Author Topic: Malachi Martin: What is the truth? (Read 21988 times)

ServusSpiritusSancti · « **Reply #85 on:** August 01, 2011, 03:37:46 PM »

Ignoring roscoe (as usual), I'm going to guess rows that you aren't fully Traditional given that last comment you made about satan being enthroned. You must realize that satan was not enthroned in the Catholic Church. The church he was enthroned in was the anti-church, run by Freemasons. Vatican II is not a Catholic council. It can't be. It rejected the Catholic dogma that there is no salvation outside the Catholic Church. How can it be Catholic? So, the enthronement of satan was entirely possible and likely considering it was not the Catholic Church he was enthroned into.

Elizabeth · « **Reply #86 on:** August 01, 2011, 10:14:49 PM »

Quote from: rowsofvoices9

IMHO Mr. Martin did irreparable damage to the Church and the faithful. He gave the Church a black eye and gave more fodder to those who already hate the Catholic Church. All they need do is look at his writings and numerous interviews and conclude that the Catholic Church is thoroughly corrupt and rotten and truly the "Whore of Babylon".

Another thing, I don't believe for one minute that Satan was enthroned in the very heart of Our Lord's Church. If what Mr. Martin claims is true then he's saying that the gates of hell really have prevailed and that Christ's promise to be with his Church always was a lie.

He was saying what Pope Leo XIII who composed the Prayer to St. Michael saw in the vision which inspired this prayer-supposed to be recited after every Low Mass.

What damage has Fr. Martin done? How on Earth can you blame him for so much? Why not Cardinal Bernadin? You are saying it's Malachi Martin's fault for fighting satanist infiltrators?

Revival of the traditional Rite of Exorcism which had been tossed to the wayside by Modernists? That was a bad thing?

How would alerting the faithful to the nєω ωσrℓ∂ σr∂єr before most people had ever heard of such a thing be bad for the faithful? In 1992 how many of us knew or understood what the Globalists were up to?

Dang, Rowofvoices, it is an incredible, grave accusation you make about Malachi Martin, based on your "feelings". "Mr. Martin"?

He has NEVER claimed that the gates of Hell have prevailed over Holy Mother Church.

I am now seriously wondering if you are a reincarnation of one of the banned "popes" we have had here from time to time.

Elizabeth · « **Reply #87 on:** August 01, 2011, 10:19:51 PM »

Quote from: SpiritusSanctus

Ignoring roscoe (as usual), I'm going to guess rows that you aren't fully Traditional given that last comment you made about satan being enthroned. You must realize that satan was not enthroned in the Catholic Church. The church he was enthroned in was the anti-church, run by Freemasons. Vatican II is not a Catholic council. It can't be. It rejected the Catholic dogma that there is no salvation outside the Catholic Church. How can it be Catholic? So, the enthronement of satan was entirely possible and likely considering it was not the Catholic Church he was enthroned into.

Yes.

And whereas Rows may have forgotten about The Church Militant, The Church Suffering, and The Church Triumphant, Malachi Martin never did.

roscoe · « **Reply #88 on:** August 02, 2011, 12:00:53 AM »

Quote from: rowsofvoices9

I give no credence to anything he said.....

After a reread of the post, I cannot agree with this but I do believe M Martin needed to repent big time.

rowsofvoices9 · « **Reply #89 on:** August 02, 2011, 12:22:33 AM »

Quote from: Elizabeth

Quote from: SpiritusSanctus
Ignoring roscoe (as usual), I'm going to guess rows that you aren't fully Traditional given that last comment you made about satan being enthroned. You must realize that satan was not enthroned in the Catholic Church. The church he was enthroned in was the anti-church, run by Freemasons. Vatican II is not a Catholic council. It can't be. It rejected the Catholic dogma that there is no salvation outside the Catholic Church. How can it be Catholic? So, the enthronement of satan was entirely possible and likely considering it was not the Catholic Church he was enthroned into.

Yes.

And whereas Rows may have forgotten about The Church Militant, The Church Suffering, and The Church Triumphant, Malachi Martin never did.

Elizabeth I haven't for one moment forgotten about the above. I referred to Malachi Martin as Mr. because of the following. Maybe I should have addressed him as Dr. Martin.

Here's what the Vatican says about him:

"In 1965, Mr. Martin received a dispensation from all privileges and obligations deriving from his vows as a Jesuit and from priestly ordination." [Congregation for Institutes of Consecrated Life and Societies of Apostolic Life, 25 June 1997, Prot. N. 04300/65]."

Here is a definition of laicization.

http://www.catholicreference.net/index.cfm?id=34471

LAICIZATION
The act of reducing an ecclesiastical person or thing to a lay status. The turning over of a church building to a secular purpose; the removal by a civil power of ecclesiastical control in an institution where that control and influence should be operative. In the laicization of clerics, the Holy See, for extraordinary reasons and the greater good of the Church, may laicize a bishop, priest, or deacon. In spite of the term, however, the person does not lose his sacramental powers and remains an ordained person. But he is legitimately dispensed from the ordinary duties attached to his office and, generally also, of his vow of celibacy, giving him the right to marry. In an emergency, a laicized priest can validly administer the sacraments of anointing and penance.