Something is rotten in the state of Denmark." Well, DUH.
Instead of simply explaining theologically what is going on, as a priest would do, Malachi Martin always took this approach of "Well, it's very deep and dark, I can't tell you all about, but I was there at Vatican II and I know, and it's really bad." Pure mystification. I can't judge his heart, but I can judge his actions, which added to the confusion rather than helping it.
And how, Spiritus Sanctus, can you not see that Malachi Martin was just another version of Tomas? Tomas posts lots of garish pictures of sexy alien women and demons as some kind of "warning" -- that is the level that Malachi Martin remained at, portraying child sacrifices in St. Paul's Cathedral, penny-dreadful fiction that had some vague links to reality. It is junk.
It may have made some people take a closer look at what's going on in Vatican II, but then, priests constantly molesting children may make some people take a closer look at what's going on in Vatican II. Does that mean what they do is good? The way Malachi Martin acted, the way he never took responsibility for what he did at Vatican II but just continued to act like some cryptic spook out of a John Forsythe novel, that doesn't tip his fans off?
-
This Kaiser guy is as deluded as "the little pebble."
Oh I had forgotten about Little Pebble!! :roll-laugh1: Perfect!
-
It is known that Martin wrote a book called The Pilgrim, under the pen name of Michael Serafian, in the early 70's, which portrays the "absolution" of the Jews for the death of Christ in a positive light. Did he ever repent for this in any way? Did he ever admit to it?
-
I must say, women who hysterically defend Malachi Martin weird me out a little. Something tells me that they would be nowhere near as concerned about a saint's reputation if he were being attacked. If Padre Pio were being questioned, they may disagree politely, but they wouldn't be all violent like they are when it comes to Malachi, they wouldn't make defending Padre Pio their pet cause. Malachi obsessives often sound sarcastic and abrasive in defending their idol, which shows me clearly there is something wrong. I am certain that most of this is based on Malachi's personal charm. It reminds me of how women acted around Rasputin, like they were under a spell.
-
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.
-
You're also refusing to say yes, Martin was a public heretic until at least 1975. Why is that?
It is evident you didn't read the links I provided. Since you seem not interested in finding out the truth of the matter, here's a "proof" from the reference I provided.
That's good, thank you. Now, are you going to answer the question above?
Now, please tell me why you think those stories are true? What is the evidence for them? I see no evidence, just more claims. What you have presented is a friend of Martin repeating things Martin told him, without the slightest evidentiary basis.
I have not claimed that Martin was only after money, so refuting that would not make a whit of difference to my judgement. My points are simply that he was a public heretic (his adultery is additional proof of that, but only additional proof), never recanted, made stuff up and never provided a shred of evidence for any of it, and wrote very dangerous books that traditional Catholics take seriously. For these three assertions there is abundant evidence.
-
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.
-
SS,
This admitted apostate and deceiver is supposed to have converted at some point, but there is no evidence for that.
http://rcf.org/friends/mbmartin.htm
-
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?
-
SS,
This admitted apostate and deceiver is supposed to have converted at some point, but there is no evidence for that.
http://rcf.org/friends/mbmartin.htm
That's not evidence of an event, Elizabeth, it's evidence of certain opinions at that point in time.
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?
As for the opinions he expressed in 1997:
JP2 was pope and there will always be a pope.
Vatican II was a good council and said "important" things, but the spirit of Vatican II is where the problem lies (i.e. Ratzinger's current thesis).
The New Mass is fine, the problem is abuses.
The liturgical experimenters don't have the approval of the US Bishops for their experiments. Naughty, they are.
Post-Vatican II supposed Marian apparitions and other "signs and wonders" are to be believed, nay, they are accompanied by genuine miracles and demand our assent.
Do you think those opinions demonstrate a clear faith and a clear mind? Or are they not compatible with the role Martin admits he fulfilled in the 1960s and early 1970s, of deceiving the faithful?
-
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.
-
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?
-
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.
-
. 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.
-
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.
-
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.
Elizabeth, what is "merciless" about this? It appears to be very calm and accurate.
-
. 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.
-
See what irrationality one adopts in the attempt to believe that Martin was a good guide of souls.
No, it is not irrational to defend Fr. Fiore and if you were not so emotional about Malachi Martin you would not resort to accusations of irrationality.
I have made many, many errors of judgement in my many years on earth. One of them is sadly joining a mob against priests, based on rumors and gossip. I refuse to ever do this again.
If Malachi Martin is proven to be as evil as you say, I will stop defending him.
So far, that letter written by Fr. Casey for a marriage annulment, as evidence of adultery, is simply not credible.
The books you have quoted look horrible. Still, in order to perform exorcisms under the authority of a bishop one would be in the Church. So, in the spirit of thinking the best of a priest, it appears the heresy had been reformed.
-
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.
-
The books you have quoted look horrible. Still, in order to perform exorcisms under the authority of a bishop one would be in the Church. So, in the spirit of thinking the best of a priest, it appears the heresy had been reformed.
The books quoted ARE horrible. Brushing such things aside is NOT "thinking the best" of a priest, it is insanity.
-
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.
Three of Malachi Martin's brothers were (are?) priests. One, Fr. Liam Martin is the secretary to the Archbishop of Dublin.
They are not friends, they have avoided being in the public eye, but they would be logical abjurers (if that is a word).
-
And how, Spiritus Sanctus, can you not see that Malachi Martin was just another version of Tomas? Tomas posts lots of garish pictures of sexy alien women and demons as some kind of "warning" -- that is the level that Malachi Martin remained at, portraying child sacrifices in St. Paul's Cathedral, penny-dreadful fiction that had some vague links to reality. It is junk.
Look, I don't agree with him on everything and do think that some of his writings were hyperbole. But I only started this thread asking for proof that MM was a double agent. I didn't ask about his views and writings.
I must say, women who hysterically defend Malachi Martin weird me out a little.
This line makes me even happier that I know how to treat women.
-
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?
Perhaps I should clarify: I believe there was a satanic enthronement regardless of what MM said. That doesn't mean it happened exactly the way he described it, but anyone who would be shocked by it obviously does not understand the Masonic infiltration of the Church. Paul VI was, afterall, most probably a Mason himself, not to mention the thousands of other communists and Masons crawling in the Vatican. I never claimed to agree with MM on everything.
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?
I admit that MM had a rather strange and questionable past. I believe he probably did lose his Faith before (or during) Vatican II but then repented. Of course, I'm not sure I find many of his accusers to be credible.
That's not exactly on-topic though. I asked for proof that he was a double agent as I was curious to see if any evidence existed. So far I am not convinced that he was one.
-
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.
He wouldn't have been defending himself. He would have been condemning himself, as he had behaved in the past, and promising to be faithful in future. Just as in the confessional, we accuse ourselves and pledge repentance. He had a strict duty to do this publicly, for many reasons including to repair as far as he could the scandal of his actions, and also to become a member of the Church again, which is a visible society of those who outwardly profess the faith.
He had publicly broken his baptismal vows and he needed to perform a public act, just as our baptismal vows are a public act, in order to re-establish his status as a believer. He had committed public perjury by breaking those solemn vows of baptism; he had to regain his credibility as a Christian.
None of his friends claim that he repented because none of them will admit he fell. That applies to his work on behalf of non-Christians at the Council, his adultery, his heretical books, his heretical admissions to various parties, etc. Their standard reaction to all of these proven facts is to deny them and try and discredit the proofs. But this is no longer possible.
And you are not required to think of him as a priest. He was laicised in 1965, wore only lay clothes for decades, and publicly apostatised. Think of him as like John Courtney Murray but immeasurably worse because more flagrant.
-
Perhaps I should clarify: I believe there was a satanic enthronement regardless of what MM said. That doesn't mean it happened exactly the way he described it, but anyone who would be shocked by it ...
I'm not shocked by it. I just don't believe it, since it is not evidenced.
I asked for proof that he was a double agent as I was curious to see if any evidence existed. So far I am not convinced that he was one.
John Grasmeier produced docuмentary proof that Martin was in the pay of non-Christians during the Council, and producing work for them in return (as well as spilling intel to them).
-
Here's another taste of Martin, in Jesus Now (1973, but this is from the 1975 edition), pp. 328, 329.
It has been fashionable among Christians for many centuries to divide a man or a woman into animal parts and man (or woman) parts. Man, as a general term to cover both males and females, was defined for us as ‘rational animal’.
This, it was stated, was his nature. An entire theology and philosophy of ‘natural’ man was built up, without any human being having a shred of objective thought as to what man in this ‘natural’ state would be like. 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.
Teilhard de Chardin saw the difficulty vitiating this long pre-Semitic rigmarole; so he took off on another line of thought based on his palaeontological and biological studies.
He goes on to criticise Teilhard's theory, having agreed with his premises, and then devopls his own, equally blasphemous and heretical theory, the "Jesus Self", which is equally anthropocentric.
-
John Grasmeir is not a credible source! I read his docuмentary and, again, it is very biased and doesn't even use sources to back up its claim. Grasmeir and AQ simply have an axe to grind with Fr Malachi Martin. I need a credible source to show that he was a double agent. Otherwise, I can't believe it.
-
The books you have quoted look horrible. Still, in order to perform exorcisms under the authority of a bishop one would be in the Church. So, in the spirit of thinking the best of a priest, it appears the heresy had been reformed.
The books quoted ARE horrible. Brushing such things aside is NOT "thinking the best" of a priest, it is insanity.
Maybe more headway would get made if you did not ascribe Elizabeth's statement to insanity. Just maybe.
-
The books you have quoted look horrible. Still, in order to perform exorcisms under the authority of a bishop one would be in the Church. So, in the spirit of thinking the best of a priest, it appears the heresy had been reformed.
The books quoted ARE horrible. Brushing such things aside is NOT "thinking the best" of a priest, it is insanity.
Maybe more headway would get made if you did not ascribe Elizabeth's statement to insanity. Just maybe.
Maybe, but I don't think so. I understand your point, however.
-
You're also refusing to say yes, Martin was a public heretic until at least 1975. Why is that?
It is evident you didn't read the links I provided. Since you seem not interested in finding out the truth of the matter, here's a "proof" from the reference I provided.
That's good, thank you. Now, are you going to answer the question above?
Now, please tell me why you think those stories are true? What is the evidence for them? I see no evidence, just more claims. What you have presented is a friend of Martin repeating things Martin told him, without the slightest evidentiary basis.
I have not claimed that Martin was only after money, so refuting that would not make a whit of difference to my judgement. My points are simply that he was a public heretic (his adultery is additional proof of that, but only additional proof), never recanted, made stuff up and never provided a shred of evidence for any of it, and wrote very dangerous books that traditional Catholics take seriously. For these three assertions there is abundant evidence.
:roll-laugh1:
So here you are "citing proof" from an obviously delusional group of people know as "The Kaisers" and then you come back at me because I cite someone who actually knew Father Martin and wrote something in his defense after speaking with him at length many times.
Then you say that he made up stuff. Well, what did he make up? The part about the sɛҳuąƖ abuse of post pubescent boys and the subsequent cover up? Oh wait... that was true.
What about the satanic enthronement of Saint Paul's Cathedral in Rome? Oh wait... that was true too, and one of the participants he named was Joseph Bernadine, who had a gαy choir singing at his funeral, but he was a priest at the time it happened. Does that count?
Asking me why I believe this guy over an obvious psychopath like Kaiser, is like asking me why I would believe Padre Pio over Sun Yan Moon.
If he were a public heretic as you claim, then why were his exorcisms effective? You've still refused to answer that question. Someone in the state of mortal sin cannot effectively offer an exorcism because the devil still has them in his grip, wouldn't you agree?
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." I don't know if you even investigated what his next book was going to be. It was going to be a tell all, and he died before he could compile it. It was to be called, "Primacy: How the institutionalized Roman Catholic Church became a Creature of the nєω ωσrℓ∂ σr∂єr." I have an eye witness that saw the notes for this book sitting in his apartment when his worldly belongings were being given out. Someone took them to keep them safe, and that man is now dead (perhaps you knew about Abbot Leonard Giardina). No clue where they are now, but obviously Father Martin was a good enough friend to Father Martin. I wonder if you're going to question the character of an OBVIOUSLY holy man that would even give two seconds to such a PUBLIC MORTAL SINNER HERETIC ADULTERER.
If he were really an adulterer (as the avowed lunatic Kaiser claims), then why did this nutjob wait until after Father Martin was DEAD like a coward and a liar, to put out these outlandish lies? I argue he was a fantastical liar, and clearly insane. You, however, concur with this schizophrenic, and Father Martin can't even defend himself now. You're in a good position...
This is a childish argument, "Yes he did!" "No, he didn't." "Yes he did!" "No, he didn't." Why don't you just shut your trap and pray for him instead?
-
This item may be of interest to some:
http://www.rarenonfiction.com/?page=shop/flypage&product_id=162813&keyword=Von&searchby=keyword&offset=0&fs=1&CLSN_758=1300852986758878c76a29db32af4968
In the excerpt below from the Look magazine article of 1966 the priest was called an inside tipster and a double-agent.
Interestingly after the artricle was published calling the priest who wrote under the pseudonym Michael Serafian a double agent, Malachi Martin through his publishers admitted that he was the pseudonymous Michael Serafian.
At The Times, there had never been a crisis of confidence vis-à-vis its reporting from Rome, but if there had been one, it would have passed on September 10. In his story under the headline VATICAN DRAFT EXONERATING JEWS REVISED TO OMIT WORD "DEICIDE," Doty allowed no Times reader to think he had pried into Vatican secrets. He was pleased to credit as his source, "an authorized leak by the Vatican."
Similar stories in The Times foretold Council failings before they happened. Most of these were substantiated in magazine pieces and books published later, though some had traces of special pleading. The American Jєωιѕн Committee's intellectual monthly, Commentary, had offered a most bleak report on the Council and the Jews by the pseudonymous F. E. Cartus. In a footnote, the author referred the reader to a confirming account in The Pilgrim, a 281-page book by the pseudonymous Michael Serafian. Later, in Harper's magazine, Cartus, even more dour, added to the doubts on the Jєωιѕн text. To buttress his case, he recast Pilgrim passages and cited Council accounts in Time, whose Rome correspondent had surfaced for by-line status as author of a notably good book on the Council. At the time, both Time and The New York Times were glad to have an inside tipster. Just for the journalistic fun of it, the inside man's revelations were signed "Pushkin," when slipped under some correspondents' doors.
But readers were served no rewritten Pushkin on the Council's last sessions. The cassock had come off the double agent who could never turn down work. Pushkin, it turned out, was Michael Serafian in book length, F.E. Cartus for the magazines, and a translator in the Secretariat for Christian Unity, while keeping up a warm friendship with the AJC. At the time, Pushkin-Serafian-Cartus was living in the Biblical Institute, where he had been known well since his ordination in 1954, though he will be known here as Timothy Fitzhαɾɾιs O'Boyle, S.J. For the journalists, the young priest's inside tips and tactical leaks checked out so well that he could not resist gilding them every now and then with a flourish of creative writing. And an imprecision or two could even be charged off to exhaustion in his case. He was known to be working on a book at a young married couple's flat. The book finally got finished, but so did half of the friendship. Father Fitzhαɾɾιs-O'Boyle knew it was time for a forced march before his religious superior could inquire too closely into the reasons for that crisis in camaraderie. He left Rome then, sure that he could be of no more use locally.
Apart from his taste for pseudonyms, fair ladies, reports on the nonexistent and perhaps a real jester's genius for footnotes, Fitzhαɾɾιs-O'Boyle was good at his job in the Secretariat, valuable to the AJC and is still thought of by many around Rome as a kind of genuine savior in the diaspora. Without him, the Jєωιѕн declaration might well have gone under early, for it was Fitzhαɾɾιs-O'Boyle who best helped the press harass the Romans wanting to scuttle it. The man has a lot of priests' prayers.
Full article here:
How the Jews Changed Catholic Thinking
LOOK Magazine, Volume 30 No. 2
by Joseph Roddy
January 25, 1966
For the simple tenets of their faith, most Roman Catholics rely on the catechism's hard questions and imprimatured answers. Children in Church schools memorize its passages, which they rarely forget the rest of their lives. In the catechism, they learn that Catholic dogma does not change and, far more vividly, that Jews killed Jesus Christ. Because of that Christian concept, for the past 20 centuries anti- Semitism spread as a kind of social disease on the body of mankind. Its incidence rose and fell, but αnтι-ѕємιтєs were never quite out of style. The ill-minded who argued all other matters could still join in contempt for Jews. It was a gentlemen's agreement that carried into Auschwitz.
Few Catholics were ever directly taught to hate Jews. Yet Catholic teaching could not get around the New Testament account that Jews provoked the Crucifixion. The gas chambers were only the latest proof that they had not yet been pardoned. The best hope that the Church of Rome will not again seem an accomplice to genocide is the fourth chapter of its Declaration on the Relation of the Church to Non- Christian Religions, which Pope Paul VI declared Church law near the end of Vatican Council II. At no place in his address from the Chair of Peter did the Pope talk of Jules Isaac. But perhaps the archbishop of Aix, Charles de Provenchères, had made Isaac's role perfectly clear some few years earlier. "It is a sign of the times," the Archbishop said, " that a layman, and a Jєωιѕн layman at that, has become the originator of a Council decree."
Jules Isaac was a history scholar, a Legion of Honor member, and the inspector of schools in France. In 1943, he was 66, a despairing man living near Vichy, when the Germans picked up his daughter and wife. From then on, Isaac could think of little but the apathy of the Christian world before the fate of incinerated Jews. His book Jesus and Israel was published in 1948, and after reading it, Father Paul Démann in Paris searched schoolbooks and verified Isaac's sad claim that inadvertently, if not by intent, Catholics taught contempt for Jews. Gregory Baum, an Augustinian priest born an Orthodox Jews, called it "a moving account of the love which Jesus had for his people, the Jews, and of the contempt which the Christians, later, harbored for them."
Isaac's book was noticed. In 1949, Pope Pius XII received its author briefly. But 11 years went by before Isaac saw real hope. In Rome, in mid-June, 1960, the French Embassy pressed Isaac on to the Holy See. Isaac wanted to see John XXIII. He was passed from the old Cardinal Eugene Tisserant to the archconservative Cardinal Alfredo Ottaviani. Ottaviani sent him on to the 83-year-old Cardinal Andrea Jullien, who stared without seeing and stayed motionless as stone while Isaac told how Catholic teaching led to anti- Semitism. When he had finished, he waited for a reaction, but Jullien stayed in stone. Isaac, who was hard of hearing, stared intently at the prelate's lips. Time passed, neither spoke. Isaac thought of just leaving, then decided to intrude. "But whom should I see about this terrible thing?" he asked, finally, and after another long pause, the old Cardinal said," Tisserant." The silence settled in again. The next word was, "Ottaviani." Isaac shook that off too. When it was time for another, the word was, "Bea." With that, Jules Isaac went to Augustin Bea, the one German Jesuit in the College of Cardinals. "In him, I found powerful support," Isaac said.
The next day, the support was even stronger. John XXIII, standing in the doorway of the fourth-floor papal apartment, reached for Jules Isaac's hand, then sat beside him. "I introduced myself as a non- Christian, the promoter of l'Amitiés Judéo-Chrétiennes, and a very deaf old man," Isaac said. John talked for a while of his devotion to the Old Testament, told of his days as a Vatican diplomat in France, then asked where his caller was born. Here, Isaac felt a rambling chat with the Supreme Pontiff coming on and started worrying about how he would ever bring the conversation around to his subject. He told John that his actions had kindled great hopes in the people of the Old Testament, and added: "Is not the Pope himself, in his great kindness, responsible for it if we now expect more?" John laughed, and Isaac had a listener. The non-Christian beside the Pope said the Vatican should study anti- Semitism. John said he had been thinking about that from the beginning of their talk. "I asked if I might take away some sparks of hope," Isaac recalled. John said he had a right to more than hope and then went on about the limits of sovereignty. "I am the head, but I must consult others too....This is not monarchie absolue!" To much of the world, it seemed to be monarchy benevolent. Because of John, a lot was happening fast in Catholicism and Jewry.
A few months before Isaac spelled out his case against the Gentiles, a Vatican Secretariat for Promoting Christian Unity was set up by Pope John under Cardinal Bea. It was to press toward reunion with the churches Rome lost at the Reformation. After Isaac left, John made it clear to the administrators in the Vatican's Curia that a firm condemnation of Catholic anti-Semitism was to come from the council he had called. To John, the German Cardinal seemed the right legislative whip for the job, even if his Christian Unity secretariat seemed a vexing address to work from.
By then, there was a fair amount of talk passing between the Vatican Council offices and Jєωιѕн groups, and both the American Jєωιѕн Committee and the Anti-Defamation League of B'nai B'rith were heard loud and clear in Rome. Rabbi Abraham J. Heschel of New York's Jєωιѕн Theological Seminary, who first knew of Bea in Berlin 30 years ago, met with the Cardinal in Rome. Bea had already read the American Jєωιѕн Committee's The Image of the Jews in Catholic Teaching. It was followed by another AJC paper, the 23-page study, Anti-Jєωιѕн Elements in Catholic Liturgy. Speaking for the AJC, Heschel said he hoped the Vatican Council would purge Catholic teaching of all suggestions that the Jews were a cursed race. And in doing that, Heschel felt, the Council should in no way exhort Jews to become Christians. About the same time, Israel's Dr. Nahum Goldmann, head of the World Conference of Jєωιѕн Organizations, whose members ranged in creed from the most orthodox to liberal, pressed its aspirations on the Pope. B'nai B'rith wanted the Catholics to delete all language from the Church services that could even seem anti-Semitic. Not then, nor in any time to come, would that be a simple thing to do. The Catholic liturgy, where it was drawn from writings of the early Church Fathers, could easily be edited. But not the Gospels. Even if Matthew, Mark, Luke and John were better at evangelism than history, their writings were divinely inspired, according to Catholic dogma, and about as easy to alter as the center of the sun. That difficulty put both Catholics with the very best intentions and Jews with the deepest understanding of Catholicism in a theological fix. It also brought out the conservative opposition in the Church and, to some extent, Arab anxieties in the Mideast. The conservative charge against the Jews was that they were deicides, guilty of killing God in the human-divine person of Christ. And to say now that they were not deicides was to say by indirection that Christ was not God, for the fact of the execution on Calvary stood unquestioned in Catholic theology. Yet the execution and the religion of those demanding it were the reasons Jews were "God-killers" and "Christ-killers" in the taunts of αnтι-ѕємιтєs. Clearly, then, Catholic Scripture would be at issue if the council spoke about deicides and Jews. Wise and long- mitred heads around the Curia warned that the bishops in council should not touch this issue with ten-foot staffs. But still there was John XXIII, who said they must.
If the inviolability of Holy Writ was most of the problem in Rome, the rest was the Arab-Israeli war. Ben-Gurion's Israel, in the Arab League's view, like Mao's China in the world out of Taiwan, really does not exist. Or, it only exists as a bone in the throat of Nasser. If the Council were to speak out for the Jews, then the spiritual order would seem political to Arab bishops. Next, there would be envoys passing in the night between the Vatican and Tel Aviv. This was a crisis the Arab League thought it might handle by diplomacy. Unlike Israel, its states already had some ambassadors to the papal court. They would bear the politest of reminders to the Holy See that some 2,756,000 Roman Catholics lived in Arab lands and mention the 420,000 Orthodox Catholics separated from Rome, whom the Papacy hoped to reclaim. Bishops of both cuts of Catholicism could be counted on to convey their interests to the Holy See. It was too soon for the threats. Instead, the Arabs importuned Rome to see that they were neither anti-Semitic nor anti-Jєωιѕн. Arabs, too, are Semites, they said, and among them lived thousands of Jєωιѕн refugees. Patriotic Arabs were just anti-Zionist because to them, Zionism was a plot to set a Judaic state in the center of Islam.
In Rome, the word from the Mideast and the conservatives was that a Jєωιѕн declaration would be inopportune. From the West, where 225,500 more Jews live in New York than in Israel, the word was that dropping the declaration would be a calamity. And into this impasse came the ingenuous bulk of John XXIII - not to settle the dispute but to enlarge it. Quite on his own, the Pope was toying with an idea, which the Roman Curia found grotesque, that non-Catholic faiths should send observers to the Council. The prospect of being invited caused no crisis among Protestants, but it plainly nonplussed the Jews. To attend suggested to some Jews that Christian theology concerned them. But to stay away when invited might suggest that the Jews did not really care whether Catholics came to grips with anti-Semitism. When it was learned that Bea's declaration, set for voting at the first Council session, carried a clear refutation of the decide charge, the World Jєωιѕн Congress let it be known around Rome that Dr. Haim Y. Vardi, an Israeli, would be an unofficial observer at the Council. The two reports may not have been related, but still they seemed to be. Because of them, other reports-louder ones-were heard. The Arabs complained to the Holy See. The Holy See said no Israeli had been invited. The Israelis denied then that an observer had been named. The Jews in New York thought an American should observe. In Rome, it all ended up with a jiggering of the agenda to make sure that the declaration would not come to the Council floor that session. Still, for the bishops, there was quite a bit of supplementary reading on Jews. Some agency close enough to the Vatican to have the addresses in Rome of the Council's 2,200 visiting cardinals and bishops, supplied each with a 900-page book, Il Complotto contro la Chiesa (The Plot Against the Church) In it, among reams of scurrility, was a kind of fetching shred of truth. Its claim that the Church was being infiltrated by Jews would intrigue anti- Semites. For, in fact, ordained Jews around Rome working on the Jєωιѕн declaration included Father Baum, as well as Msgr. John Oesterreicher, on Bea's staff at the Secretariat. Bea, himself, according to the Cairo daily, Al Gomhuria, was a Jew named Behar. Neither Baum nor Oesterreicher was with Bea in the late afternoon on March 31, 1963, when a limousine was waiting for him outside the Hotel Plaza in New York. The ride ended about six blocks away, outside the offices of the American Jєωιѕн Committee. There, a latter- day Sanhedrin was waiting to greet the head of the Secretariat for Christian Unity. The gathering was kept secret from the press. Bea wanted neither the Holy See nor the Arab League to know he was there to take questions the Jews wanted to hear answered. "I am not authorized to speak officially," he told them. "I can, therefore, speak only of what, in my opinion, could be effected, indeed, should be effected, by the Council." Then, he spelled out the problem. "In round terms" he said, "the Jews are accused of being guilty of deicide, and on them is supposed to lie a curse." He countered both charges. Because even in the accounts of the Evangelists, only the leaders of the Jews then in Jerusalem and a very small group of followers shouted for the death sentence on Jesus, all those absent and the generations of Jews unborn were not implicated in deicide in any way, Bea said. As to the curse, it could not condemn the crucifiers anyway, the Cardinal reasoned, because Christ's dying words were a prayer for their pardon.
The Rabbis in the room wanted to know then if the declaration would specify deicide, the curse and the rejection of the Jєωιѕн people by God as errors in Christian teaching. Implicit in their question was the most touchy problem of the New Testament. Bea's answer was oblique. He cautioned his listeners that an unwieldy assemblage of bishops could not possibly get down to details, could only set guidelines, and hope not to make the complex seem simple. "Actually," he went on, "it is wrong to seek the chief cause of anti- Semitism in purely religious sources - in the Gospel accounts, for example. These religious causes, in so far as they are adduced (often they are not), are often merely an excuse and a veil to cover over other more operative reasons for enmity." Cardinal and rabbis joined in a toast with sherry after the talk, and one asked the prelate about Monsignor Oesterreicher, whom many Jews regard as too missionary with them. "You know, Eminence," a Jєωιѕн reporter once told Bea, "Jews do not regard Jєωιѕн converts as their best friends." Bea answered gravely, "Not our Jews."
Not long after that, the Rolf Hochhuth play The Deputy opened, to depict Pius XII as the Vicar of Christ who fell silent while Hitler went to The Final Solution. From the pages of the Jesuit magazine America, Oesterreicher talked straight at the AJC and B'nai B'rith. "Jєωιѕн human- relations agencies," he wrote, "will have to speak out against The Deputy in unmistakable terms. Otherwise they will defeat their own purpose." In the Table of London, Giovanni Battista Montini, the archbishop of Milan, wrote an attack on the play as a defense of the Pope, whose secretary he had been. A few months later, Pope John XXIII was dead, and Montini became Pope Paul VI.
At the second session of the Council, in the fall of 1963, the Jєωιѕн declaration came to the bishops as Chapter 4 of the larger declaration On Ecuмenism. The Chapter 5 behind it was the equally troublesome declaration on religious liberty. Like riders to bills in congress, each of the disputed chapters was a wayward caboose hooked to the new ecuмenical train. Near the end of the session, when On Ecuмenism came up for a vote, the Council moderators decided the voting should cover only the first three chapters. That switched the cabooses to a siding and averted a lot of clatter in a council trying hard to be ecuмenical. Voting on the Jews and religious liberty would follow soon, the bishops were promised. And while waiting around, they could read The Jews and the Council in the Light of Scripture and Tradition which was shorter, but more scurrilous than Il Complotto. But the second session ended without the vote on the Jews or religious liberty, and on a distinctly sour note, despite the Pope's announced visit to the Holy Land. That pilgrimage would take up a lot of newsprint, but still leave room for questions about votes that vanished. "Something had happened behind the scenes," the voice of the National Catholic Welfare Conference wrote." [It is] one of the mysteries of the second session."
Two very concerned Jєωιѕн gentlemen who had to reflect hard on such mysteries were 59-year-old Joseph Lichten of B'nai B'rith's Anti- Defamation League in New York, and Zachariah Shuster, 63, of the American Jєωιѕн Committee. Lichten, who lost his parents, wife and daughter in Buchenwald, and Shuster, who also lost come of his closest relatives, had been talking with bishops and their staff men in Rome. The two lobbyists were not, however, seeing a lot of one another over vin rosso around St. Peter's. The strongest possible Jєωιѕн declaration was their common cause, but each wanted his home office to have credit for it. That is, of course, if the declaration was really strong. But until then, each would offer himself to the American hierarchs as the best barometer in Rome of Jєωιѕн sentiment back home.
To find out how the Council was going, many U.S. bishops in Rome depended on what they read in the New York Times. And so did the AJC and B'nai B'rith. That paper was the place to make points. Lichten thought Shuster was a genius at getting space in it, but less than deeply instructed in theology. Which is just about the way Shuster saw Lichten. Neither had much time for Frith Becker. Becker was in Rome for the World Jєωιѕн Congress, as its spokesman who sought no publicity and got little. The WJC, according to Becker, was interested in the Council, but not in trying to shape it. "We don't have the American outlook," he said, "on the importance of getting into print."
Getting into print was even beginning to look good to the Vatican. Yet an expert at the public relations craft would say the Holy See showed inexperience in the Holy Land. When Paul prayed with the bearded Orthodox Patriarch Athenagora in the Jordanian sector, the visit looked very good. Yet when he crossed over to Israel, he had cutting words about the author of The Deputy and a conversionest sermon for the Jews. His stay was so short that he never publicly uttered the name of the young country he was visiting in. Vaticanlogists studying his moves thought they saw lessened hope for the declaration on the Jews.
Things looked better at the Waldorf-Astoria in New York. There, at a Beth Israel Hospital anniversary, guests learned that, years earlier, Rabbi Abba Hillel Silver had told Cardinal Francis Spellman of Israel's efforts to get a seat in the United Nations. To help, Spellman said he would call on South American governments and share with them his fond wish that Israel be admitted. About the same time, il Papa americana told an AJC meeting it was "absurd to maintain that there is some kind of continuing guilt." In Pittsburgh, Rabbi Marc Tanenbaum of the AJC spoke to the Catholic Press Association about the deicide charge, and the editorial response was abundant. In Rome, six AJC members had an audience with the Pope, and one of them, Mrs. Leonard M. Sperry, had just endowed the Sperry Center for Intergroup Cooperation at Pro Deo University in the Holy City. The Pope told his callers he agreed with all Cardinal Spellman had said about Jєωιѕн guilt. Vaticanologists could not help but reverse their reading and see a roseate future for the declaration.
Then came the New York Times. On June 12, 1964, it reported that the denial of deicide had been cut from the latest draft of the declaration. At the Secretariat for Christian Unity, a spokesman said only that the text had been made stronger. But that is not the way most Jews read it, nor a great many Catholics. Before the Council met and while the text was still sub secreto, whole sections of it turned up one morning in the New York Herald Tribune. No mention of the deicide charge was to be found. Instead, there was a clear call for the ecuмenical spirit to extend itself because " the union of the Jєωιѕн people with the Church is a part of the Christian hope." Among the few Jews who did not mind reading that were Lichten and Shuster. They could look at it professionally. It read, say , much better over coffee in a morning paper than it would if the Pope were promulgating it as Catholic teaching. On other Jews, its effect was galvanic. Their disappointment set off indignation among some American bishops, and Lichten and Shuster appreciated their concern. Chances that a deicideless declaration, with a built-in conversion clause, would ever get by the American bishops and cardinals at the Council were what a couple of good lobbyists might call slim.
About two weeks before that, Msgr. George Higgins of the National Catholic Welfare Conference in Washington, D.C., helped arrange a papal audience for UN Ambassador Arthur J. Goldberg, who was a Supreme Court Justice at the time. Rabbi Heschel briefed Goldberg before the Justice and the Pope discussed the declaration. Cardinal Richard Cushing, in Boston, wanted to help too. Through his aide in Rome, the Cardinal set up an audience with the Pope for Heschel, whose apprehensions had reason to exceed Cushing's. With the AJC's Shuster beside him, Heschel talked hard about deicide and guilt, and asked the Pontiff to press for a declaration in which Catholics would be forbidden to proselytize Jews. Paul, somewhat affronted, would in no way agree. Shuster, somewhat chagrined, disassociated himself gingerly from Heschel by switching to French, which the Pope speaks but the Rabbi does not. All agree that the audience did not end as cordially as it began. Only Heschel and a few others think it did good. He invited notice in an Israeli paper that the declaration's next text had emerged free of conversionary tone. To the AJC, that interview was one more irritant. The Rabbi's audience with Paul in the Vatican, like Bea's meeting with the AJC in New York, was granted on the condition that it would be kept secret. It was undercover summit conferences of that sort that led conservatives to claim that American Jews were the new powers behind the Church. But on the floor of the Council, things looked even worse to the conservatives. There, it seemed to them as if Catholic bishops were working for the Jews. At issue was the weakened text. The cardinals from St. Louis and Chicago, Joseph Ritter and the late Albert Meyer, demanded a return to the strong one. Cushing said the deicide denial would have to be put back. Bishop Steven Leven of San Antonio called for clearing the text of conversionary pleas and , unknowingly, uttered a prophetic view about deicide. "We must tear this word out of the Christian vocabulary," he said, "so that it may never again be used against the Jews."
All that talk brought out the Arab bishops. They argued that a declaration favoring Jews would expose Catholics to persecution as long as Arabs fought Israelis. Deicide, inherited guilt and conversionary locutions seemed like so many debating points to most Arabs. They wanted no declaration at all, they kept saying, because it would be put to political use against them. Their allies in this holy war were conservative Italians, Spaniards and South Americans. They saw the structure of the faith being shaken by theological liberals who thought Church teaching could change. To the conservatives, this was near-heresy, and to the liberals, it was pure faith. Beyond faith, the liberals had the votes, and sent the declaration back to its Secretariat for more strength. While it was out for redrafting again, the conservatives wanted it flattened into one paragraph in the Constitution of the Church. But when the declaration reappeared at the third session's end, it was in a wholly new docuмent called The Declaration on the Relation of the Church to Non-Christian Religions. In that setting, the bishops approved it with a 1,770 to 185 vote. There was considerable joy among Jews in the United States because their declaration had finally come out. In fact, it had not. The vote had been an endorsement only for the general substance of the text. But because votes with qualifications were accepted (placet iuxta modum is the Latin term for "yes, but with this modification"), the time between the third session and the fourth - just finished - would be spent fitting in the modifying modi, or those most of the 31 voting members of the Secretariat thought acceptable. By Council rules, modi could qualify or nuance the language, but they could not change the substance of the text. But then, what substance is or is not had always kept philosophers on edge. And theologians have had trouble with it too.
But first there were less recondite troubles to face. In Segni, near Rome, Bishop Luigi Carli wrote in the February, 1965 issue of his diocesan magazine that the Jews of Christ's time and their descendants down to the present were collectively guilty of Christ's death. A few weeks later, on Passion Sunday, at an outdoor Mass in Rome, Pope Paul talked of the Crucifixion and the Jews' heavy part in it. Rome's chief rabbi, Elio Toaff, said in saddened reply that in "even the most qualified Catholic personalities, the imminence of Easter causes prejudices to reemerge."
On April 25, 1965, the New York Times correspondent in Rome, Robert C. Doty, upset just about everybody. The Jєωιѕн declaration was in trouble was the gist of his story reporting that the Pope had turned it over to four consultants to clear it of its contradictions to Scripture and make it less objectionable to Arabs. It was about as refuted as a Times story ever gets. When Cardinal Bea arrived in New York three days later, he had his priest- secretary deny Doty's story by saying that his Secretariat for Christian Unity still had full control of the Jєωιѕн declaration. Then came an apologia for Paul's sermon. "Keep in mind that the Pope was speaking to ordinary and simple faithful people - not before a learned body," the priest said. As to the anti- Semitic Bishop of Segni, the Cardinal's man said that Carli's views were definitely not those of the Secretariat. Morris B. Abram of the AJC was at the airport to greet Bea and found his secretary's views on that reassuring.
In Rome a few days later, some fraction of the Secretariat met to vote on the bishops' suggested modi. Among them were a few borne down from the fourth floor of the Vatican over the signature of the Bishop of Rome. It is not known for certain whether that special bishop urged that the "guilty of deicide" denial be cut. But the alternate possibility that the phrase would have been cut, if he had wanted it kept, is not pondered on much any more. Accounts of the Secretariat's struggles over deicide agree that it was a very close vote after a long day's debate. After deicide went out, there remained the Bishop of Rome's suggestion that the clause beginning "deplores, indeed condemns, hatred and persecution of Jews" might read better with "indeed condemns" left out. That would leave hatred and persecution of Jews still "deplored." The suggestion stirred no debate and was quickly accepted by vote. It was late, and nobody cared to fuss any more about little things.
That meeting was from May 9 to 15, and during that week, the New York Times had a story every other day from the Vatican. On May 8, the Secretariat denied again that outsiders were taking a hand in the Jєωιѕн declaration. On the 11th, President Charles Helou of Lebanon, an Arab Maronite Catholic, had an audience with the Pope. On the 12th, the Vatican Press Office announced that the Jєωιѕн declaration remained unchanged. If that was to reassure Jews, it came across as a Press Office protesting too much. On the 15th, the Secretariat closed its meeting, and the bishops went their separate ways, some sad, some satisfied, all with lips sealed. A few may have wondered if something out of order had happened and if, despite Council rules, a Council docuмent had been substantially changed between sessions. The Times persisted in making trouble. On June 20, under Doty's by- line, was the report that the declaration was "under study" and might be dropped altogether. On June 22, Doty filed a story amounting to a self- directed punch in the nose. Commenting to Doty on his own earlier report, a source close to Bea said it was "so deprived of any basis that it doesn't even deserve a denial." For those who have raised refutations to a fine art, that was a denial to be proud of, because it was precisely true while completely misleading. Doty had written that the declaration was under study when in fact, the study was finished, the damage was done, and there existed what many regard as a substantially new declaration on the Jews.
In Geneva, Dr. Willem Visser 'tHooft, head of the World Council of Churches, told two American priests that, if the reports were true, the ecuмenical movement would be slowed. His sentiments were not kept secret from the U.S. hierarchy. Nor was the AJC saddened into inactivity. Rabbi Tanenbaum plied Monsignor Higgins with press clippings from appalled Jєωιѕн editors. Higgins conveyed his fears to Cardinal Cushing, and the Boston prelate made polite inquiry to the Bishop of Rome. In Germany, a group for Jєωιѕн-Christian amity sent a letter to the bishops claiming, "There is now prevailing a crisis of confidence vis-à-vis the Catholic Church." At the Times, there had never been a crisis of confidence vis-à-vis its reporting from Rome, but if there had been one, it would have passed on September 10. In his story under the headline VATICAN DRAFT EXONERATING JEWS REVISED TO OMIT WORD "DEICIDE," Doty allowed no Times reader to think he had pried into Vatican secrets. He was pleased to credit as his source, "an authorized leak by the Vatican."
Similar stories in the Times foretold Council failings before they happened. Most of these were substantiated in magazine pieces and books published later, though some had traces of special pleading. The American Jєωιѕн Committee's intellectual monthly, Commentary, had offered a most bleak report on the Council and the Jews by the pseudonymous F. E. Cartus. In a footnote, the author referred the reader to a confirming account in The Pilgrim, a 281-page book by the pseudonymous Michael Serafian. Later, in Harper's magazine, Cartus, even more dour, added to the doubts on the Jєωιѕн text. To buttress his case, he recast Pilgrim passages and cited Council accounts in Time, whose Rome correspondent had surfaced for by-line status as author of a notably good book on the Council. At the time, both Time and the New York Times were glad to have an inside tipster. Just for the journalistic fun of it, the inside man's revelations were signed "Pushkin," when slipped under some correspondents' doors. But readers were served no rewritten Pushkin on the Council's last sessions. The cassock had come off the double agent who could never turn down work. Pushkin, it turned out, was Michael Serafian in book length, F.E. Cartus for the magazines, and a translator in the Secretariat for Christian Unity, while keeping up a warm friendship with the AJC. At the time, Pushkin-Serafian- Cartus was living in the Biblical Institute, where he had been known well since his ordination in 1954, though he will be known here as Timothy Fitzhαɾɾιs O'Boyle, S.J. For the journalists, the young priest's inside tips and tactical leaks checked out so well that he could not resist gilding them every now and then with a flourish of creative writing. And an imprecision or two could even be charged off to exhaustion in his case. He was known to be working on a book at a young married couple's flat. The book finally got finished, but so did half of the friendship. Father Fitzhαɾɾιs-O'Boyle knew it was time for a forced march before his religious superior could inquire too closely into the reasons for that crisis in camaraderie. He left Rome then, sure that he could be of no more use locally.
Apart from his taste for pseudonyms, fair ladies, reports on the nonexistent and perhaps a real jester's genius for footnotes, Fitzhαɾɾιs- O'Boyle was good at his job in the Secretariat, valuable to the AJC and is still thought of by many around Rome as a kind of genuine savior in the diaspora. Without him, the Jєωιѕн declaration might well have gone under early, for it was Fitzhαɾɾιs-O'Boyle who best helped the press harass the Romans wanting to scuttle it. The man has a lot of priests' prayers.
Other years, Fitzhαɾɾιs-O'Boyle was around Rome when the declaration needed help. At Vatican II's fourth and last session, there was no help in sight. And things were happening very fast. The text came out weakened, as the Times said it would. Then, the Pope took off for the UN, where his jamais plus la guerre speech was a triumph. After that, he greeted the president of the AJC in an East Side church. That looked good for the cause. Then, at the Yankee Stadium Mass, the Pope's lector intoned a text beginning "for fear of the Jews." And on TV that sounded quite astonishing. Everywhere, there were speeches on the rises and falls of the Jєωιѕн declaration, many of them preparing for a final letdown. Lichten's executive vice-president, Rabbi Jay Kaufman, had told audiences of his own puzzlement "as the fate of the section on Jews is shuttled between momentary declaration and certain confutation, like a sparrow caught in a clerical badminton game." Shuster could hear about the same from the AJC. He could also hear the opposition. Not content with a weakened declaration, it again wanted the total victory of no declaration at all. For that, the Arabs' last words were "respectfully submitted" in a 28-page memorandum calling on the he bishops to save the faith from "communism and atheism and the Jєωιѕн-Communist alliance." In Rome, the bishops' vote was set for October 14, and to Lichten and Shuster, the prospects of anything better looked almost hopeless. Priests had slipped each a copy of the Secretariat's secret replies to the modifications the bishops wanted. The modi made disconsolate reading. In the old text, the Jєωιѕн origin of Catholicism was noted in a paragraph, beginning, "In truth, with a grateful heart, the Church of Christ acknowledges..." In the modi sent to the Secretariat, two bishops suggested that "with a grateful heart" be deleted. It could, they feared, be understood to mean that Catholics were required to give thanks to the Jews of today. "The suggestion is accepted," the Secretariat decided. The replies went that way for most of 16 pages. Through all of them, few reasons were advanced for taking the warmth out of the old text and making the new one more legal than humane.
When Shuster and Lichten had finished reading, there were telephone calls to be made to the AJC and B'nai B'rith in New York. But these were not much help at either end. It was Higgins who first tried convincing two disheartened lobbyists to settle for what they would get. Yet for a day or two, Bishop Leven of San Antonio gave them hope. He thought the new statement was so weakened that the American bishops should vote en bloc against it. If followed, the tactic would have added a few hundred negative votes to the Arab- conservative side and marked the Council as so split that the Pope might not promulgate anything. The protest-vote tactic was soon abandoned. Lichten's remorse lasted longer. He sent telegrams to about 25 bishops he thought could still help retrieve the strong text. But again, it was Higgins who quietly told him to give up. "Look, Joe," the priest with the labor-lawyer manner told Lichten, "I understand your disappointment. I'm disappointed too." Then, he went off to console Shuster.
In his own room, where Higgins thinks he had Lichten and Shuster together for their first joint appearance in Rome, the priest could sound as if he were putting it straight to company men looking for a square shake from the union. "If you two give New York the impression you can get a better text, you are crazy," he told them. "Lay all your cards on the table. It's just insane to think by some pressures here or newspaper articles back in New York, you can work a miracle in the Council. You are not going to work it, and they will think you fell down on the job."
Lichten remembers more. "Higgins said, 'Think how much harm can be done, Joe, if we allow these changes to erect barriers in the path we have taken for such a long time. And this may happen if your people, and mine, don't respond to the positive aspects.' That was the psychological turning point for me," Lichten said. Shuster was still unreconciled, and he can remember the day well. "I had to break my head and heart," he said, "to think what should be done. I went through a crisis, but I was convinced by Higgins. The loss of deicide, frankly, I did not consider a catastrophe. But 'deplore' for 'condemn' is another thing. When I step on your toes, you deplore what I do. But massacre? Do you deplore massacre?" A differing view was taken by Abbé René Laurentin, a Council staff man who wrote to all the bishops with a last-minute appeal to conscience. Of itself, the loss of the deicide denial would not have mattered to Laurentin either, if there would never be anti-Semitism in the world again. But since history invites pessimism in this, Laurentin asked the bishops to suppose that genocide might recur. "Then, the Council and the Church will be accused," he contended, "of having left dormant the emotional root of anti- Semitism which is the theme of deicide." Bishop Leven had wanted the word deicide torn out of the Christian vocabulary when he argued a year earlier for the stronger text. Now, the Secretariat had even torn it out of the declaration, and proscribed it from the Christian vocabulary so abruptly that even the proscription itself was suppressed. "With difficulty, one escapes the impression,' Laurentin wrote, "that these arguments owe something to artifice." Before the vote in St. Peter's, Cardinal Bea spoke to the assembled bishops. He said his Secretariat had received their modi "with grateful heart" - and the words just happened to be the very first ones deleted by his Secretariat's vote from the new version. A year earlier, Bea had argued for getting the deicide denial into the text, and now he was defending its removal. He spoke without zeal, as if he, too, knew he was asking the bishops for less than Jules Isaac and John XXIII might have wanted. Exactly 250 bishops voted against the declaration, while 1,763 supported it. Through much of the U.S. and Europe, the press minutes later made the complex simple with headlines reading VATICAN PARDONS JEWS, JEWS NOT GUILTY or JEWS EXONERATED IN ROME.
Glowing statements came from spokesmen of the AJC and B'nai B'rith, but each had a note of disappointment that the strong declaration had been diluted. Bea's friend Heschel was the harshest and called the Council's failure to deal with deicide "an act of paying homage to Satan." Later on, when calm, he was just saddened. "my old friend, the Jesuit priest Gus Weigel, spent one of the last nights of his life in this room," Heschel said. "I asked him whether he thought it would really be ad majorem Dei gloriam if there were no more ѕуηαgσgυєs, no more Seder dinners and no more prayers said in Hebrew?" The question was rhetorical, and Weigel has since gone to his grave. Other comments ranged from the elated to the satiric. Dr. William Wexler of the World Conference of Jєωιѕн Organizations tried for precision. "The true significance of the Ecuмenical Council's statement will be determined by the practical effects it has on those to whom it is addressed," he said. Harry Golden of the Carolina Israelite called for a Jєωιѕн Ecuмenical council in Jerusalem to issue a Jєωιѕн declaration on Christians.
With his needling retort, the columnist was reflecting a view popular in the U.S. that some kind of forgiveness had been granted the Jews. The notion was both started and sustained by the press, but there was no basis for it in the declaration. What led quite understandably to it, however, was the open wrangling around the Council that had made the Jews seem on trial for four years. If the accused did not quite feel cleared when the verdict was in, it was because the jury was out far too long.
