Author Topic: Fr Malchi Martin - vindicating St John Paul 2 (Read 8870 times)

BTNYC · « **Reply #30 on:** November 22, 2014, 02:27:09 AM »

Quote from: andysloan

God preserves the Church from ex-cathedra error which we are boiund to believe for salvation and if Popes make private error, this can be ignored - Matt 23:1-3

But we are strictly bound to maintain submission:

"We declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff." Pope Boniface VIII, the Bull Unam Sanctam, 1302.

Well, where have I disputed this? Your pontificating on this point (pardon the pun) implies that I reject or question it. I do not. That you imply that I do is one example among several of the strawmen you've decided to erect and tear down in this thread in lieu of addressing my actual points.

Ask any Sedevacantist on the forum - I am not one of their rank. I find it to be an untenable solution to the current crisis as, with each year that the supposed "vacancy" persists, it grows closer and closer to formally contradicting the infallible definition of the First Vatican Council that St. Peter would have perpetual successors.

In all of the damnable mess of this Modernist Crisis, from the Council on down to today there has been but one ex Cathedra pronouncement which demands of me the submission of my will and intellect - and that is Pope John Paul II's formal prohibition against the idea of "ordination of women" to the priesthood. And I accept, affirm and submit to that pronouncement, tranquilly and happily.

But where error is pronounced or gravely sacrilegeous scandal is committed, it will not do to merely "ignore." These must be actively, openly opposed. The majority of Conciliar Catholics ignorantly believe that anything a pope says or does is infallible and enjoys the inspiration of the Holy Ghost. Thus, the danger to souls posed by these scandals and errors is very real, and our opposition to them - over and above merely "ignoring" them - is necessary to protect not only our own Faith but also that of these poor ignorant souls. This does not constitute a "refusal of submission" to the Roman Pontiff; rather quite the opposite. It is a total submission to the Roman Pontiff - all of them, 2000 years' worth, whose past judgments and pronouncements in defense of Tradition still bind us today. So condemnation of Assisi does not constitute a "refusal of submission" to Pope John Paul II, but an act of total submission to Pope Pius XI, whose pronouncements in Mortalium Animos still bind us today - and a holy and Catholic desire to see the postconciliar pontiffs affirm and submit to those selfsame pronouncements which bind them as well.

Quote from: andysloan

BTNYC said:

"I make no judgments about about the intentions and interior dispositions of these men; I make no judgements on their formal guilt or innocence."

Yes you do and unjustly so. Your reasoning is gibbersih and your "opinions" (and in the case of Fr Martin "his guilt") do not in anyway void the credibility of the testimonies of him or Fr Amorth. Rejecting the witness of Fr Amorth, because he may believe in Medjugoje, is saying because of this he must be a liar, which is absurd.

No one is speaking of "guilt" but you, Andy.

To wit: Fr. Amorth praises an apparition which itself unambiguously advocates the condemned error of religious indifferentism. I do not say he sins in so doing. I do not say that all else that comes from his mouth are lies. I say that it damages his credibility. It does so in much the same way that the credibility of, say, an antiques appraiser would be damaged if he were on record praising the craftsmanship of a vase he attributes to the Han dynasty... a vase which he has only to turn over to find "Made in Mexico" printed on its base.

Quote from: andysloan

The reason for you lack of objectivity, is because you dishonestly skew your appraisals for fear that finding yourself wrong (which you are - and very!) and thus you will be indicted for all the hate and self-exaltation you have directed against the conciliar church under a mask of false piety and which you presently hide in your soul in false justification.

Irrational, emotionalistic pap.

Are you so frustrated in this debate, Andy, that you will toss your rational faculties to the wind so blithely; that you will criticize me for "lacking objectivity" and in the very same breath, dare to declare on behalf of Almighty God His impending "indictment" against me for my "dishonesty," "hate" and "self-exaltation" and "false justification," which you state that I "hide in (my) soul?"

How long have you had the gift of reading hearts, Andy?

Does it bother you that the repeated and rigorous distinctions I have made between the objective judgments I am required to make (and thus do) and the subjective judgments I am forbidden to make (and thus do not) now stand in stark relief in this thread against your own pronouncements on not only my interior dispositions (subjective judgment) but also the outcome of my particular Judgment by Almighty God (usurpation of judgment)?

I am satisfied that my arguments have respected the Thomistic distinctions between objective and subjective judgments far more than yours. Which of us was the more "vapid" and which of us employed "gibberish" in his reasoning? Let the reader read and decide; but, far more importantly, let Almighty God Who alone knows men's hearts and Who alone Judges men's souls accordingly, decide. His Will be done.

andysloan · « **Reply #31 on:** November 22, 2014, 03:04:50 AM »

BTNYC said:

"I am satisfied that my arguments have respected the Thomistic distinctions between objective and subjective judgments."

It has nothing to do with "Thomistic distinctions." Yours is a pharasaical formalism, that subverts even your common-sense.

Luke 6:2-7

"And it came to pass on the second first sabbath, that as he went through the corn fields, his disciples plucked the ears, and did eat, rubbing them in their hands. And some of the Pharisees said to them: Why do you that which is not lawful on the sabbath days? And Jesus answering them, said: Have you not read so much as this, what David did, when himself was hungry, and they that were with him: How he went into the house of God, and took and ate the bread of proposition, and gave to them that were with him, which is not lawful to eat but only for the priests? And he said to them: The Son of man is Lord also of the sabbath.

And it came to pass also on another sabbath, that he entered into the ѕуηαgσgυє, and taught. And there was a man, whose right hand was withered. And the scribes and Pharisees watched if he would heal on the sabbath; that they might find an accusation against him.

1 Tim 6:3-5

"If any man teach otherwise, and consent not to the sound words of our Lord Jesus Christ, and to that doctrine which is according to godliness, He is proud, knowing nothing, but sick about questions and strifes of words; from which arise envies, contentions, blasphemies, evil suspicions, Conflicts of men corrupted in mind, and who are destitute of the truth, supposing gain to be godliness."

You reject the testimonies of Fr Amorth and Fr Martin, because they does not fit in with your desire to find fault with St John Paul 2 and others. For you use doctrine as a means of self-exaltation;

Luke 18:11

The Pharisee standing, prayed thus with himself: O God, I give thee thanks that I am not as the rest of men, extortioners, unjust, adulterers, as also is this publican.

- a pride observed in the pomposity of your language.

How is it that you reject the canonisation of St John Paul 2, in the light of the teaching of St Thomas which I quoted earlier, but though addressing the meat of everything else, you studiously avoided?

"Divine providence preserves the Church lest in such matters it should err through the fallible testimony of men."

This issue is not a "strawman"

Also, you have not even mentioned the testimony of Fr Ruatolo on page 3.

When you say;

"Are you so frustrated in this debate, Andy,"

You don't have to be a Thomistic philosopher to observe why you slipped that statement in. But such are the tactics are those who are dishonest, who cannot use pure truth in prosecuting their position.

RomanCatholic1953 · « **Reply #32 on:** November 22, 2014, 12:42:51 PM »

ANDYSLOAN,

Look up on your computer Fr. Malachi Martin Grave in the Gates of Heaven Cemetery
at Long Island, NY. Why is he buried next to a woman who purported to be his
girl friend?
And it was previous mentioned, he said what a particular audience wanted to hear
and paid money for.

andysloan · « **Reply #33 on:** November 22, 2014, 03:21:24 PM »

RC1953

Your intention is to see everything for he worst, because it fits not with your erroneous assessment of St John Paul 2.

Have you the proof she was Fr Martin's girlfriend? Perhaps he simply adapted his presentations according to audience understanding? Have you certain proof?

What about the other testimonies regarding St John Paul 2?

"As stated above , things from the very fact that a man thinks ill of another without sufficient cause, he injures and despises him. Now no man ought to despise or in any way injure another man without urgent cause: and, consequently, unless we have evident indications of a person's wickedness, we ought to deem him good, by interpreting for the best whatever is doubtful about him. One may watch other people's actions or inquire into them, with a good intent, either for one's own good---that is in order to be encouraged to better deeds by the deeds of our neighbor---or for our neighbor's good---that is in order to correct him, if he do anything wrong, according to the rule of charity and the duty of one's position. This is praiseworthy, according to Heb. 10:24, "Consider one another to provoke unto charity and to good works." But to observe our neighbor's faults with the intention of looking down upon them, or of detracting them, or even with no further purpose than that of disturbing them, is sinful: hence it is written (Prov. 24:15), "Lie not in wait, nor seek after wickedness in the house of the just, nor spoil his rest." - St Thomas

JMacQ · « **Reply #34 on:** November 22, 2014, 06:53:31 PM »

Malachi claimed also that Pius XII consecrated him a bishop, and that he was also a cardinal in pecto (sp?), that he read the Third Secret of Fatima, that he knew the exact dates and nature of the Garandabal miracle, that he had been present at the conclave that elected Cardinal Siri, that Our Lord was humiliated in His passion by the soldiers in a way I simply can't mention, that baptisms with Amen at the end are invalid, that UFO are real and that they are demons, that God could have incarnated as a cow if He wanted, that male chauvinists got in the way of women priests, that he had names and dates of human sacrifices in black masses, lists of pedophile bishops and priests, and on and on and on...

And please come forward if you ever attended or have seen a picture of a mass, baptism or wedding celebrated by Malachi, or witnessed or heard firsthand of an exorcism performed by Malachi. Or if you ever saw him in church or praying.

Time to leave him to rest in peace along Mrs. Kakia Livanos.