Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => Crisis in the Church => Topic started by: IMPERATOREBT on October 18, 2011, 05:01:19 PM
-
What is everyone's opinion on 'fr' Malachi Martin, author of Windswept House etc.
-
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.
-
I approve of him.
-
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.
-
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:
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'.
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.
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.
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.
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.
-
I got pwned by Raoul.
And it felt good. Thanks Mike.
-
I also approve of Father Malachi Martin.
-
S2srea said:
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 Jєωιѕн publishing world to get messages out there, etc. It's all silliness. If anything, it is more likely he was a Jєω 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 Jєωs 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.
-
edit
-
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??
-
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 cօռspιʀαcιҽs! They exist everywhere! It is time for a little conpiring of our own to bring more people to the true faith and expose the ecuмenical 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.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q461Tf7-9sA&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dZSK65mh2qU&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7oF2l9vosQ4&feature=related
here are some secrets that everyone should know!
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
He was 78. That may have had something to do with it as well. There is no evidence he was murdered.
-
I think it's a shame that he left the Jesuits.
-
He's a judaizer and fraud. See:
Malachi Martin: "God Could Have Incarnated as a Cow;" "Priests Should Have Been Female" (http://mauricepinay.blogspot.com/2013/01/malachi-martin-god-could-have.html)
More on the AJC's Nostra Aetate Errand Boy, Con-Man, Malachi Martin (http://mauricepinay.blogspot.com/2012/09/more-on-ajc-errand-boy-con-man-malachi.html)
He wrote "the Judaizing book The Pilgrim under the alias 'Michael Serafian'"
See more posts (http://mauricepinay.blogspot.com/search/label/Malachi%20Martin) about how he pushed the ʝʊdɛօ-masonic agenda.
Also, he appeared on national radio, the Art Bell show (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jm38uzpbY3k), talking about how he's an exorcist and is a part of a secret organization (of exorcists? more like Freemasons), circa ~8 min. in, I think. If he were a real exorcist, he wouldn't be proclaiming that on national radio, would he?
-
What's up with this shared gravestone (assuming it's not a Photoshop fraud)? Several obits (including the NY times and the Independent in the UK) referred to Kakia Livanos as "Fr. Martin's companion." Apparently she'd been married to a George Livanos; wonder why she wasn't buried with him?
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/99/Malachi_Martin_Footstone_2011C.jpg)
-
I talked to him once about a serious issue; His advice strengthened my resolve in the face of adversity, and taught me a valuable lesson for dealing with the agents of evil.
-
"Malachi Martin's actions against the Church in the 1960s (http://angelqueen.org/malachi-martin-files/malachi-martins-actions-against-the-church-during-the-1960s/)" from AngelQueen
-
"Malachi Martin's actions against the Church in the 1960s (http://angelqueen.org/malachi-martin-files/malachi-martins-actions-against-the-church-during-the-1960s/)" from AngelQueen
Barf. Angelqueen? Why don't you check the other several dozen threads on Fr. Martin, and stop posting this crap?
-
"Malachi Martin's actions against the Church in the 1960s (http://angelqueen.org/malachi-martin-files/malachi-martins-actions-against-the-church-during-the-1960s/)" from AngelQueen
Barf. Angelqueen? Why don't you check the other several dozen threads on Fr. Martin, and stop posting this crap?
Rather, why don't they set up a website on the horrors committed by St. Paul, Saul at that time, and focus entirely on that.
Is it that hard to believe the man had a conversion?
-
"Malachi Martin's actions against the Church in the 1960s (http://angelqueen.org/malachi-martin-files/malachi-martins-actions-against-the-church-during-the-1960s/)" from AngelQueen
Barf. Angelqueen? Why don't you check the other several dozen threads on Fr. Martin, and stop posting this crap?
Rather, why don't they set up a website on the horrors committed by St. Paul, Saul at that time, and focus entirely on that.
Is it that hard to believe the man had a conversion?
Paul's conversion is well docuмented. He said, "For I am the least of the apostles, who am not worthy to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God."
-
Paul's conversion is well docuмented. He said, "For I am the least of the apostles, who am not worthy to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God."
It feels like you're trying to make a relevant point.... :detective:
-
Paul's conversion is well docuмented. He said, "For I am the least of the apostles, who am not worthy to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God."
It feels like you're trying to make a relevant point.... :detective:
Any admission from Martin he was an enemy of the Church before his "conversion?"
-
Paul's conversion is well docuмented. He said, "For I am the least of the apostles, who am not worthy to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God."
It feels like you're trying to make a relevant point.... :detective:
Any admission from Martin he was an enemy of the Church before his "conversion?"
