Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => Crisis in the Church => Topic started by: andysloan on November 18, 2014, 11:42:07 PM
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m4hyaUx5Zqg
God bless all!
-
Martin's story changes depending on the audience.
-
I don't know why everyone keeps calling Malachi "Father" Martin. He was laicized. Despite the fact that the Sacramental character of Holy Orders remained, he ceased to be "Father", could not function as such, and was not allowed the title "Father" any longer.
-
You mean what he says it doesn't fit in with your conviction, so dismiss his credibility.
-
That was 1994, if you listen to the series of recordings till 1998 MM becomes more and more disillusioned with JP2 until in the last 18 months he is referring to him as a heretic and apostate.
-
You mean what he says it doesn't fit in with your conviction, so dismiss his credibility.
Uhm, no. I dismiss his credibility on entirely independent, standalone criteria. And you assume his credibility because it fits with your convictions.
-
You mean what he says it doesn't fit in with your conviction, so dismiss his credibility.
I know someone who followed Malachi Martin around on a lecture tour.
He told me that Malachi addressed a group of SSPX supporters and referred to Archbishop Lefebvre as "the greatest theologian of the 20th century". About two weeks later, addressing a group at Saint Benedict Center, Malachi referred to Father Feeney as "the greatest theologian of the 20th century". Just one anecdotal incident. People have created entire dossiers which demonstrate that Malachi can't be trusted.
-
That was 1994, if you listen to the series of recordings till 1998 MM becomes more and more disillusioned with JP2 until in the last 18 months he is referring to him as a heretic and apostate.
Probably because more and more of his audience turned out to be Traditional Catholics.
-
Thanks for posting the link, Andy.
I will check it out later.
-
That was 1994, if you listen to the series of recordings till 1998 MM becomes more and more disillusioned with JP2 until in the last 18 months he is referring to him as a heretic and apostate.
Probably because more and more of his audience turned out to be Traditional Catholics.
Or, he found he just couldn't continue to ignore reality any longer and paint over the cracks.
It's not like he would be the first person it happened to.
-
ggreg said
"That was 1994, if you listen to the series of recordings till 1998 MM becomes more and more disillusioned with JP2 "
That's true, but that doesn't detract from the soundness of the analysis in the interview posted and the postulation that St John Paul 2 was a heroic victim soul.
St Father Montfort - Friends of the Cross.
"Let him take up his cross," the one that is his. Let that man (or woman) so rare "far beyond the price of pearls," take up his cross joyfully, embrace it lovingly, and carry it courageously on his shoulders, his own cross, and not that of another - his own cross which I, in my wisdom, designed for him in every detail of number, measure and weight; his own cross which I have fashioned with my own hands and with great exactness as regards its four dimensions of length, breadth, thickness and depth; his own cross, which out of love for him I have carved from a piece of the one I bore to Calvary; his own cross, which is the greatest gift I can bestow upon my chosen ones on earth; his own cross, whose thickness is made up of the loss of one's possessions, humiliations, contempt, sufferings, illnesses and spiritual trials, which come to him daily till his death in accordance with my providence; his own cross, whose length consists of a certain period of days or months enduring slander, or lying on a sick-bed, or being forced to beg, or suffering from temptations, dryness, desolation, and other interior trials; his own cross, whose breadth is made up of the most harsh and bitter circuмstances brought about by relatives, friends, servants; his own cross, whose depth is made up of the hidden trials I shall inflict on him without his being able to find any comfort from other people, for they also, under my guidance, will turn away from him and join with me in making him suffer.
http://www.montfort.org.uk/Writings/LFC.php
So it was with Christ that he was abandoned by almost everyone at his death. St John Paul 2 trod tightly in the feet of his Master.
The fact that Peter Dimond, under satan's guidance, posits him as the antichrist is a backhand accolade.
-
I don't know why everyone keeps calling Malachi "Father" Martin. He was laicized. Despite the fact that the Sacramental character of Holy Orders remained, he ceased to be "Father", could not function as such, and was not allowed the title "Father" any longer.
Completely wrong
-
That was 1994, if you listen to the series of recordings till 1998 MM becomes more and more disillusioned with JP2 until in the last 18 months he is referring to him as a heretic and apostate.
Probably because more and more of his audience turned out to be Traditional Catholics.
