Read an Interview with Matthew, the owner of CathInfo

Author Topic: Fr Malachi Martin  (Read 3933 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline IMPERATOREBT

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 62
  • Reputation: +27/-0
  • Gender: Male
Fr Malachi Martin
« on: October 18, 2011, 05:01:19 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • What is everyone's opinion on 'fr' Malachi Martin, author of Windswept House etc.

    Offline s2srea

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 5020
    • Reputation: +3826/-28
    • Gender: Male
    Fr Malachi Martin
    « Reply #1 on: October 18, 2011, 05:37:22 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Its quite mixed here. I would say its about 50/50 here. I'm personally in favor of him. He wasn't a perfect man, but he was brave for exposing the evil within the Vatican itself.  He'd also helped convert very many priests to tradition.


    Offline PartyIsOver221

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1238
    • Reputation: +640/-0
    • Gender: Male
    Fr Malachi Martin
    « Reply #2 on: October 18, 2011, 06:19:53 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • I approve of him.

    Offline Raoul76

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 4814
    • Reputation: +2007/-4
    • Gender: Male
    Fr Malachi Martin
    « Reply #3 on: October 18, 2011, 07:00:33 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • A Mel Gibson figure.  One foot in, one foot out; pretending to do God's work while doing the devil's, an international man of mystery, comporting himself like a Cagliostro or a Rasputin...  Writing ha'penny cheap-o sensational novels mixing truth with lies, so that he can have it both ways; if anything in the book is true, he could say he was trying to sneak a message out; while if it's false, he can say "It's just fiction."  

    This is how he got the "truth" out?  Has any saint ever behaved this way?  This is the antithesis of Christ-like behavior, it's self-glorifying and borders on gnosticism.  He portrayed himself as an insider, speaking in gravelly, warm tones like an oily psych out of a Hitchcock film, as if he had some amazing secrets to impart that he would never quite spill...  But why do we need an insider to tell us that Assisi was wrong?  Can't we see that with our own eyes?  Worse, like a gatekeeper, he portrayed JPII as a prisoner in the Vatican when it was clear he was anything but and was fully Modernist.  If this is what "insider" knowledge does for you, I'm glad I'm an outsider!  I guess people would rather trust Malachi Martin than Church teaching -- personally, I have zero use for his work.

    His reputation will sink to the bottom of the gutter in the future.  Trust me on this.  But we live in an age when someone like Mel Gibson can be defended despite spreading morally sinful ideas like revenge killing WORLDWIDE.  I'm talking about a film called Edge of Darkness, made long after Passion of the Christ; check the parents' guide for the film, it is supposed to be riddled with blasphemy.  Forget about his affair; the amount of evil Gibson is doing through his movies is on a spectacular scale, reaching every corner of the globe.  Has he ever apologized for the raunchiness of his earlier movies?  No, now he just does the work of Satan in a more subtle way...  Or maybe it's just that Passion of the Christ is supposed to cover all his other sins?  Sort of like how if Ratzinger says something orthodox one day it's supposed to wipe out all his heresies and his apostate acts like at the Blue Mosque?  

    As the Our Lady of Good Success prophecy says, this is the age of the lukewarm.  Catholics are supposed to give the benefit of the doubt; that is not the same as being superstitious, fearful and gullible.  We are in an age so gullible that someone can say they are Catholic, and automatically people check their brains at the door, as if nothing else is required.
     
    As I was a new convert when posting here, my posts are often full of error, even unwitting heresy and rash judgment, all of which I renounce, and all my writings are best avoided -- MDLS

    Offline s2srea

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 5020
    • Reputation: +3826/-28
    • Gender: Male
    Fr Malachi Martin
    « Reply #4 on: October 18, 2011, 07:18:04 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • I will preface with: up to this point its 2 for MM, and 1, Raoul, against. But its actually an even score (2:2) since Raoul counts for 2 cause he's such a great writer.  :roll-laugh2:


    Quote from: Raoul76
    This is how he got the "truth" out?  Has any saint ever behaved this way?

    Raoul, knowing what he knew, they could have killed him if he flat out said  everything. It quite easy, and I think there's a website explaining who the characters were in his most famous novel, 'Windswept House'.

    Quote
    But why do we need an insider to tell us that Assisi was wrong?  Can't we see that with our own eyes?  

    You seem to think people need, or idolize, Malachi Martin. Perhaps some people do. I think most on here only respect him for rejecting, regardless of the method he chose to do it, the VII establishment.

    Quote
    Worse, like a gatekeeper, he portrayed JPII as a prisoner in the Vatican when it was clear he was anything but and was fully Modernist.  If this is what "insider" knowledge does for you, I'm glad I'm an outsider!  I guess people would rather trust Malachi Martin than Church teaching -- personally, I have zero use for his work.

    Well that was a little weak. No one is comparing the writings of MM to Church teaching. Its only one of many insights into the going ons inside the Vatican.

    Quote
    His reputation will sink to the bottom of the gutter in the future.  Trust me on this.  But we live in an age when someone like Mel Gibson ...


    Stay on track, this is about MM not MG.

    Quote
     As the Our Lady of Good Success prophecy says, this is the age of the lukewarm.  Catholics are supposed to give the benefit of the doubt; that is not the same as being superstitious, fearful and gullible.  We are in an age so gullible that someone can say they are Catholic, and automatically people check their brains at the door, as if nothing else is required.
     


    Agreed. But I think you know most here (on CI) are not brain-checking, cool-aid drinking dummies. Its just a matter of opinion in this case. Its evident you like to stick to Church teaching and saintly writings, for the most part, and thats great. You don't want to have to read between the lines; you're a very direct person, and thats also another outstanding quality. But if you're going to pick on MM for errors he's done, and he certainly has done them, or the way he went about things, remember its you comparing him to saints, not the other way around.


    Offline PartyIsOver221

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1238
    • Reputation: +640/-0
    • Gender: Male
    Fr Malachi Martin
    « Reply #5 on: October 18, 2011, 08:38:06 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • I got pwned by Raoul.

    And it felt good. Thanks Mike.

    Offline ServusSpiritusSancti

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 8213
    • Reputation: +7164/-1
    • Gender: Male
    Fr Malachi Martin
    « Reply #6 on: October 18, 2011, 09:35:07 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • I also approve of Father Malachi Martin.

    Offline Raoul76

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 4814
    • Reputation: +2007/-4
    • Gender: Male
    Fr Malachi Martin
    « Reply #7 on: October 19, 2011, 01:09:50 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0

  • S2srea said:  
    Quote
    Raoul, knowing what he knew, they could have killed him if he flat out said  everything. It quite easy, and I think there's a website explaining who the characters were in his most famous novel, 'Windswept House'.


    You mean like the "Slavic Pope" who is trying to hold out against communism?  The book is utter, mystifying claptrap.

    What did he know?  See, you fall for the Cagliostro mystification, you think he knows something that we don't, which we in turn should know.  God doesn't work that way.  God is not a gnostic.  Just like we don't have to know if "Pope Siri's" successor is hiding in a dungeon somewhere, there is no "secret" to Vatican II.  If you want to know what Vatican II is, you compare it to the real Church, you weigh its teachings against what used to be taught.  There is no need for MM's mystification and preening, acting like he had some kind of secret pipeline into the Vatican.  Great, MM knew some heretics.  Does his being intimate with heretics add something to my knowledge about these men being heretics?

    See, we live in the age of the hoax.  People do not understand how the devil mocks them.  I'll give you one example -- Bishop Fellay having a Rosary Crusade for the lifting of invalid excommunications.  This is a hoax, this is diabolical mockery, whether Bp. Fellay was in it or not.  

    All of this cloak-and-dagger stuff, people thinking MM was like a Jesuit sneaking into the Jewish publishing world to get messages out there, etc.  It's all silliness.  If anything, it is more likely he was a Jew himself -- he allegedly wrote a book under the pen name Michael Serafian called The Pilgrim which portrays in a positive light how the Church should absolve the Jews for the death of Christ. I only say "allegedly" because I'm being very cautious and am too lazy to research right now, but I think this is proven.  Did Malachi ever disown books like this?  This man acted in the most shadowy possible way. Nothing about him is confidence-inspiring.

    If people learn about tradition because Malachi Martin puts some idiotic black Mass scene in his unbelievably boring and tawdry sub-Exorcist novel, that doesn't mean that what he's doing is good.  Someone could become Catholic because they saw The Nun with Audrey Hepburn but it's still a piece of trash.
    And when these people do become "Catholic," do they really get what's going on?  If they do, it's not because of Malachi Martin.  The first trads I ever listened to, and who convinced me the Catholic Church was the true Church, were the Dimonds; does that mean what they're doing is good?  No, the devil is laying booby traps all over.  If you have 50% of the truth, he'll try to put someone in your path to make sure you don't get the other 50%.  If you have 90%, he'll try to make you stay home from Mass because the priests don't have jurisdiction, etc.  But do you notice how no one with the FULL TRUTH ever gets anywhere?  Nor will they, because the media blackout is in full effect for them.

    Pwnage was not intended, PIO221, I just am not a fan of MM's work.      
    As I was a new convert when posting here, my posts are often full of error, even unwitting heresy and rash judgment, all of which I renounce, and all my writings are best avoided -- MDLS


    Offline roscoe

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 7060
    • Reputation: +435/-193
    • Gender: Male
    Fr Malachi Martin
    « Reply #8 on: October 19, 2011, 02:07:36 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  •  edit
    There Is No Such Thing As 'Sede Vacantism'...
    nor is there such thing as a 'Feeneyite' or 'Feeneyism'

    Offline Iuvenalis

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1332
    • Reputation: +1116/-0
    • Gender: Male
    Fr Malachi Martin
    « Reply #9 on: October 19, 2011, 03:15:39 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Raoul,

    Excellent points re: secrecy not being a mark of Christ's Church. Christ went out of his way to teach in parables and a highly visible, public ministry so that his light was *not* secret in the least(!)

    What has secrecy benefitted the Church in the pedophila scandal(s)?

    However, what about the secret(s) of Fatima??

    Offline sedesvacans

    • Newbie
    • *
    • Posts: 113
    • Reputation: +0/-0
    Fr Malachi Martin
    « Reply #10 on: October 19, 2011, 09:38:16 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • I agree with what Raoul is saying. Everyone waits to act or make a decision because he/she thinks that more knowledge is needed. That someone somewhere has secrets that need to come out and that will motivate the world to act to do what is right. The issues are very clear and we all know them who have been studying our catechism. Of course there are conspiracies! They exist everywhere! It is time for a little conpiring of our own to bring more people to the true faith and expose the ecumenical fraud being sold as catholicism. I agree on Mel Gibson, too. Too many Traditional Catholics are stupefied and mesmerized with him. On the other hand, if there were more encouragement for people like him to make good films, if not great, that would only benefit the true faith.

    BTW I found these videos re: Ramolla, Diogenes, Drolesky, ad naus.







    here are some secrets that everyone should know!


    Offline ServusSpiritusSancti

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 8213
    • Reputation: +7164/-1
    • Gender: Male
    Fr Malachi Martin
    « Reply #11 on: October 19, 2011, 09:38:20 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Raoul, MM may have been known to "guild the lilly" as Traditio says, but alot of what he wrote is true. I haven't actually read the book "Windswept House" but my mother read it and she told me it was so disturbing that she threw it in the trash. The book apparently spoke of how, when Paul VI became the new "Pope", they had a satanic sacrifice involving a young girl. I can't remember all the details, but it sounds freaky. Of course, if you truly believe there was a satanic infiltration during Vatican II, then it shouldn't surprise you to read about such things taking place.

    I'm guessing Malachi Martin's stuff about "JPII being a prisoner" was some of the "over-dramatization" Traditio was talking about, but that doesn't mean that what he wrote is fiction.