I am unaware of any specific quote of him saying so. But I also don't think he was an outright enemy in the sense that St. Paul was either. His actions are what speak volumes. How many people say they're friendly to the Church today, yet their very actions reveal otherwise. MM was just the opposite, I think; yet you cannot accept that for some reason.
I don't see anyone calling for him to be raised to sainthood- only justly recognizing the good he did, however much it was, in the latter half of his life. I am able to see, and I condemn, the error he was engaged in in his early years, yet it seems some people focus entirely on that.
-
Paul's conversion is well docuмented. He said, "For I am the least of the apostles, who am not worthy to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God."
It feels like you're trying to make a relevant point.... :detective:
Any admission from Martin he was an enemy of the Church before his "conversion?"
I am unaware of any specific quote of him saying so. But I also don't think he was an outright enemy in the sense that St. Paul was either. His actions are what speak volumes. How many people say they're friendly to the Church today, yet their very actions reveal otherwise. MM was just the opposite, I think; yet you cannot accept that for some reason.
I don't see anyone calling for him to be raised to sainthood- only justly recognizing the good he did, however much it was, in the latter half of his life. I am able to see, and I condemn, the error he was engaged in in his early years, yet it seems some people focus entirely on that.
You are the one who made the comparison to St. Paul. Anyway, the point is that he did not distance himself from his actions up to and after the Council. That's just a fact.
-
Paul's conversion is well docuмented. He said, "For I am the least of the apostles, who am not worthy to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God."
It feels like you're trying to make a relevant point.... :detective:
Any admission from Martin he was an enemy of the Church before his "conversion?"
I am unaware of any specific quote of him saying so. But I also don't think he was an outright enemy in the sense that St. Paul was either. His actions are what speak volumes. How many people say they're friendly to the Church today, yet their very actions reveal otherwise. MM was just the opposite, I think; yet you cannot accept that for some reason.
I don't see anyone calling for him to be raised to sainthood- only justly recognizing the good he did, however much it was, in the latter half of his life. I am able to see, and I condemn, the error he was engaged in in his early years, yet it seems some people focus entirely on that.
You are the one who made the comparison to St. Paul. Anyway, the point is that he did not distance himself from his actions up to and after the Council. That's just a fact.
I did make the comparison- and that's just what it was. You seemed to imply, and just continued doing so, that I thought they were identical in person. Not so.
Hey may not have distanced himself, publicly or privately, directly- but surely had done so at least indirectly by his exposing of much of what he saw, and through his assistance in the conversion of many priests away from the Novus Ordo to Tradition, one of them my own former priest.
What sort of man would do that?
-
Paul's conversion is well docuмented. He said, "For I am the least of the apostles, who am not worthy to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God."
It feels like you're trying to make a relevant point.... :detective:
Any admission from Martin he was an enemy of the Church before his "conversion?"
I am unaware of any specific quote of him saying so. But I also don't think he was an outright enemy in the sense that St. Paul was either. His actions are what speak volumes. How many people say they're friendly to the Church today, yet their very actions reveal otherwise. MM was just the opposite, I think; yet you cannot accept that for some reason.
I don't see anyone calling for him to be raised to sainthood- only justly recognizing the good he did, however much it was, in the latter half of his life. I am able to see, and I condemn, the error he was engaged in in his early years, yet it seems some people focus entirely on that.
You are the one who made the comparison to St. Paul. Anyway, the point is that he did not distance himself from his actions up to and after the Council. That's just a fact.
I did make the comparison- and that's just what it was. You seemed to imply, and just continued doing so, that I thought they were identical in person. Not so.
Hey may not have distanced himself, publicly or privately, directly- but surely had done so at least indirectly by his exposing of much of what he saw, and through his assistance in the conversion of many priests away from the Novus Ordo to Tradition, one of them my own former priest.
What sort of man would do that?
A man who either saw no contradiction in his actions or one who just pretended the contradiction did not exist. Either way, it's not good.
-
I just got Windswept House and skipped the first section (with the girl in trouble; no need to read sick possible fantasies), but I read several more chapters after that.
It's not hard to read, sorta like a Dan Brown book, but Martin clearly made JP2 SuperPope who just "had" to make compromises and be clever against "the enemy" to spare any remnant of the conciliar church—
I just couldn't go on with his JP2 worship. I can't believe I gave $25 to the JP2 propaganda machine. :facepalm:
Maybe the first book (Vatican?) slammed John XXIII and Paul VI enough to make people think Martin was telling some actual truth, but the "sequel" is ridiculous. I can imagine JP2 "fans" stockpiling copies of it once they learn it puts JPops on a pedestal. I just can't with that, even fictional.
A "secret book" to show JP2's heroism. :heretic: