Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => Crisis in the Church => Topic started by: parentsfortruth on June 18, 2009, 11:46:48 AM
-
Pay very close attention to what he says at 3:25 and onward.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_qNPeI8vEWw&NR=1
-
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 Jew-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.
-
Also, pft, you compared him to Lefebvre and suggested he might just be confused.
Being confused is one thing. Writing an entire 600-page novel putting the novel thesis into circulation that John-Paul II was held hostage by political agents of the nєω ωσrℓ∂ σr∂єr is another. Go read Windswept House before you try to sell more people on this huckster. He tries to make JPII into Siri.
He doesn't have ignorance as an excuse either. He shoots off his mouth constantly about the devil and cօռspιʀαcιҽs. He is just there to lead you off the scent of the true conspiracy, like a magician who gets you to look at his left hand while he's doing his trick with the right one.
Go to the website of your fellow Siri-thesist Ken Gordon, Eclipseofthechurch.com. They have information about Malachi.
-
"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.
-
The Siri thesis makes me think of Gnosticism.
-
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.
-
If Benedict is the True Pope obey him, especially when he says no ordinations. If you recognize him as True Pope and disobey, then you have problems.
-
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 Jew. 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.
-
Alright. Here goes. My own priest knew Father Martin. He was a good man. But, my priest says, that when he would see Fr. Martin he would say, make up your mind already. You were street clothes one time the collar the next. Your a priest on day and an author the next. My priest liked him and said to Fr. Martin's own face,"You are confused about who you want to be and therefore confuse people who listen to you. Make up your mind already."
-
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.
-
If Benedict is the True Pope obey him, especially when he says no ordinations. If you recognize him as True Pope and disobey, then you have problems.
Or just assert that he's not the Pope, so disobedience is no longer an issue. How convenient.
-
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.
-
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.
Nonsense. I'm not lashing out at you. I'm just pointing out that it is all too convenient to cynically accuse non-sedevacantists of disobedience to papal commands, when you opt out from having to concern yourself at all with those commands by denying the legitimacy of the person giving them.
-
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?
-
Apostate is the word that you are looking for. He was and Apostate from the faith long before he ever was elected by his fellow Cardinals (not by the Power of the Holy Spirit). And therefore could never have been Pope.
-
Parents, for the record, my priest Fr. K. liked Fr. Malachi Martin and chuckles that so many who never met him or worked with him as he did calumniate a dead man.
-
I'd like to see the source you're quoting when Father Martin allegedly "boasted about how he helped the cause of the Jews with the Vatican II sect."
Thanks.
-
-
Do you also agree with him that Satan and Lucifer are two separate beings? That one made me laugh.
Certainly sounds heterodox.
-
Apostate is the word that you are looking for. He was and Apostate from the faith long before he ever was elected by his fellow Cardinals (not by the Power of the Holy Spirit). And therefore could never have been Pope.
You're missing the point. I understand full well that you believe that Benedict XVI is an apostate anti-pope. The point is that non-sedevacantists are morally justified in disobeying the unjust commands of a Pope whom we recognize to be a valid successor of St. Peter. You can feel free to condemn me for recognizing Benedict XVI as a valid Pope, but don't try to catch me out in an act of disobedience toward him. That's just a lame attempt to score some cheap debating points.
-
"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.
I have disagreements with TCW but to allege he is crazed is something I wouldn't agree with. It makes more sense to say the hierarchy is hidden because for one, it cannot be denied that this has happened more than a few times in Church history-- it begins in the catacombs. Second-- there has never been anything like the present scandal so.....
'sedevacantists know that some mysteries can't be solved'--- Those who believe Greg XVII was the true Pope are not 'sedes'. WE do recognise a different line of Popes and I will admit that I do not know who the Pope is at this time but this does not mean that there isn't one.
Besides from the perspective of the Church Triumphant, a Pope is not really needed as there is no longer any need for a Pontiff to put the final Imprimateur on any Dogmatic Article of Faith.
-
The Siri thesis makes me think of Gnosticism.
The v2 'church' makes me think of Gnosticism-- among other things
-
R76-- I disagree when you say there is no way to get to the bottom of what is going on now-- Card Siri was truely elected Pope in 1958.
Common sense says that there is no evidence for anyone other than two poss popes in 1958. Siri and Roncalli. Since we know that Roncalli was anti-pope, there is then no other possibility.
-
It is most unfortunate that Bea was at one time the confessor to Pius XII. This along with the stories of Mrs Martinez led me to presume Card Pacelli as an anti-pope but this is in error. As Sen Mc Carthy did not understand that his greatest enemy was right next to him, the Apostate Bea was not suspected.
I was an Art Bell fan in the early days when he was all politics. Ever since he went UFO, I wouldn't trust anyone who he is on good terms with.
-
Art Bell is into the occult big time-- all of these people mix truth and lies. TCW thinks M Martin abjured of his errors b4 he died.
-
When I say that Hobson is "crazed" I do not mean to say that the Siri thesis in itself is crazed. It is half-sane, in my view. While it is very likely that Siri was elected at some point, I fail to see how he could have created his own cardinals and had a successor elected while under supposedly strict supervision. The story of Archbishop Thuc is about as far as I go into cloak-and-dagger and seems far more plausible.
What bothers me about Hobson is that he tries to make the Siri election into an article of faith, into dogma, and works on peoples' fear by misinterpreting the statement of Vatican I about a perpetual succession of Popes. This was not PROPHECY. Vatican Councils do not deal in prophecy. It was meant to defend the office of the papacy against those who thought it was an antiquated office, and that the Church should become democratic, as most of the nations were becoming at that time. Therefore, those who said that there SHOULD NOT be Popes, and said instead that there should be collegiality, for instance... Let them be anathema.
Hobson also says "Blessed is he who has not seen but has believed" to refer to those who believe in this invisible line of Popes. This was said by Jesus referring to those ( us ) who never walked with Him or saw His resurrection. It made me intensely angry when I saw Hobson using this line as part of his salesman patter to bolster his pet theory. Jesus did not ask us to believe in invisible Popes.
I am also much less than impressed by Fr. Khoat. The sermon that I saw him give on video was pure Spielberg, trying to pull on emotional heartstrings, painting a picture of the suffering, saintly Siri. The look on Khoat's face was nauseatingly insincere, bad acting. That doesn't mean that Siri wasn't Pope, or that he didn't suffer! But I don't need puppy dogs and rainbows. I want facts. Khoat and Hobson don't have them.
There is no "gnosticism" among the Siri proponents, though. Whoever said that may have been picking up a trace of Dan Brown-style Rosicrucian mysticism from them, but I don't think it applies. Believing that the election in 1958 was rigged or corrupted is far more believable than saying that Mary Magdalene's baby with Jesus became a Merovingian king whose descendant is currently prepping for his role as Great Monarch :laugh1:
My feeling about them is more that they are afraid to take the sedevacantist leap. They are trying to cover all their bases with God, just in case. I think they're making God out to be rather small-minded, and that God will not hold us to account for not being able to dig to the bottom of an immense conspiracy where many, many interests are at stake. But I do not think their position is spiritually harmful. If they are afraid of being all-out sedevacantists, it is better they latch onto Siri than to SSPX.
Sorry, Parentsfortruth, I do not have the Art Bell program. What those articles say is far more damaging than what he supposedly said on Art Bell anyway.
Judith Gordon, the writer of the second article, is a Siri-thesist like yourself. She mentioned two of his books written under the pen name Michael Serafian that are Jew-friendly. If you are concerned about the truth behind this St. Germain-like figure, go read them. For me, it's a waste of energy. If it walks like a duck and talks like a duck, it's a duck. Whatever my other sins, and they are numerous, I am a straight-shooter to the marrow and it is easy for me to see people who aren't. Whenever I listen to this man he leaps from one absurd statement to the next, most of them contradictory.