Or, he found he just couldn't continue to ignore reality any longer and paint over the cracks.
It's not like he would be the first person it happened to.
Possibly. Problem is that we don't know WHICH it was. There's evidence that he was working for the Jєωιѕн Freemason Bea collecting blackmail material on bishops at Vatican II to vote a certain way.
-
Father Dolindo Ruotolo
(1882-1970)
A Prophet for our Time
O Jesus, I Surrender Myself to You
On November 19, 1970 Don (Fr) Dolindo Ruotolo died at the age of 88. Padre Pio once said of this priest from Naples, Italy, "The whole of paradise is in your soul". His name "Dolindo" means "Pain" and his life was rich with this pain. As a child, a teenager, a seminarian and a priest, he experienced humiliation which was the realization of the prophetic words of a bishop who said, "You will be a martyr, but in your heart, not with your blood."
In his profound humility, he was able to hear the words of God. Even with his hidden life, he was one of the greatest prophets of the last century. He wrote to Bishop Hnilica in 1965 that "a new John will rise out of Poland with heroic steps to break the chains beyond the boundaries imposed by the communist tyranny." On this postcard, he wrote words of consolation for Poland and all the countries suffering under the communist regime. This prophecy was realized in the papacy of John Paul II.
Rome’s exorcist finding Bl. John Paul II effective against Satan
Fr Amorth
"Not surprisingly, ‘Jesus Christ’ is the name Fr. Amorth most often calls upon to expel demons. But he also turns to saintly men and women for their heavenly assistance. Interestingly, he said that in recent years one man – Blessed Pope John Paul II – has proved to be a particularly powerful intercessor.
“I have asked the demon more than once, ‘Why are you so scared of John Paul II and I have had two different responses, both interesting. One, ‘because he disrupted my plans.’ And, I think that he is referring to the fall of communism in Russia and Eastern Europe. The collapse of communism.”
“Another response that he gave me, ‘because he pulled so many young people from my hands.’ There are so many young people who, thanks to John Paul II, were converted. "
http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/romes-exorcist-finding-bl.-john-paul-ii-effective-against-satan/
Fr Dolindo's Rosary of Surrender to the Divine Will:
http://www.dolindo.org/english/JESUS%20YOU%20TAKE%20OVER%20.pdf
God bless all!!
-
Objective fact: Fr. Amorth, ostensible expert on spiritual combat against demons, enthusiastically supports the patently false, diabolical apparitions of Medjugorje, infamously stating "Medjugorje is fortress against Satan."
Objective facts: Malachi Martin, under his own name, published sensationalized literary accounts of demonic possession for mass entertainment which can be called - without any fear of exaggeration - outright pornography, and reaped from same vast profits for himself and his Jєωιѕн publishing house Harper Collins. Under his pen name "Michael Serafian," Malachi Martin authored a book called The Pilgrim: Pope Paul VI, the Council & the Church in a Time of Decision in 1964 wherein he calumniously and blasphemously condemns the traditional teaching of the Catholic Church on the Jєωs as "Antisemitism," laying the blame for the alleged atrocities committed against the Jєωs by the nαzιs at the feet of Holy Mother Church, and utterly dismisses the very real threat posed by the ѕуηαgσgυє of Satan as an "anti Semitic" myth. At no point did Malachi Martin ever retract or apologize for this evil book he duplicitously penned under a false name in service of the Church's worst enemies on earth. Indeed, in the very final years of his life, he boasted to Art Bell that "No one has done more for Catholic-Jєωιѕн relations than I have."
Objective fact: Pope John Paul II committed public scandal after public scandal in his promotion of false ecuмenism, the most grave being the outrageously blasphemous "inter-religious World Day of Prayer" at Assisi in 1986, where schismatics, heretics, Jєωs, Mohammedans, pagans and animists were invited to stand alongside and pray in common with the Supreme Pontiff, who permitted - either expressly, or tacitly by his silence - the use of Catholic sanctuaries for the false, satanic rituals of Jєωs, Buddhists and other diabolists.
What do you propose we do with these peskily undeniable objective facts, Andy? There are only so many elephants in the room that one can attempt to ignore before being crushed under their tread of their feet.
-
I don't know why everyone keeps calling Malachi "Father" Martin. He was laicized. Despite the fact that the Sacramental character of Holy Orders remained, he ceased to be "Father", could not function as such, and was not allowed the title "Father" any longer.
