Author Topic: Institution of the Catholic Church dead-- Father Malachi Martin (Read 3794 times)

Prodinoscopus · « **Reply #5 on:** June 19, 2009, 08:45:59 AM »

Quote from: Raoul76

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.

Dawn · « **Reply #6 on:** June 19, 2009, 12:09:59 PM »

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.

parentsfortruth · « **Reply #7 on:** June 19, 2009, 12:55:48 PM »

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.

Dawn · « **Reply #8 on:** June 19, 2009, 01:03:51 PM »

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."

parentsfortruth · « **Reply #9 on:** June 19, 2009, 01:18:13 PM »

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.