    There's tons of stuff that occured behind closed doors during Vatican II, the satanic sacrifice not being the only one. MM isn't the only one to reference anything satanic either. Archbishop LeFebvre said that during the second vatican council, they contacted every major Freemasonic lodge in the world and asked what they wanted of them, and also had a conference with Charleston, the satanic capital of the world, over the phone (I think this was in the book "They Have Uncrowned Him" but I can't remember). So there's nothing wrong with writing that there was some "secret" so to speak that occured. Malachi Martin was only sharing his knowledge and information in his writings. I'm guessing he acted rather secretly because he knew his life was in danger.

    And indeed, he was killed after he "fell down the stairs" while he was writing his never-to-be published second book that would detail all the Masons by name in the Vatican. How else can you explain that? You can't explain it away, what he wrote was not pure fantasy. I don't agree with him on everything, but I trust alot of what he wrote.

    Offline parentsfortruth

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 3821
    • Reputation: +2659/-3
    • Gender: Female
    Fr Malachi Martin
    « Reply #12 on: October 21, 2011, 01:48:05 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • He actually didn't "fall down the stairs."

    What I've heard is that he was getting a book from his bookshelf, and he was PUSHED. By whom, though?

    Well, at the time of his death, he was in the process of exorcising a young girl only four years old. She had been under a generational curse, and the demon that was possessing her was named "I will destroy you." The demon had come and pushed him off his step stool, and he hit his head, which caused him to have a bloodclot in his head. He was in a coma for a while, but briefly came out of it to speak, and he said that this was the final battle/suffering he had to fight/endure in order to save his soul. He knew he was not going to survive what happened to him.

    The doctors performed surgery on him, and removed the clot, but he then got another one, and he had died not long afterwards.

    Please pray for the repose of his soul.
    Matthew 5:37

    But let your speech be yea, yea: no, no: and that which is over and above these, is of evil.

    My Avatar is Fr. Hector Bolduc. He was a faithful parish priest in De Pere, WI,

    Offline ServusSpiritusSancti

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 8213
    • Reputation: +7164/-1
    • Gender: Male
    Fr Malachi Martin
    « Reply #13 on: October 21, 2011, 03:08:44 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Yeah, I knew he was killed. Interesting though, I thought the Vatican had hired someone to kill him. I guess not. Thanks for sharing, PFT.

    Offline Raoul76

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 4814
    • Reputation: +2007/-4
    • Gender: Male
    Fr Malachi Martin
    « Reply #14 on: August 03, 2013, 01:31:44 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Yet another apology is in order for my big, inaccurate, rashly-judging mouth of yesteryear. I am making it sound like Mel Gibson's films unequivocally advocate revenge killing, when in fact, I haven't watched these films ( Edge of Darkness ) or have forgotten what happens in them if I have seen them, at least in part ( Ransom ). The truth may be more ambiguous.

    Now, in "art," there are usually shades of grey. One would not say that Hamlet -- which Gibson also starred in a movie version of, naturally -- spreads advocacy for revenge killing. There is that undercurrent that suggests what Hamlet is doing is wrong. Then again, at the end we hear a eulogy that "a  noble mind is here overthrown," despite the psycho actions of Hamlet at the end. The play seems more ambiguous and not satisfying from a Catholic perspective where evil actions must be punished. Here evil actions are punished by more evil actions. However, it does not clearly "spread" the idea that revenge-killing is something wonderful.

    Gibson is very famous for making these bloody revenge based Jacobean type movies, he is also famous for having an unusual degree of sadistic violence depicted in his films. When I wrote that post, I was probably thinking of this reputation, and of films like Ransom, which from the trailer, just seems like rabble-rousing "Watch Mel Gibson go and kill those who kidnapped his son and cheer him on as they are horribly tortured" kind of stuff. However, not remembering much about the film, or how much of it I saw, I cannot make any serious judgment call about it.

    So FOR NOW, I apologize to Mel Gibson and take back the idea his films advocate revenge-killing in a baldfaced way. Whether they glamorize it, or evil actions are insufficiently punished, I cannot say, because I haven't watched the films, or don't recall what happens in them along these lines... That is all I'm saying for now.
    As I was a new convert when posting here, my posts are often full of error, even unwitting heresy and rash judgment, all of which I renounce, and all my writings are best avoided -- MDLS

     

    Sitemap 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16