It was out for reasons politicians understand but few thought relevant to religion. The present head of the Holy See, like the top man in the White House, believed deeply in pressing for a consensus when any touchy issue was put to a Council vote. By the principle of collegiality, in which all bishops help govern the whole Church, any real issue divided the college of bishops into progressives and conservatives. Reconciling them was the Pope's job. For this rub in the collegial process, the papal remedy, whether persuaded or imposed, played some hob with the law of contradiction. When one faction said Scripture alone was the source of Church teaching, the other held for the two sources of Scripture and Tradition. To bridge that break, the declaration was rewritten with Pauline touches to reaffirm the two-source teaching while allowing that the other merited study. When opponents of religious liberty said it would fly against the teaching that Catholicism is the One True Church, a similar solution trickled down from the Vatican's fourth floor. Religious liberty now starts with the One True Church teaching, which, according to some satisfied conservatives, contradicts the text that follows.
The Jєωιѕн issue was an even more troublesome one for a consensus- maker. Those who saw a dichotomy in the declaration could find it in the New Testament, too, where all are agreed it will stay. But to what extent was that issue complicated by the politics of the Arabs? In Israel, there is the feeling since the vote, and in Mideast journals there is considerable evidence for it, that the masses of Arab Christians were more indifferent to dispute then the Scriptural conservatives would like known. By the Newtonian laws of political motion, pressure begets counterpressure more often than lobbyists like to admit. And one of the hypotheses that B'nai B'rith and the AJC must ponder is that much Arab resistance and some theological intransigence were creatures of Jєωιѕн lobbying. There was anxiety all along about that, and Nahum Goldmann cautioned Jews early to "not raise the issue with too much intensity." Some did not. After the vote, when Fritz Becker, the WJC's silent man, admitted he once called on Bea at home, he said the declaration was not mentioned. "We just talked, the Cardinal and I," Becker said, "about the advantages of not talking."
There are Catholics close to what went on in Rome who think that Jєωιѕн energy did harm. Higgins, the social-action priest from Washington, D.C., is not one of them. If it had not been for the lobbying, he felt, the declaration would have been tabled. But in his usual gruff way, Cardinal Cushing said that the only people who could beat the Jєωιѕн declaration were the Jєωιѕн lobbyists. Father Tome Stransky, the touchy, young Paulist who rides a Lambretta to work at the Secretariat, thought that once the press got on to the Council there was no way to stop such pressure groups. If the Council could have deliberated in secret with no strainings from the outside, he thinks the declaration would have been stronger.
As it stands, Stransky fears that some Catholics may gleefully pass it off as if it were written to and for Jews. "This, you have got to remember, is addressed to Catholics. This is Catholic Church business. I don't mind telling you I'd be insulted, too, if I were a Jew and I thought this docuмent was speaking to Jews." For the Catholics, he thinks it is now written for its best effect. It was Stransky's superior in the Secretariat, Cardinal Bea, who came around most to the claims of the conservatives. Bea apparently realized fairly late that there were some Catholics, more pious than instructed, whose contempt for Jews was inseparable from their love for Christ. To be told by the Council that Jews were not Christ- killers would be too abrupt a turnabout for their faith. These were Catholicism's simple dogmatics. But there were many bishops at the Council who, if far less simple, were no less dogmatic. They felt Jєωιѕн pressure in Rome and resented it. They thought Bea's enemies were proved right when Council secrets turned up in American papers. "He wants to turn the Church over to the Jews," the hatemongers said of the old Cardinal, and some dogmatics in the Council thought the charge about right. "Don't say the Jews had any part in this," one priest said, "or the whole fight with the dogmatics will start over." Another, Father Felix Morlion at the Pro Deo University, who heads the study group working closely with the AJC, thought the promulgated text the best. "The one before had more regard for the sensitiveness of the Jєωιѕн people, but it did not produce the necessary clearness in the minds of Christians," he said. "In this sense, it was less effective even to the very cause of the Jєωιѕн people."
Morlion knew just what the Jews did to get the declaration and why the Catholics had settled its compromise. "We could have beaten the dogmatics," he insisted. They could, indeed, but the cost would have been a split in the Church.
-
The books you have quoted look horrible. Still, in order to perform exorcisms under the authority of a bishop one would be in the Church. So, in the spirit of thinking the best of a priest, it appears the heresy had been reformed.
The books quoted ARE horrible. Brushing such things aside is NOT "thinking the best" of a priest, it is insanity.
Maybe more headway would get made if you did not ascribe Elizabeth's statement to insanity. Just maybe.
Maybe, but I don't think so. I understand your point, however.
Maybe you understood my point, but I don't think I made myself clear.
I did not mean headway in convincing her about Malachi. I meant headway in relation to these discussions, and in regard to other things.
-
The books you have quoted look horrible. Still, in order to perform exorcisms under the authority of a bishop one would be in the Church. So, in the spirit of thinking the best of a priest, it appears the heresy had been reformed.
The books quoted ARE horrible. Brushing such things aside is NOT "thinking the best" of a priest, it is insanity.
Maybe more headway would get made if you did not ascribe Elizabeth's statement to insanity. Just maybe.
Maybe, but I don't think so. I understand your point, however.
Maybe you understood my point, but I don't think I made myself clear.
I did not mean headway in convincing her about Malachi. I meant headway in relation to these discussions, and in regard to other things.
Then I disagree. Calling that insanity is not the problem, it is accurate. It is insane to brush aside MM's writings as if they don't matter.
-
The books you have quoted look horrible. Still, in order to perform exorcisms under the authority of a bishop one would be in the Church. So, in the spirit of thinking the best of a priest, it appears the heresy had been reformed.
The books quoted ARE horrible. Brushing such things aside is NOT "thinking the best" of a priest, it is insanity.
Maybe more headway would get made if you did not ascribe Elizabeth's statement to insanity. Just maybe.
Maybe, but I don't think so. I understand your point, however.
Maybe you understood my point, but I don't think I made myself clear.
I did not mean headway in convincing her about Malachi. I meant headway in relation to these discussions, and in regard to other things.
Then I disagree. Calling that insanity is not the problem, it is accurate. It is insane to brush aside MM's writings as if they don't matter.
I disagree, it is unfounded for you to call what she did insanity. It also implies that she is insane or acts insane, which is a problem in a few ways for you, and for making any headway in discussion or relations.
-
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.
He wouldn't have been defending himself. He would have been condemning himself, as he had behaved in the past, and promising to be faithful in future. Just as in the confessional, we accuse ourselves and pledge repentance. He had a strict duty to do this publicly, for many reasons including to repair as far as he could the scandal of his actions, and also to become a member of the Church again, which is a visible society of those who outwardly profess the faith.
He had publicly broken his baptismal vows and he needed to perform a public act, just as our baptismal vows are a public act, in order to re-establish his status as a believer. He had committed public perjury by breaking those solemn vows of baptism; he had to regain his credibility as a Christian.
None of his friends claim that he repented because none of them will admit he fell. That applies to his work on behalf of non-Christians at the Council, his adultery, his heretical books, his heretical admissions to various parties, etc. Their standard reaction to all of these proven facts is to deny them and try and discredit the proofs. But this is no longer possible.
And you are not required to think of him as a priest. He was laicised in 1965, wore only lay clothes for decades, and publicly apostatised. Think of him as like John Courtney Murray but immeasurably worse because more flagrant.
Did it ever occur to you that he didn't want to answer erroneous claims every five minutes from someone? Mr. Kennedy explains why Father Martin told him to WAIT until after he was dead to publish his bio BECAUSE he didn't want to spend "his twilight years" having to deal with all these INSANE accusations and refutations about what his life entailed. I'm sure if you were in the public eye, you would want that same courtesy. He was being attacked by multiple people on multiple fronts. Was he to answer every one of these supposed infractions with all of his time? NO ONE can be expected to do that.
I do remember that he answered two crazy women that wrote that he supposedly endorsed Medjigorge (or however you spell it), and he called it outright and in no uncertain terms, "A DEMONIC HOAX."
There have been very many traditional Catholics that were confused about what was going on, and how to understand the situation we are in. At one time, Father Martin believed that everyone should be in union with the hierarchy no matter what. You will not give him the same leeway that you would give every other traditional Catholic?
Since you're so judgmental towards Father Martin, I wonder what you're thoughts are on Archbishop Lefevbre....
Please enlighten me (in another thread, please.)
-
...these INSANE accusations...
The i word is popular lately isn't it?
-
...these INSANE accusations...
The i word is popular lately isn't it?
It was also popular in the Papal Encyclicals of Pope Leo XIII.
-
I've done my own digging on fora other than this one, and I see that "Father" Cekada had a lot of negative things to say about Father Martin. It's not hard to find.
By the name SGG, I don't doubt that he might be a disciple of this "Father" Cekada.
-
Evidently, there are multiple people using the same tactic against Father Martin.
Please don't hit me. I did a google search and found this when looking for what I could find about the so-called "Wilson diaries."
"Pure junk. The author omits any information that vindicates Fr. Martin's contentions and gives undue weight to critics of Fr. Martin. Then he demands that people produce evidence to prove him wrong, yet he would ban anyone who did.
(Robt. Blair Kaiser's book "Clerical error" where he accuses Fr. Martin of wanting him sɛҳuąƖly. Kaiser's evidence? Kaiser claims had a dream where Fr. Martin was making advances on him. )
(eg. Edmund Wilson's diaries in the 1960's are selectively edited where Fr. Martin explains that he is still being harassed by "enemies of the faith" within the Jesuit order,)
(eg. interviews with Fr. James Lebar where Fr. Lebar credits Fr. Martin with helping him learn the ropes on Exorcism are ignored. with Raymond Arroyo on EWTN as a matter of fact. )
The author also tends to cite authors he hasn't actually read.
(eg. Michael Cuneo's interview with Fr. Martin in American Exorcism.)
In fact, the author hasn't even read Fr. Martin's books as far as I can tell and as was admitted by the author at the time of his attacks.
People who actually knew Fr. Martin were not considered reliable sources (unless they were intent on trashing him) It's ridiculous.
The brilliant and gentle Dr. David Allen White of the U.S. Naval Academy was broomed for trying to defend his friend.
And I can go on and on..."
Does any of this sound familiar to you?
SGG is using the same tactics against Father Martin as people are on other fora like "Angelqueen." Same tactics as "Father Cekada" on "Fisheaters."
I'm not slamming my head into a brick wall anymore trying to convince these people that they're incorrect.
Just so you're aware....
Calumny is a sin. You might want to look it up. So goes the advice again: Why don't you just shut your trap and pray for him?
Calumny:
In its more commonly accepted signification it means the unjust damaging of the good name of another by imputing to him a crime or fault of which he is not guilty.
For the sake of your immortal soul, I pray that what you're saying about Father Martin being an adulterer (or even REPEATING SUCH A THING) is true, because if it's not, I wouldn't want to be you.
-
...these INSANE accusations...
The i word is popular lately isn't it?
It was also popular in the Papal Encyclicals of Pope Leo XIII.
Does what Pope Leo XIII said apply to what Elizabeth wrote, or to the people that PFT referred to?
-
By the name SGG, I don't doubt that he might be a disciple of this "Father" Cekada.
(By the name) :rolleyes: you don't doubt that he might be. :scratchchin:
Anyway, some of us have digressed. Maybe the thead will return to Malachi sometime soon.
-
By the name SGG, I don't doubt that he might be a disciple of this "Father" Cekada.
Actually, Gertrude claims to be a sedevacantist SSPXer.
-
That's good, thank you. Now, are you going to answer the question above?
No, you're not going to answer that question, because you can't without changing your position.
Was he a public heretic until at least 1975? Yes, obviously, indisputably. I've given you extracts from his book, Jesus Now. I could give you much worse extracts, but I won't, because I could not bring myself to publish them, for any reason.
For those familiar with the worst material in the тαℓмυd about Our Lord and His Blessed Mother, Martin retails it all and in particularly degrading language.
So here you are "citing proof" from an obviously delusional group of people know as "The Kaisers" and then you come back at me because I cite someone who actually knew Father Martin and wrote something in his defense after speaking with him at length many times.
So now the Kaisers and their dogmatic theology professor priest friend are a "group of people known as 'The Kaisers'". And Wilson is too?