Completely wrong
He himself was maddeningly vague on that point, referring to himself in public as "Doctor" Martin, rather than "Father" or "Reverend," while accepting all of these titles from others indifferently.
-
I don't know why everyone keeps calling Malachi "Father" Martin. He was laicized. Despite the fact that the Sacramental character of Holy Orders remained, he ceased to be "Father", could not function as such, and was not allowed the title "Father" any longer.
Completely wrong
He himself was maddeningly vague on that point, referring to himself in public as "Doctor" Martin, rather than "Father" or "Reverend," while accepting all of these titles from others indifferently.
I was told that he was made a bishop and cardinal in peccatore by Siri. Source: Chapel conspiracy guy. Seems legit. :tinfoil:
-
I don't know why everyone keeps calling Malachi "Father" Martin. He was laicized. Despite the fact that the Sacramental character of Holy Orders remained, he ceased to be "Father", could not function as such, and was not allowed the title "Father" any longer.
Completely wrong
He himself was maddeningly vague on that point, referring to himself in public as "Doctor" Martin, rather than "Father" or "Reverend," while accepting all of these titles from others indifferently.
Once you are a priest, you are a priest forever. Even if you are laicized, you remain a priest. Whether you go to Heaven or Hell. Ordination is a sacrament that you cannot erase from the timeline.
-
I don't know why everyone keeps calling Malachi "Father" Martin. He was laicized. Despite the fact that the Sacramental character of Holy Orders remained, he ceased to be "Father", could not function as such, and was not allowed the title "Father" any longer.
Completely wrong
He himself was maddeningly vague on that point, referring to himself in public as "Doctor" Martin, rather than "Father" or "Reverend," while accepting all of these titles from others indifferently.
I was told that he was made a bishop and cardinal in peccatore by Siri. Source: Chapel conspiracy guy. Seems legit. :tinfoil:
*pectore
Auto correct hates me and I've been teaching two different levels of Latin! :laugh2:
-
I don't know why everyone keeps calling Malachi "Father" Martin. He was laicized. Despite the fact that the Sacramental character of Holy Orders remained, he ceased to be "Father", could not function as such, and was not allowed the title "Father" any longer.
Completely wrong
He himself was maddeningly vague on that point, referring to himself in public as "Doctor" Martin, rather than "Father" or "Reverend," while accepting all of these titles from others indifferently.
Once you are a priest, you are a priest forever. Even if you are laicized, you remain a priest. Whether you go to Heaven or Hell. Ordination is a sacrament that you cannot erase from the timeline.
No one's arguing against that fact, which is a separate issue from what the proper address was for Malachi Martin in the final years of his life - and the fact that he did nothing to clarify that unseemly ambiguity.
John McLaughlin remains a priest forever, the priestly character remains indelibly and ontologically stamped upon his soul... but you don't hear Pat Buchanan addressing him as "Father"... I'd likewise refrain from addressing him thus, were I introduced to him.
-
BTNYC said:
"What do you propose we do with these peskily undeniable objective facts, Andy?"
Fr Amorth is, without sin, permitted to piously believe in Medjugorje, though the apparitions are apparently false. That does not remove the integrity of his office as an exorcist nor the veracity his testimony.
Whatever sins Fr Martin may have committed, the interview I posted was in 1994 and the book you refer to was written in 1964. Can we apply the same judgement on you, for the sins you may have committed in your youth? Have you heard Fr Martin's confessions through his life? Your judgement is only your opinion and not conclusive and you know not Fr Martins intentions. And whatever mistakes he may have made, that does not disallow a keen sagacity in his latter years especially.
As to the action of St Pope John Paul 2, you either have not listened to Fr Martin's reasoning, or you unreasonably don't accept it. Either way, you have been deprived of understanding from above.
This because of your pride and what the substance of your objection regarding St Pope John Paul 2, is that it is fearful and would be too much for your ego to have it threatened. That is why your efforts in discreditation, are so poor in balanced reasoning and objectivity.
However unfortunately for you, as things stand, when the great warning comes in the next years, you will be shown why God has given you to such severe blindness, namely for your pride, which is so common amongst contemporary Trads, who are Traditional in their mass attendance, but highly uncatholic in their behaviour:
Colossians 3:8
"But now put you also all away: anger, indignation, malice, blasphemy, filthy speech out of your mouth."
