Snake-oil salesman.

Let's just count the lies.

( a ) The usual insinuation that America is not communist or Marxist but somehow opposed to it

( b ) "Marxism as such is a closed chapter, it closed in 1989 or 1990 with the fall of the USSR."  No, Marxism just blended in and no longer needed to be called as such.

( c ) There are three powers, China, Russia and the United States.  "No one else counts, not Catholicism or JUDAISM."  Classic Jєω-protecting lie, and this after I told you he was a Marrano, parentsfortruth.

The United States has NO power; it is just a puppet of Israel.   It is disposable labor force.  The other countries are also controlled by the same international bankers and communist elite.  There is NO SUCH THING as nationhood anymore.  Only money.

( d ) Oh, and the Catholic Church is "dead"?  I thought Christ said that "The gates of hell won't prevail against it."  

This creep is lying by omission.  The Church is very much alive and it is called SEDEVACANTISM.

Now he's saying that Satan and Lucifer are two different beings?  And Satan is about physical destruction while Lucifer is about spiritual deception?  I have never heard this one before.  Lucifer is a more flattering name that Satan gave himself.

That's enough.  This guy is full of Irish blarney mixed with Jєωιѕн lies, and it is not a winning combo.

Parentsfortruth, what do you like about this man, who was practically a sidekick of Wojtyla?  Are you seduced by that unctuous accent?  Go over to Christ or Chaos and read the works of a real prophet, Thomas Droleskey.  

"At one time a professor of Semitic Languages in Rome, he served as secretary to Cardinal Bea, spokesman for Jєωιѕн interests at the Vatican Council.   More recently, on the Art Bell radio talk show, he bragged that he had done more than anyone else to further the Jєωιѕн cause in Catholic circles."

Ask yourself this, my good lady.  If Martin proposes the Siri thesis, that Siri was elected in both 1958 and 1963, then why did he support Paul VI and John-Paul II?  If he knows that this was all a conspiracy to "change" the Church, why did he go along with these changes until the end?  Why did he go out of his way to exonerate Wojtyla?  

My impression of Martin is that, just like the crazed Irish man who runs In Today's Catholic World, he was an irrepressibly energetic con artist who would say or do anything to get attention, and who thrived on sowing confusion.

This is why, even though the Siri thesis may be true, I leave it alone for the most part.  It seems to appeal to those who thrill at the idea of solving a mystery -- while sedevacantists know that some mysteries can't be solved.  I do not feel that I would ever be able to find out if Siri were elected Pope, nor whether he has successors, nor where those successors are.  

It seems to appeal to those who thrill at the idea of solving a mystery -- while sedevacantists know that some mysteries can't be solved.

The great mystery of the present day is why God would allow a crypto-modernist like Benedict XVI to sit in the Chair of Peter. Sedevacantists offer the easy solution to that mystery: the Chair is Empty, Benedict XVI isn't really the Pope.  Non-sedevacantists know that the mystery of iniquity cannot be so easily solved.

I just wanted to clarify something. He didn't say the Catholic Church was dead. He said that the ORGANIZATION was dead. He remains a faithful priest. Also, at the end of his life, he had serious doubts about John XXIII onward.

He was a man. I think he had some very valuable things to say that shouldn't be ignored because of the position he had. And I don't believe for one second he was a Jєω. He was an Irishman. Nothing secret about it.

It is well to note that he said Leninism isn't dead.

Read what Wiki says about what Leninism is. (I know Wiki isn't the best source, but it's valuable as well.)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leninism

Really, Leninism is the nightmare version of Communism.

Seriously, look at how many different opinions there are about who the pope is. Just like Archbishop Lefevbre, Father Malachi Martin was a MAN. We're all confused about what's going on, thanks to the Devil. I happen to think that there's a cover up, and that with the evidence I have currently, that Gregory XVII was pope, and I hold that idea with caution until I get more info (which I'm still working on.)

It's really easy to throw stones at Father Martin because of the position he took. Heck, if I were self-righteous, I could be throwing stones at the independent priest at my church for still thinking, because he lacks evidence supporting Gregory XVII, that Ratzinger is the "pope." We have our sacred consciences, and we have to live with whatever knowledge we have, and are judged accordingly, not by human beings here, in this confusing situation (thank God) but by God Himself.

As I've said in another thread, Archbishop Lefevbre didn't have a crystal ball.. he didn't read every single docuмent in the Church, and he did what his conscience dictated. I know that's hard for some of you to accept, and you want to dismiss him and say he was some kind of operative, but use your head. He wasn't acting maliciously, just as I can safely assume that all of YOU are not acting maliciously.

Also, as to the "gnostic" comment, it's not like that. When I FIND OUT WHAT THE TRUTH IS, I'm not going to keep it to myself. I'm going to find out what it is, and let all of you (and everyone else I know, and even people I don't know) know what I found, whatever it is.

Tell me, if your position depended on someone, and that position was in question, and you got conflicting answers with NO REAL PROOF on EITHER side, what would you do?

Try just for a moment, to put your feet in the shoes of these men, and tell me YOU wouldn't be confused!

We're still confused. If we knew with absolute certainty what the truth was in this case, would we be fighting about it? NO!

I don't condemn people that are still supposing that Ratzinger is the pope. What else are they supposed to think since the Church teaches we all have to submit to the Roman Pontiff? Their conscience is telling them to do this, and I am not their judge.

I don't condemn people that say that Ratzinger is NOT the pope. I don't condemn sede vacantists, because we KNOW that something happened during the 1958 CONclave, and we know that "John XXIII" was a freemason, and we know that he was a communist. And we know he made more cardinals than we can imagine to subvert the Church. We know that something happened at the 1963 CONclave as well, that we haven't been told. So there is absolutely room to doubt. Then there were the shenanigans that were caused because of the "change" to the prayer of episcopal ordination, that give us reason to believe that Ratzinger cannot be the pope! So I understand that's the reason they believe as how they do.

I don't condemn, either, people that believe there is a true Pope out there, but he's hiding out. I happen to believe this myself, and whoever it is, I have submitted to him. As long as the Pope is obedient to God first, I have no problem listening to him.

It's easy to be an assistant couch coach of a football team when the game is over.

The priest at my church was the one that convinced Father Martin to remain in the United States.

Also, he'd asked permission to not wear the collar all of the time because he wasn't under the oath of poverty because he was writing books.

Like I said, it's easy to cast stones when you think you know the conscience of someone. No doubt, with the demeanor of Father Martin, he believed he had a good reason.

Umm, wow. I do obey everything that I am supposed to believe in to be Catholic. I believe in the Papacy, I believe in Papal Infallibility. I also believe that an Apostate can not hold the Chair of Peter. Ratzinger chose to be an Apostate. I did not do that for him. But, If in lashing out at me you feel better that is fine.

Dawn, are you honestly unaware that:

a) Legitimate Popes are capable of issuing unjust commands?

b) Catholics are not morally bound to obey unjust commands by legitimate Popes?