And the fact that Martin asked for and received laicisation at the same time that his adultery was alleged by his adulteress partner, is insignificant?
Did the priest write that letter to harm Martin? No. He wrote it in support of an annulment application by Mrs. Kaiser. Martin was not a conservative or a trad at the time, he was an OPEN heretic, so open that he says other Jesuits feared to associate with him. HE ADMITTED THIS IN AN INTERVIEW LATER, as I already quoted earlier. Why would that priest slander Martin then? It certainly wasn't to stop the hero of tradition from successfully fighting the heretics, was it? No. Nor was it intended for publication. It was a private letter for a court, not an article or anything destined for distribution.
Rosenberg: Even though they didn’t believe in the full divinity of Jesus either, and were you were questioning that, and questioning….
Martin: I was not… I was not in question to it. I was asking question after question about everything.
Rosenberg: Yeah.
Martin: About everything.
Rosenberg: And it was on that basis that you left. As I’ve known you for many years..
Martin: Yes.
Was Wilson out to get Martin? No, as when confronted by Wilson's comments by Rosenberg he just calmly replied that what Wilson described was true, and explained it further.
Here is what Wilson had written, to which Rosenberg referred:
The three things that a Catholic priest has to accept were the divinity of Jesus, the resurrection of the body, and the immortality of the soul. If your colleagues in the priesthood began to be aware that you were entertaining doubts, they avoided and eventually ostracized you. They themselves might be loyal to their faith only by observing its ritual, and keeping its creed in a shut-off compartment rather like the doublethink of Orwell. They might interest themselves in other things, but they had always in their thoughts, this permanently paralyzed area.
So these secret heretics avoided Martin because he was too openly heretical. That is Martin's view, not some slander, which he himself confirmed.
Do you not accept that this was the case? On what possible basis can you deny it?
Then you say that he made up stuff. Well, what did he make up?
Martin made everything up which interests traditional Catholics. I listed a few samples pages back. I was not referring to Fr. Fiore when I said that Martin made things up. Fiore was clearly a dupe, as you are, sadly.
Asking me why I believe this guy over an obvious psychopath like Kaiser, is like asking me why I would believe Padre Pio over Sun Yan Moon.
But I'm not asking you to believe Kaiser. I'm suggesting you look at all of the evidence then make a judgement.
If he were a public heretic as you claim, then why were his exorcisms effective? You've still refused to answer that question. Someone in the state of mortal sin cannot effectively offer an exorcism because the devil still has them in his grip, wouldn't you agree?
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.
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.
If he were really an adulterer (as the avowed lunatic Kaiser claims), then why did this nutjob wait until after Father Martin was DEAD like a coward and a liar, to put out these outlandish lies?
I'd say because he was afraid of what Martin would do, since he had already learned how dangerous the man was in 1965. And I have no brief for Kaiser, he was a liberal heretic himself and is now an apostate. No doubt he is cowardly. But I am not relying on his testimony anyway, I see it only as confirmatory of the letter in support of Mrs Kaiser, which is an official testimony by an eyewitness.
You think I'm out to "get" Martin and you wonder why. I am motivated by those books he wrote, the later ones which trads find so fascinating. They are dangerous. If he had no influence, I'd not bother saying anything about him. And I think that everybody knows what the real issue is, and that's why they are so heated in their defence of this scoundrel. They like his later books (the only ones they know exist, actually).
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.
-
You think I'm out to "get" Martin and you wonder why. I am motivated by those books he wrote, the later ones which trads find so fascinating. They are dangerous. If he had no influence, I'd not bother saying anything about him. And I think that everybody knows what the real issue is, and that's why they are so heated in their defence of this scoundrel. They like his later books (the only ones they know exist, actually).
Yes, they do seem to like the later books. I pulled out The Keys of This Blood: The Struggle for World Domination Between Pope John Paul II, Mikhail Gorbachev and the Capitalist West, read a little and can see why even more than just the title.
The inside cover of the book also lists MM's other works, including The Pilgrim (under the pseudonym Michael Serafian) and Jesus Now, among others.
-
By the name SGG, I don't doubt that he might be a disciple of this "Father" Cekada.
Actually, Gertrude claims to be a sedevacantist SSPXer.
Yes, I am.
The name was because I joined on the feast of St. Gertrude the Great (or maybe the day after, I can't recall) but that's why I chose it. It never occurred to me that others might connect it with the Dolan/Cekada centre, although it's obvious in hindsight. It was the occasion of a comedic and tragic story. I joined to correct some arguments for sedevacantism that were wrong. I hate bad arguments for sedevacantism. After a few backs-and-forths with someone or other two of those disagreeing with me caved in and accepted what I was writing. I was amazed, a virtually unique event on a Web forum. I congratulated at least one of them on being so manly as to admit that he was wrong, and thought nothing more of it. Then I got a couple of PMs asking if I was Fr. Cekada or one of his parishioners and the penny dropped. I suppose that was the reason I made headway, giving the truth, when it usually falls on deaf ears. I can see the humour in it, but it's also sad.
Don't ever let anybody tell you that the doctrine of Vatican II - that the truth will win by its own merits - is true. It isn't true, as the Internet has proved, again and again, as if the whole of human history hadn't left us in any doubt.
-
Was he a public heretic until at least 1975? Yes, obviously, indisputably. I've given you extracts from his book, Jesus Now. I could give you much worse extracts, but I won't, because I could not bring myself to publish them, for any reason.
For those familiar with the worst material in the тαℓмυd about Our Lord and His Blessed Mother, Martin retails it all and in particularly degrading language. :cussing:
You have supplied sufffiiciently. If you gave quotes all day that prove the case, I do not believe it would make any difference to some people who are devotees.
For those who actually did read the extracts, what more is needed to demonstrate that Martin was a public heretic until at least 1975?
-
You think I'm out to "get" Martin and you wonder why. I am motivated by those books he wrote, the later ones which trads find so fascinating. They are dangerous. If he had no influence, I'd not bother saying anything about him. And I think that everybody knows what the real issue is, and that's why they are so heated in their defence of this scoundrel. They like his later books (the only ones they know exist, actually).
Some of his followers just love his interviews and recordings too, wherein Martin claims to let them in on some things that had previously been secret.
His earlier books were dangerous too, obviously - maybe not so much to trads who know their faith, but the filth is an still an unwelcome entry into the mind and can be dangerous.
In his books, even his later books, targeted at an audience much larger than Catholics (sold in airports for discerning readers), Martin portrays a Church that has defected. He scandalises many who are not of the Faith, as well as those who have it. The sensationalism and purported revelations of previously esotoric knowledge reminds me of the The Da Vinci Code.
-
Yes, I agree, RC. And thanks for the Look Magazine article and explanation. I always presume people know about that if they're interested in Martin, but that's a foolish presumption.
In case people missed it, here's the longer extract from Martin's book.
Here's another taste of Martin, in Jesus Now (1973, but this is from the 1975 edition), pp. 328, 329.
It has been fashionable among Christians for many centuries to divide a man or a woman into animal parts and man (or woman) parts. Man, as a general term to cover both males and females, was defined for us as ‘rational animal’.
This, it was stated, was his nature. An entire theology and philosophy of ‘natural’ man was built up, without any human being having a shred of objective thought as to what man in this ‘natural’ state would be like. 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.
Teilhard de Chardin saw the difficulty vitiating this long pre-Semitic rigmarole; so he took off on another line of thought based on his palaeontological and biological studies.
He goes on to criticise Teilhard's theory, having agreed with his premises, and then devopls his own, equally blasphemous and heretical theory, the "Jesus Self", which is equally anthropocentric.
I should also point out that despite the fact that Martin's writing changed somewhat in his later years, Hostage to the Devil was published in 1975, the same year he published a revised, shortened, edition of Jesus Now (the edition I have). So the man who penned and promoted the utter blasphemy above, was the same man who penned and published Hostage to the Devil. No conversion in between, the same man in the strictest sense.
Also, my copy has incredible blasphemies printed down the left side of the dust jacket.
He published The Castle, which contained a general description of his new churchless religion of the immanent Jesus Now, in 1974. Here's an extract from a review of it:
The Castle symbolizes the state of grace, the transcendence of the human condition, "the consummation of all deepest wishes" -- actualized in a society's common cultural vision. Like our personal glimpses of it -- "breakpoints" in our mundane lives -- a people's Castle is "prelogical and prerational," but supremely human. Martin (The Encounter, 1969) finds the Castle embodied in various civilizations: Mecca ("immediacy of spirit" in its arabesque architecture), Jerusalem (the chosen place), Rome (the community of persons), Peking (Mao's tenet that the "inner self" must be cultivated and integrated in the state), Angkor Wat ("calm and confident merriment"), Wittenberg (rebellion against sophistry and scholasticism) and America (Peru, Indiana -- the vision of economic and technological growth). But, Martin observes, there is no Castle now, no animating images of purpose or belonging; given the impossibility of the old civil religion, we are threatened with "an Armageddon of humanness." Con Ed and MacDonald's don't inspire our spirits. A different Castle will soon be glimpsed: it will be "as new and unexpected -- as unforetold by what precedes it -- as that of each Castle vision before it," although Martin is certain that it will express "a new liberty for the self."
That should give readers a fair idea of his views.
He was a Modernist in his adoption of the immanentism of that theory, a blasphemer in his particular expressions and direct statements about Our Lord, an indifferentist in his open praise of many religions, especially in ascribing them all to the immanent "Jesus Now", and an open denier of the historical veracity of the Gospels (he states directly that for factual data on Jesus we have only Josephus and the тαℓмυd, the Gospels don't present "fact"). He was a gnostic in his love of impurity and demonology, his suggestiveness about "secret knowledge" that only he had and his penchant for "revealing" it bit by bit, and his theory that the Church went wrong by using temporal wealth and wielding temporal power. Indeed this latter thesis was his main theme in his later books, in which he criticises "the institutional Church" in line with the books where he retailed every evil he could from the history of the popes, including of course many which were untrue. That is the real meaning of his criticism of the modern "popes" and it is only because his trad readers don't know any ecclesiology and are not familiar with his books that treat of this subject that they fail to see what he is really saying. It's obvious when you have the background. Read "The Decline and Fall of the Roman Church" for proof that Martin was completely heterodox on the papacy, the role of wealth in the Church, the right of the pope to temporal power, etc. He blamed those things for the collapse of the Church.
This is the man who published Hostage to the Devil in 1975.
I should also point out that Fr. Fiore, far from confirming the lie that Martin performed exorcisms, asserts that Martin never performed ANY - he only ever assisted other exorcists and did not dare act as exorcist himself. I don't believe that either, of course, but it does demolish the claims by both Martin and his defenders that he performed exorcisms. This is typical of "facts" about Martin - his defenders frequently contradict his own claims.
Fr. Fiore also told World Net Daily that Martin's final book would be about the subject of the papacy and the institutional Church once again, this time definitely non-Fiction. Read this and you'll see the ideas clearly expressed, and also that, sadly, Fiore agrees with them.
http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=15689
Fr. Fiore, who lives in the Diocese of Madison, Wis., and belongs to the priestly fraternity of St. Peter, knew Fr. Martin for over 20 years. He worked, by personal request, as an editor for several of Malachi's best-selling books, and spoke with him at least weekly. In fact, he told me he had spoken with Malachi just a week or so before his death and had discussed, among other things, his newest book -- a nonfiction piece about Vatican power as the Church approaches the third millennium.
Regarding that book, "Primacy: How the Institutional Roman Catholic Church Became a Creature of the nєω ωσrℓ∂ σr∂єr," Fr. Fiore said Malachi indeed believed it would be "his most controversial and important work." However, far from being fiction, the book would have dealt exclusively "with power and the papacy," and would have "analyzed the revolutionary shift in the ancient dogma of primacy that lies at the heart of what many now see as the first breakdown of papal power in two millennia."
And:
So there it is -- my corrected epitaph for a man who always put God first, not religion. My thanks to Fr. Fiore for setting me -- and those who also appreciated, admired and respected Malachi -- straight. [italics in the original]
Finally, it is not a coincidence, perhaps, that William H, Kennedy came out in support of Martin. Nor is it surprising that Kennedy was quoted here favourably by defenders of Martin. Kennedy is into the Occult and all manner of gnostic weirdness himself.
William H. Kennedy is a writer and speaker whose work focuses on religious, paranormal and counter cultural topics. Kennedy has written articles for academic journals such as Sophia: the Journal of Traditional Studies, AQC Transactions and popular publications like New Dawn & The Gnostic.
In 2004 Kennedy authored Lucifer's Lodge: Satanic Ritual Abuse in the Catholic Church (Sophia Perennis: 2004) followed by Satanic Crime: A Threat in the New Millennium (MVM: 2006) & Occult History: Collected Writings 1994-2008 (MVM: 2008).
In 2005 Kennedy began hosting Sphinx Radio which focuses on paranormal topics and founded Mystic Valley Media a book publishing and multimedia service. He started Cogscape Mind Enhancement Technologies in '07 which produces personal development audio and software programs. Kennedy became an associate editor and writer for Atlan Books (Founded 1968) in '08.
Kennedy is a popular guest on television and radio programs in the U.S., Canada & Europe. He has appeared on The Learning Channel, Meridian News (U.K.), Karrang Radio (UK), A Closer Look, Radio Liberty, The Alex Jones Show, The Jeff Rense Program, Deadline Live as well as The ‘ X’ Zone (Canada), among many others.
Sounds like a perfect companion for Martin - all the same interests and ideas.
-
I was reading an interesting book today and these passage stood off the page like they were illuminated with neon. They are a concise and accurate description of the theology of Malachi Martin, using almost exactly his words (although it was written years before he got going).
There is yet another form of the anticlerical spirit, one which stands at the opposite pole to that which marks those whose being is wholly in the world. It is to be seen in the immemorially recurrent tendency of men wholly to reject all that is institutional, all that is bodily or partakes of organization. The thing manifests itself in a sort of spiritual resentment, which envisages redemption in a mystical liberation from the material. How could such a conception find any use for the Church as an organization or for the priests who are her official expositors? Like the refrain of some melancholy ballad, the tragedy of this gnosis marches alongside of every century of our history and is a formative factor even to-day. Even Christians bear the mark of it, and particularly those who have a powerful urge towards the interior life. They dream of a ‘Johannine age’, of a ‘Christianity of the spirit’, of a ‘Church of Love’ in which ideal personalities serve as priests, nor do they notice how they have fallen into heresy at the expense of the one complete truth, and are living in consequence a withered and starved life. ‘Why is this? It is because they lack the power— perhaps they lack the love to recognize and affirm this dual polarity of matter and spirit.
True we must admit that it is in the material that the danger lies, the danger being that the material may predominate, and indeed we humans seem somehow to have a special aptitude for turning the living organism into a dead organization. The necessity never ceases for the spirit, now blowing gently and now tempest, to bring its fiery and renewing warmth to bear, saving the norms and forms of the material from hardening into crusted deadness and warming our inmost being with its glow. But the body must be there as well as the spirit—the Church must be visible, the sacraments must have their quality of signs, and the priest, too, must have his humanity, for we are both body and soul, a unity of body and soul. It is only in thought that we can sever the two; in life they are one. How much idealism must, therefore, run to waste, like so much sand, when men regard as a defect what is in reality a necessity for their completeness?
The Priest in the World, by Josef Sellmair, pp. 4,5, Newman Press, 1954. Italics in the original.
-
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.
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.
-
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?
-
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.
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:
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.
-
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).
-
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:
-
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
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.
-
Thanks, Pepsuber.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
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
-
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
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.
-
Jon Grasmeir and AQ: not credible. The docuмents look somewhat interesting but not convincing.
-
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.
-
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!
-
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.
-
I, too, want to say that that was a wonderful post, Gertrude.
What particularly struck me was the note about abortion. I've often thought that, but never seen or heard anyone else voicing it. Everyone I met in the pro-life movement were NO. While abortion is a most hideous crime that needs to be fought, it is mostly a crime against man, while the NO is a most hideous blasphemy directly against Almighty God. If they would turn away from the NO, then perhaps the crime of murder would melt away of its own accord, or at least diminish. I know that's perhaps too simplistic, but we need to get back to worshipping God in the fullest.
-
Thorn said:
If they would turn away from the NO, then perhaps the crime of murder would melt away of its own accord, or at least diminish. I know that's perhaps too simplistic, but we need to get back to worshipping God in the fullest.
No, it's not simplistic at all, it's what I've been saying all along -- if you want to take down the rotten tree, and leave room for a new one, strike at the root.
This also pertains to sedevacantism, acknowledging that the whole Novus Ordo establishment is rotten and anti-Christ.
We need the real Church back that will put heavy penalties on abortionists, refusing them absolution, and a Catholic state that will make it illegal and perhaps worthy of jail time or the death penalty. That is how serious this really is. These feminists need to have real fear put into them.
It's not that it's bad to protest against abortion, but in a situation like this, it's like standing in front of a wildfire with a water pistol. You might put out a spark or two, which is still worthwhile, but let's face it, our energy is better spent fighting the Novus Ordo.
-
I wouldn't be so dismissive of anti-abortion people!
How many future traditional priests, nuns, or saints have been murdered?
-
I'm not dismissing the pro-lifers.
The operative words in Gertrude's post were 'INORDINATE' interest in the crime of abortion WITHOUT the apparent HORROR........'
I also said that abortion needed to be fought. But let's get our priorities straight.
And how many times has Our Lord been vilified, cast aside, ignored, reduced to nothing more than our Friend, made into our image, blasphemed, etc. in the NO?
-
Y'know, I *really* learned a lot from this thread, from everyone, including Gertrude (who I definitely don't agree with on many points). In fact, *especially* Gertrude.
I think the *inordinate* (key word there) focus on abortion in the NOChurch is naturalism at its most subtle, while liturgy is continually abused
Excellent point, several of your points were excellent.
Thank you, I don't remember the last time I learned as much from someone I disagree with (re:Fr. Martin)
-
Jude, lovely post.
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.
How true is that!
The same and better used to be apparent in places like Ireland, where "Praise God" and "Thank God" and "God willing" were tacked onto sentences with hardly a thought. Prayer and a real recognition of divine providence were integral factors in the culture, embedded in the language, displayed openly by most people, scorned or neglected only by the "clever" and sophisticated.
Another integral factor is modesty of dress, actions, and words. Spiritually sensitive people blush at indelicate matters. Worldly people don't even notice that there is any indelicacy.
Archbishop Lefebvre referred to the radical desensitization to immodesty in his summary description of the terrible effects of Vatican II in his not-sufficiently-famous letter One Year After the Council:
Pride has as its normal consequence the concupiscence of the eyes and the flesh. It is perhaps one of the most appalling signs of our age to see to what moral decadence the majority of Catholic publications have fallen. They speak without any restraint of sɛҳuąƖity, of birth control by every method, of the lawfulness of divorce, of mixed education, of flirtation, of dances as a necessary means of Christian upbringing, of the celibacy of the clergy, etc.
Read the whole thing, study it, ponder it: http://www.sspx.org/archbishop_lefebvre/arch_lefebvre_response_card_ottaviani_post_council.htm
Think about what you see on so-called Catholic forums. The open discussion of matters that ought not so much as to be named amongst us.
And then think about poor Malachi Martin's books, the filth that is described in unnecessary and prurient detail. My allegation, my sad observation, is that only a soul bereft of the Catholic spirit could fail to be repelled by his writing, could fail to recognise the spirit of the world, the flesh, and the devil which permeates it. The poor man was saturated with the spirit of the world.
And that's why his name must be destroyed, despite our reluctance to think ill of any man, and despite the proper restrain which we feel not to speak ill of the dead. In his case, as with all authors of bad books, it is especially true that the evil that he did lives after him.
-
And then think about poor Malachi Martin's books, the filth that is described in unnecessary and prurient detail.
Indeed, it is sensationalistic trash. How can anyone not see that Windswept House is the same as The Exorcist? Under the guise of a "religous exposé," what is the audience really tickled by with The Exorcist? A little girl speaking filthy sex talk. That is really the secret to its success, the shock value of that.
Yes, people who are possessed really do spew filth just like in the movie. The difference is that, if you read a Catholic account of an exorcism, it doesn't reveal what they said in perfect detail. It's filthy, we get the idea.
Windswept House also sold itself with its opening scene of a black Mass. It isn't as sensationalistic as The Exorcist, but it's clear that it was meant to "move copies" of the book. Anyone who has the slightest appreciation of how Hollywood works would instantly see this, that the black mass is MM's angle, his "hook." The book would not have sold a single copy without it, nor would it have been published. Trust me on that.
Well, it is not right for a Catholic to compromise in this way, especially if all he is going to do is churn a vague story whose moral is that "Something is wrong in the Vatican." Like people don't know that already hearing about dozens of ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ pedophile priests arrested each month, we need Malachi's cryptic little novel to clue us in? Sorry -- no.
If you're going to support this, why not support some kind of Eurotrash horror film that explicitly shows depictions of black masses? I used to be fooled by these films too, when I was a wannabe filmmaker. As if God would approve of a film "exposing" witchcraft by showing pornographic scenes of witchcraft and then tacking on a disapproving moral at the end -- that isn't "exposing" witchcraft... That IS witchcraft.
-
P.S. The films of Mel Gibson are also witchcraft, subtly invoking hideous morals that will lead souls to hell. Yet people support him and think he's just slightly troubled. Shows how easy it is to fool people. How many films does Mel have to make where he romanticizes cold-blooded murder before people realize that making ONE Christ movie doesn't cover for it? This man needs to make public reparation for his fiendish and double-minded actions.
-
On the other hand,at least in the US, the use of the Rite of Exorcism had been suppressed along with the graces of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass.
Gone were thousands of nuns and priests. The seminaries became moral cesspools, Catholic schools and churches closed, abortion legalised, mind controlling TV in every house, drug addiction epidemic, violent crime epidemic--we all know the list of filth thrown in our faces every day. The Catholic clergy scandals alone should tell us that there were lots of possessed priests att large. The pornography industry is one of the richest in the world. "Mental illness" touches almost every family.
Are we supposed to believe in "mental illness" and corporate pharmaceutical "cures"?
Only the Roman Catholic Church has the authority to cast out demons. The feckless and faithless modernists want everyone to believe that demonic possession is a medieval hoax; nobody is possessed. They have convinced millions that the aborted babies had no soul, that people should be killed when they become too sick, that cloning is OK.
Are we going to deny that demonic influences are rampant and that our clergy are not dealing with the problem?
I say let's not throw the baby out with the bath water.
-
Elizabeth, most of the clergy ARE the problem.
If we want to fix the problem, we need to look in the mirror. Just sayin'.
-
As if God would approve of a film "exposing" witchcraft by showing pornographic scenes of witchcraft and then tacking on a disapproving moral at the end -- that isn't "exposing" witchcraft... That IS witchcraft.
Even more basically, it IS pornography.
And a bid Amen on the Mel Gibson comment
-
Elizabeth, most of the clergy ARE the problem.
If we want to fix the problem, we need to look in the mirror. Just sayin'.
I don't quite understand what you mean, unless you are a priest?
Here's what I was trying to say- MM sort of alerted the public to the fact that demonic infestation, obsession, and possession are not out-dated like the Latin Mass.
-
I don't quite understand what you mean, unless you are a priest?
My mistake, I forgot you are an ex-Carmelite nun.
-
Guess we both misunderstood each other. I was referring to ALL the problems in the church today while you were specifying demonic influences. I don't think trads believe that possession, etc. is out-dated. At least I sure don't. The devil is alive & well these days. When I said we need to look in the mirror I meant that WE the people in the pew need to help fix the problems & not look for everyone else to shape up. I still say the clergy ARE a big part of the problems but how does that equal I must be a priest? I was a Carmelite but don't know how that fits in either.
I recently read 'The Rite' by Matt Baglio (only because it was recommended by someone - a non-trad) & I've never read such ignorance of the true church. Obviously Baglio & the priests he wrote about are all NO & totally clueless. I'm going to write to Baglio & try to shed some light. I'm doing my little part!
-
Elizabeth,
And what good exactly came from people focusing on diabolical possession?
I am not suggesting there weren't a few conversions, but Medjugore produced some too.
The point is that diabolical possession has always existed, and has never had the primary interest of Christians. It's always been the concern of a few specialists, at least during healthy periods. The unhealthy periods were when the Protestant witch-trial mania infected Catholic areas to some degree.
What excited people about Martin's book was the sensationalism of it, the prurient interest it fed, the sense of a sporting contest that he created, in which the Exorcist was risking his own soul to come to the aid of the poor innocent who was possessed. Those are all worldly motives. (And as I've said, the risk to the soul of the Exorcist is fairy-tale stuff anyway.)