Ephesians 4:29
"Let no evil speech proceed from your mouth; but that which is good, to the edification of faith, that it may administer grace to the hearers."
Because of this, you have been blinded by God to the fullness of truth.
Romans 11:8
As it is written: God hath given them the spirit of insensibility; eyes that they should not see; and ears that they should not hear,
Psalms 34:26[/b]
"Let them be clothed with confusion and shame, who speak great things against
me."
And shame it will be when the warning comes and there will be not a few Trads running to confession (including priests), when they find God's judgement of them is quite different to their own.
For the some of us who love our Popes, notwithstanding our desire of your salvation:
Psalms 58:10
"The righteous shall rejoice when he sees the vengeance."
"Even if that vicar were a devil incarnate, I must not defy him, but calmly lie down to rest on his bosom... He who rebels against our Father is condemned to death, for that which we do to him we do to Christ: we honor Christ if we honor the Pope; we dishonor Christ if we dishonor the Pope." (St Catherine - Letter to Bernabo Visconti)
"Divine obedience never prevents us from obedience to the Holy Father: nay, the more perfect the one, the more perfect is the other. And we ought always to be subject to his commands and obedient unto death. However indiscreet obedience to him might seem, and however it should deprive us of mental peace and consolation, we ought to obey; and I consider that to do the opposite is a great imperfection, and deceit of the devil." (Letter to Brother Antonio of Nizza).
"He left you this sweet key of obedience; for as you know He left His vicar, the Christ, on earth, whom you are all obliged to obey until death, and whoever is outside His obedience is in a state of damnation, as I have already told you in another place." (God the Father - Dialogues; Treatise on Obedience)
-
BTNYC said:
"What do you propose we do with these peskily undeniable objective facts, Andy?"
Fr Amorth is, without sin, permitted to piously believe in Medjugorje, though the apparitions are apparently false. That does not remove the integrity of his office as an exorcist nor the veracity his testimony.
Whatever sins Fr Martin may have committed, the interview I posted was in 1994 and the book you refer to was written in 1964. Can we apply the same judgement on you, for the sins you may have committed in your youth? Have you heard Fr Martin's confessions through his life? Your judgement is only your opinion and not conclusive and you know not Fr Martins intentions. And whatever mistakes he may have made, that does not disallow a keen sagacity in his latter years especially.
As to the action of St Pope John Paul 2, you either have not listened to Fr Martin's reasoning, or you unreasonably don't accept it. Either way, you have been deprived of understanding from above.
This because of your pride and what the substance of your objection regarding St Pope John Paul 2, is that it is fearful and would be too much for your ego to have it threatened. That is why your efforts in discreditation, are so poor in balanced reasoning and objectivity.
However unfortunately for you, as things stand, when the great warning comes in the next years, you will be shown why God has given you to such severe blindness, namely for your pride, which is so common amongst contemporary Trads, who are Traditional in their mass attendance, but highly uncatholic in their behaviour:
Colossians 3:8
"But now put you also all away: anger, indignation, malice, blasphemy, filthy speech out of your mouth."
Ephesians 4:29
"Let no evil speech proceed from your mouth; but that which is good, to the edification of faith, that it may administer grace to the hearers."
Because of this, you have been blinded by God to the fullness of truth.
Romans 11:8
As it is written: God hath given them the spirit of insensibility; eyes that they should not see; and ears that they should not hear,
Psalms 34:26[/b]
"Let them be clothed with confusion and shame, who speak great things against
me."
And shame it will be when the warning comes and there will be not a few Trads running to confession (including priests), when they find God's judgement of them is quite different to their own.
For the some of us who love our Popes, notwithstanding our desire of your salvation:
Psalms 58:10
"The righteous shall rejoice when he sees the vengeance."
"Even if that vicar were a devil incarnate, I must not defy him, but calmly lie down to rest on his bosom... He who rebels against our Father is condemned to death, for that which we do to him we do to Christ: we honor Christ if we honor the Pope; we dishonor Christ if we dishonor the Pope." (St Catherine - Letter to Bernabo Visconti)
"Divine obedience never prevents us from obedience to the Holy Father: nay, the more perfect the one, the more perfect is the other. And we ought always to be subject to his commands and obedient unto death. However indiscreet obedience to him might seem, and however it should deprive us of mental peace and consolation, we ought to obey; and I consider that to do the opposite is a great imperfection, and deceit of the devil." (Letter to Brother Antonio of Nizza).
"He left you this sweet key of obedience; for as you know He left His vicar, the Christ, on earth, whom you are all obliged to obey until death, and whoever is outside His obedience is in a state of damnation, as I have already told you in another place." (God the Father - Dialogues; Treatise on Obedience)
The sins of my youth were committed in my youth, by the stupid and selfish young man I was in my teens and twenties, the period of my life in which I dwelled outside the Faith in the bestial darkness of secularism. There is a world of difference between such genuinely youthful sins and acts of grave harm done against the Church in service of Her mortal enemies by a priest in his forties. I have confessed my youthful sins and have done my best to make reparation for them. I have no way of knowing whether Malachi Martin ever confessed his own acts of service to the ѕуηαgσgυє of Satan, but I do know he never publicly renounced that service (which I would imagine would be an absolutely necessary act of reparation for so grave, so public and so damaging a sin as that). Indeed, the only public reference I can find to it from Malachi Martin in his later years was the above referenced boast made to Art Bell.
These facts make Malachi Martin an objectively suspicious source. If you can offer positive proof that my suspicions are unfounded, I will listen to you. But if you ask me to fideistically ignore those suspicions, you ask me to ignore my own rational faculties and conscience. I cannot and will not do that.
Fr. Amorth portrays himself as the world's foremost expert on demonic possession and satanic activity. Yet he praises an apparition which, by its promotion of religious indifferentism, shows itself to be of human and / or demonic origin with such manifest obviousness that even a reasonably well-catechized child could discern that. That objectively harms Fr. Amorth's credibility. I can no more ignore my rational faculties and conscience in this matter than I can in the case of Malachi Martin.
The Assisi Scandal of 1986 is arguably the gravest scandal comitted by any pope in Church history. It was - if not an act of formal apostasy - at the very least certainly an act that tended toward apostasy and was objectively blasphemous and sacrilegious. If it is argued that the pope was pressured by malign forces to convene that wicked event, then I will answer that no threat or compulsion justifies apostasy and sacriledge and blasphemy. I make no comment on the subjective guilt of the pontiff in this matter - I am as unable and incompetant to do so as any man - but I will nonetheless point out that even a Catholic layman is expected to lay down his life rather than apostatize or commit sacrilege, and in a cleric - let alone a bishop, let alone the Supreme Pontiff, the duty is that much more solemn. If you ask me to ignore the gravity of that scandal, Andy, then you are once again asking me to ignore my rational faculties and conscience. If you demand of me that I overlook the objectively outrageous and sacrilegious acts committed at Assisi in 1986 in order to protect the person of Karol Wojtyla / John Paul II, you are likewise asking me to ignore the formal condemnation of such inter-religious abominations pronounced by Pope Pius XI in Mortalium Animos. I will not and cannot comply with that.
I make no judgments about about the intentions and interior dispositions of these men; I make no judgements on their formal guilt or innocence. I simply observe what is manifest and objectively certain and make my desicions regarding what I will give the assent of my will and intellect to accordingly. That is my duty as a Baptized and Confirmed Catholic. I deal here in objective facts, Andy - I leave the the subjective judgments about the "pride" and willful "blindness" of others to Almighty God, and it behooves you to do the same.
And I would remind you that Obedience, although a very high virtue, is an inferior virtue to Faith. Obedience is not owed when it poses a proximate danger to the Faith.
-
I don't know why everyone keeps calling Malachi "Father" Martin. He was laicized. Despite the fact that the Sacramental character of Holy Orders remained, he ceased to be "Father", could not function as such, and was not allowed the title "Father" any longer.
Completely wrong
He himself was maddeningly vague on that point, referring to himself in public as "Doctor" Martin, rather than "Father" or "Reverend," while accepting all of these titles from others indifferently.
Once you are a priest, you are a priest forever. Even if you are laicized, you remain a priest. Whether you go to Heaven or Hell. Ordination is a sacrament that you cannot erase from the timeline.
Did you even READ what I posted?
Despite the fact that the Sacramental character of Holy Orders remained
once someone is laicized, he is to be treated for all intents and purposes as a LAYMAN, no titles, no "Father", etc.
It happened before V2 that priests were laicized and got married. They were not allowed to go around calling themselves "Father Bill" or whatever.
-
Your facts regarding Malachi Martin's priesthood are mistaken, Lad. It's been gone over so many times, the proof of Paul VI's dispensation of MM from the Jesuits and his former Jesuit Superior's confession, etc. I'm too bored with it to dig it up anymore.
Also, too tired to dig up MM's intensely harsh condemnation of JP2 in an interview, in which he states that no more excuses can be made for him, and worse.
-
I forgot to treat of this in my previous post:
"Even if that vicar were a devil incarnate, I must not defy him, but calmly lie down to rest on his bosom... He who rebels against our Father is condemned to death, for that which we do to him we do to Christ: we honor Christ if we honor the Pope; we dishonor Christ if we dishonor the Pope." (St Catherine - Letter to Bernabo Visconti)
You seem very fond of interminably quoting certain passaages from the writings of the saints and from private revelations and regarding them as if they enjoy some kind of infallible dogmatic character when in fact they do not.
St. Catherine is pretty obviously engaging in a hyperbole here, much like St. Ignatius Loyola did when he said "We should always be prepared so as never to err to believe that what I see as white is black, if the hierarchic Church defines it thus." St. Ignatius was no anti-rational fideist and did not literally mean that the Church could ever pronounce something contrary to reason like white being black, 2+2 equaling 5, or the Blessed Trinity being four Persons rather than Three, nor did he literally mean that we should accept such a thing.
And it is also obvious that St. Catherine is referring to the hypothetical "devil" pope's personal peccability, not the very different possibility of his harming the Faith of his subjects. Obedience is an inferior virtue to Faith and one is not expected to practice any obeisance that would do damage to his Faith.
And I'll see your quotation of one great saint, and raise you one from an even greater one, which actually does posess the character of inerreancy, as it comes from Sacred Scripture:
I wonder that you are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ, unto another gospel. Which is not another, only there are some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ. But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach a gospel to you besides that which we have preached to you, let him be anathema. As we said before, so now I say again: If any one preach to you a gospel, besides that which you have received, let him be anathema. For do I now persuade men, or God? Or do I seek to please men? If I yet pleased men, I should not be the servant of Christ.
Epistle of St. Paul to the Galatians i:vi-x
-
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. And Fr Martin explains the reason for Assisi, which was a witness and seeding to the religious leaders of the world, ahead of Our Lady's coming" to which he bore witness in Fulda:
http://www.fatima.org/thirdsecret/fulda.asp
Your critique is totally vapid.
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.
Luke 16:15
And he said to them: You are they who justify yourselves before men, but God knoweth your hearts;
You call yourself a Catholic, but reject the canonisation of Pope John Paul 2, yet as St Thomas rightly said:
"Divine providence preserves the Church lest in such matters it should err through the fallible testimony of men."
So is the sanction for your behavior
Psalms 39:16
Let them immediately bear their confusion, that say to me: Tis well, tis well.
-
Martin's story changes depending on the audience.
absolutely, every word out of his mouth or written by his hand
should be immediately disregarded as a lie.
-
Martin's story changes depending on the audience.
absolutely, MM is among the least trustworthy sources ever
become famous. I don't like to speak ill of the dead but I wouldn't
recommend taking anything he's ever sais seriously, because he
was a spy and counter-intelligence asset.
-
BTNYC said:
"You seem very fond of interminably quoting certain passaages from the writings of the saints and from private revelations and regarding them as if they enjoy some kind of infallible dogmatic character when in fact they do not. "
I don't regard them as infallible, but:
1 Corinthians 14:6
"But now, brethren, if I come to you speaking with tongues, what shall I profit you, unless I speak to you either in revelation, or in knowledge, or in prophecy, or in doctrine?"
Ecclesiasticus 6:34-36
"If thou wilt incline thy ear, thou shalt receive instruction: and if thou love to hear, thou shalt be wise. Stand in the multitude of ancients that are wise, and join thyself from thy heart to their wisdom, that thou mayst hear every discourse of God, and the sayings of praise may not escape thee.
And if thou see a man of understanding, go to him early in the morning, and let thy foot wear the steps of his doors."
For the reason why you skew the meaning of what St Catherine says, see the previous post.
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.
-
I don't know why everyone keeps calling Malachi "Father" Martin. He was laicized. Despite the fact that the Sacramental character of Holy Orders remained, he ceased to be "Father", could not function as such, and was not allowed the title "Father" any longer.
Completely wrong
He himself was maddeningly vague on that point, referring to himself in public as "Doctor" Martin, rather than "Father" or "Reverend," while accepting all of these titles from others indifferently.
Once you are a priest, you are a priest forever. Even if you are laicized, you remain a priest. Whether you go to Heaven or Hell. Ordination is a sacrament that you cannot erase from the timeline.
Did you even READ what I posted?
:read-paper: Huh?
-
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.
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.
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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
-
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.
-
:surprised:
-
I knew just from the title of this thread what idiot started it.
-
Charlemagne said:
"I knew just from the title of this thread what idiot started it."
In this statement, we find cause of God blinding you.
Psalms 108:29
"Let them that detract me be clothed with shame: and let them be covered with their confusion as with a double cloak."
Not too much longer to wait.
As a fellow member of CI, who shall remain anonymous said recently:
"The folks here are their own worst enemy, and the worst advertisement for traditionals on the face of the earth. They make the "novus ordo" Church look sane."
Seemingly a new beatitude "Blessed are the proud, the mocking and the nasty"
-
That's all great, Andy. You're still an idiot.
-
I know someone who followed Malachi Martin around on a lecture tour.
He told me that Malachi addressed a group of SSPX supporters and referred to Archbishop Lefebvre as "the greatest theologian of the 20th century". About two weeks later, addressing a group at Saint Benedict Center, Malachi referred to Father Feeney as "the greatest theologian of the 20th century". Just one anecdotal incident. ....
So what? You damn someone for being the sort to be over generous in his praise?
-
Recognising that Pope John Paul 2 is a saint would destroy the platform of their self-exaltation. So one cannot expect objectivity;
Mark 3:2
And they watched him whether he would heal on the sabbath days; that they might accuse him.
And they are prepared to sin, in order to defend their own "glory"; hence:
John 8:41-44
We have one Father, even God. Jesus therefore said to them: If God were your Father, you would indeed love me. For from God I proceeded, and came; for I came not of myself, but he sent me: Why do you not know my speech? Because you cannot hear my word. You are of your father the devil, and the desires of your father you will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and he stood not in the truth; because truth is not in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father thereof.
As can been seen, they have no love of God or neighbour and are commensurately blinded:
1 John 2:11
But he that hateth his brother, is in darkness, and walketh in darkness, and knoweth not whither he goeth; because the darkness hath blinded his eyes.
1 John 4:20
If any man say, I love God, and hateth his brother; he is a liar. For he that loveth not his brother, whom he seeth, how can he love God, whom he seeth not?
-
I knew just from the title of this thread what idiot started it.
Where have you been? :nunchaku:
I appreciate a few lines of sense thrown in here and there when the Andybot is in town.
-
I knew just from the title of this thread what idiot started it.
Where have you been? :nunchaku:
I appreciate a few lines of sense thrown in here and there when the Andybot is in town.
Busy with work and five children, mainly. It's nice to see that Andy is still around to provide much-needed comic relief from the Crisis.
-
Seemingly a new beatitude "Blessed are the proud, the mocking and the nasty"
Don't sell yourself short by leaving out "Blessed are the obdurate compromisers, the sanctimous prooftexters and judgers of interior dispositions."
-
I know someone who followed Malachi Martin around on a lecture tour.
He told me that Malachi addressed a group of SSPX supporters and referred to Archbishop Lefebvre as "the greatest theologian of the 20th century". About two weeks later, addressing a group at Saint Benedict Center, Malachi referred to Father Feeney as "the greatest theologian of the 20th century". Just one anecdotal incident. ....
So what? You damn someone for being the sort to be over generous in his praise?
So far on this thread, no one has done any bona fide damning apart from Andys Loan.
As for Malachi Martin, his damnation or salvation is for God to decide, but this is certainly reason to regard him as suspicious:
(http://d.gr-assets.com/books/1337831836l/14289994.jpg)
(http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-0EhSlkHSqE8/UPWRHBprNvI/AAAAAAAABA4/LCXNH3A_XxM/s1600/Malachi+Martin+Pilgrim+CV-small.jpg)