What was the practical benefit? Nothing.
In 1975, when that book appeared, the crisis in the Church was as dramatic as it ever got, because floods of priests and religious were still apostatising, clown "masses" and such like were proliferating, etc. Martin noticed none of it, didn't care. He had more exciting things on his mind, especially making money and presenting his New Age religion of Immanent Jesusism.
Martin was a dangerous distractor, not a shepherd.
We don't need to worry that we might become possessed. We need to worry that we might not guard our tongues, our eyes, our thoughts, and that we might offend Almighty God. To avoid that catastrophe we need His graces, which means we need to live our faith energetically, generously, selflessly.
-
Hi Gertrude,
So, do you consider the topic of exorcism off limits? ( I doubt you do, because along the way of becoming a priest one earns the title of Exorcist if he is being properly formed.)
My question is, what good has come from people focusing on "mental illness" instead of the spiritual causes of such widespread and acute problems?
There may be good reason to focus on the spiritual vs, political without hinting of some unwholesome pre-occupation with something better left alone. And it is good to remember that for some subjects, 'a little bit goes a long way'.
The constant focus on writing about evil N.O. instead of say, fasting for reparation is an example.
I would like to set MM and Medugorje aside. Medugore is just shorthand for "unwholesome pre-occupation" or "being duped" - but not to start a new thread
These days, "mental health" is an enormous business and psychiatrists have an incredible political power in the U.S.
It is safe to say Psychology has eclipsed the Church's rightful authority in many key areas, at least in my neck of the woods.
In my extended family and friends are numerous psychiatric workers and policy makers-
people whose opinions determine whether a someone gets the death penalty, for example. They have the worldly authority of archbishops, kings and policemen and confessors!
I reckon if there were more exorcisms, these mental health people and institutions might go out of business.
Not too worried about being possessed, although I can always profit from being reminded to avoid offending God by my unguarded eyes, words, thoughts, and to practice my Faith energetically.
-
Guess we both misunderstood each other. I was referring to ALL the problems in the church today while you were specifying demonic influences. I don't think trads believe that possession, etc. is out-dated. At least I sure don't. The devil is alive & well these days. When I said we need to look in the mirror I meant that WE the people in the pew need to help fix the problems & not look for everyone else to shape up. I still say the clergy ARE a big part of the problems but how does that equal I must be a priest? I was a Carmelite but don't know how that fits in either.
I recently read 'The Rite' by Matt Baglio (only because it was recommended by someone - a non-trad) & I've never read such ignorance of the true church. Obviously Baglio & the priests he wrote about are all NO & totally clueless. I'm going to write to Baglio & try to shed some light. I'm doing my little part!
Thanks! I am sorry to misunderstand-I got you mixed up with someone !
AND I agree with you.
-
....... Shows how easy it is to fool people. ......
Same with Michael Hoffmann, whom many trads put on a pedestal.
-
Same with Michael Hoffmann, whom many trads put on a pedestal.
Surely not!
-
So, do you consider the topic of exorcism off limits?
No.
My question is, what good has come from people focusing on "mental illness" instead of the spiritual causes of such widespread and acute problems?
It's a good question, worthy of investigation, although difficult for laymen (in the proper sense, and in the analogous sense of "laymen to science") to make much headway with. We just don't have the competence.
The point in this context is that Martin added nothing to the discussion. He just sensationalised the whole thing, and did it inaccurately, making the proper discussion more difficult, not easier.
-
.
My question is, what good has come from people focusing on "mental illness" instead of the spiritual causes of such widespread and acute problems?
It's a good question, worthy of investigation, although difficult for laymen (in the proper sense, and in the analogous sense of "laymen to science") to make much headway with. We just don't have the competence.
Do you mean that we are not competent to discuss psychology?
-
The point in this context is that Martin added nothing to the discussion. He just sensationalised the whole thing, and did it inaccurately, making the proper discussion more difficult, not easier.
That is reasonable!
-
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.
I thought I'd weigh in on this since I was one of the persons banned for disagreeing with the John Grasmeier hit piece on MM.
You know, it is one thing to fairly docuмent and present the facts when writing about a dead person (in this case, priest), eventually allowing the reader to draw his own conclusions as to the priest/persons reputation or guilt/innocence, and it is quite another thing to do a character assassination on a dead priest who is unable to defend himself.
In my opinion, Grasmeier broke the rules of ethical writing...he took the cowards approach towards his ultimate goal of self-aggrandizement...and anyone getting in his way by disagreement, challenges or questions, was given the old heave-ho.
-
I couldn't agree more, bernadette.
:cheers:
-
:cheers:
I couldn't agree more, bernadette.
:cheers:
-
And then think about poor Malachi Martin's books, the filth that is described in unnecessary and prurient detail. My allegation, my sad observation, is that only a soul bereft of the Catholic spirit could fail to be repelled by his writing, could fail to recognise the spirit of the world, the flesh, and the devil which permeates it. The poor man was saturated with the spirit of the world.
And that's why his name must be destroyed, despite our reluctance to think ill of any man, and despite the proper restrain which we feel not to speak ill of the dead. In his case, as with all authors of bad books, it is especially true that the evil that he did lives after him.
And you defenders of MM say, "But I LIKE those books and all their sensationalism!"
-
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.
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:
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.
-
I, too, want to say that that was a wonderful post, Gertrude.
What particularly struck me was the note about abortion. I've often thought that, but never seen or heard anyone else voicing it. Everyone I met in the pro-life movement were NO. While abortion is a most hideous crime that needs to be fought, it is mostly a crime against man, while the NO is a most hideous blasphemy directly against Almighty God. If they would turn away from the NO, then perhaps the crime of murder would melt away of its own accord, or at least diminish. I know that's perhaps too simplistic, but we need to get back to worshipping God in the fullest.
Yes, that was an excellent post by Gertrude. And I also agree about abortion, but I have a slightly different take than you, I think. I do think Traditionalists also can get caught up in the Pro-Life movment. But, the main point, which you do also touch on is that the worship of Almighty God comes second to the political activism on the part of those in the movement. This is dangerous.
Now I noticed something at Mass yesterday. I do think I am increasing in holiness, little by little, or drip by drip. Because I don't think I would realize this about myself if I wasn't. I had a fear of the Beatific Version for eternity. It was then that I realized that I am still way too attached to this earthly life and earthly pleasures. I'm not talking about toys or food and drink or nonsense, but things like family and the joy of raising children. Which ultimately means I am not trusting in God as I should.
-
I've heard that old cowboy movies usually had the good guys in white hats and the bad guys in black hats. I'm not sure why some Catholics decided on MM being a good guy based upon a couple of fiction works that seemed to put Martin in the white hat club.
Now we are to understand that proof of his episcopal validity is possession of the correct costume.
In any case, he is a wispy straw blowing in the wind, a manufactured headliner in his own play.
The modern world has so few real saints that they grasp at such straws.
The world will little know nor long remember him.
The world will little know nor long remember him ...
This, said to an audience including his personal friends and acquaintances,
This, said on page 7 of 17 pages so far,
This, said on the 13th year after his death,
This, said in a thread that has been running for 5 months, with no end in sight,
This, said under a forum post that was started 12 years after he died.
But the world will little know nor long remember him?
Is that supposed to be like what Lincoln said at Gettysburg? HAHAHAHAHA
Why is it that Malachi Martin's critics act like habitual backbiters and
rumor mongers, who seem to enjoy detraction, which is a sin, by the way?
Is Malachi Martin somehow fun to ridicule, now that he can't defend himself?
There are other priests to hurl epithets of slander against, you know.
Why focus on him?
Perhaps the criticism reveals more about the person speaking than about the object of his (her) remarks...
-
In an interview with Art bell on CoasttoCoastam, MM essentially said Satan and the Devil are two different beings... evil, but different beings. I was surprised to hear it because it goes against the teaching about Satan, whom is the Devil, by the Church.
-
What is the difference, if there is? We have Lucifer and then those who go to hell, and those who were angels are demons. Maybe there is an explanation>
-
What is the difference, if there is? We have Lucifer and then those who go to hell, and those who were angels are demons. Maybe there is an explanation>
"Lucifer" is the name given to the devil by the angels before he turned against God. The name means "light bearer". "Devil" is a term that refers to evil spirits. I'm not overly familiar with the origins of the name "satan" but it's simply another name for the devil.
-
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.
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.
Why focus on him?
Read much? There are plenty of others that get their knuckles rapped around here.
I suggest you let the poor man rest in peace.
-
What is the difference, if there is? We have Lucifer and then those who go to hell, and those who were angels are demons. Maybe there is an explanation>
Yeah, that's what I'm saying, too. I listened to the interview a number of times and I tried to decipher if his words did not come out the way he intended, but it is clear he was asserting Satan and the Devil are two different beings. This was a red flag for me regarding MM. The audio interview is on Youtube.
-
Did MM ever state why he said satan and the devil are two different beings?
-
Did MM ever state why he said satan and the devil are two different beings?
No, I was expecting Art Bell to follow up on it because I'm sure he was confused by MM's statement, too, as well as most Christians paying close attention to the interview.
-
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.
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.
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.
-
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.
Well said.
-
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.
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:
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?
-
How can one ignore the man's own writings?
Truth!
-
How can one ignore the man's own writings?
You said you have not read his books, remember?
-
How can one ignore the man's own writings?
You said you have not read his books, remember?
The excerpts from these books have been posted here. I was given The Keys of this Blood many years ago, and did not read that book except for a small portion.
Once again, are you saying that what was quoted was inaccurate or out of context? If so, how?
-
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:
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.
-
Malachi Martin claimed to be a traditional Catholic.
But it appears that he was in reality working for the modernists.
Catholics should NOT trust Malachi Martin.
-
Martin's book "Jesus Now" (1975) had the following on the front cover: "How Jesus has no Past, Will not come Again and in loving actions is Dissolving the Molds of Our Spent Society."
Now just in case you think that clear heresy was a publisher's literary license (even though Martin never disavowed it), take a look inside and discover the most direct apostasy one could imagine.
Here's a tid-bit, but I encourage you to buy a copy and see for yourself.
Jesus was taken away, lived a short while, and then died. A marvellous plot! A complete stranger posing as Jesus carried off the part about the resurrection. There was no real resurrection, of course. It all rather reminds one of the those stories about Hitler being alive and well in Acapulco. P. 166.
Sickening, isn't it?
And trust me, that isn't the worst stuff in there. What he says about the Mother of God is unrepeatable. If Martin were in reach, I'd rearrange his face.
What really amazes me is how open Martin's heresy was, and how nobody who defends him seems to know about it.
-
Here's the book ...
-
Again in this thread I apologize for saying that Mel Gibson romanticizes revenge-killing when this is more of an impression than something based on watching the films... Though his reputation is that he is obsessed with this theme, I don't know enough at the moment to say accurately if he romanticizes it.
-
I JUST WANT TO SAY, IN READING FR. MALACHI'S BOOKS OVER THE YEARS, I CAN SEE A CHANGE FOR THE BETTER IN HIM. IN HIS RECORDINGS HE TRIES TO WARN CATHOLICS TO LOOK FOR A TRADITIONAL CHURCH BECAUSE THE NEW CHURCH HAS LOST THE FAITH. IF HE DID BAD THINGS IN HIS PAST IT APPEARS TOWARD THE END OF HIS LIFE HE WAS TRYING TO REPAIR THE DAMAGE. PEOPLE NEED TO GIVE HIM THE BENEFIT OF THE DOUBT, OKAY MAYBE HE MADE SOME GRIEVOUS MISTAKES,BUT HE TRIED TO MAKE AMENDS TOWARD THE END. WHERES THE LOVE AND FORGIVENESS IN YOU PEOPLE THAT CONDEMN HIM. REMEMBER HOW YOU JUDGE YOU WILL BE JUDGED. I KNOW SOMEONE THAT KNEW HIM PERSONALLY IN NEW YORK HAD DINNER WITH HIM HAD HIM OVER TO THEIR HOUSE, THEY TOLD ME IN HIS EARLY YEARS AFTER THE COUNCIL HE HAD A LIBERAL BENT, BUT AS TIME WENT ON ONE PAPACY AFTER ANOTHER AND SEEING WHAT WAS HAPPENING IN THE CHURCH AS A RESULT OF THE COUNCIL, HE STARTED TO REVERSE HIMSELF. HE STARTED TO SEE THE DAMAGE HE HELPED BRING UPON THE CATHOLIC CHURCH.