Author Topic: The Final Nail in Malachi Martins Coffin (Read 4698 times)

s2srea · « **Reply #15 on:** October 19, 2012, 02:41:16 PM »

I'm curious how many members here are now disciples of MP... :detective:

ServusSpiritusSancti · « **Reply #16 on:** October 19, 2012, 03:21:49 PM »

Quote from: MauricePinay

In other words, you value hearsay above substantive evidence.

How could someone who knew him personally be spreading "hearsay"? Did you know him personally? I doubt it.

s2s is right, it sounds to me like you're mixing truth with your own pride.

MauricePinay · « **Reply #17 on:** October 19, 2012, 03:21:54 PM »

Quote from: guitarplucker

Quote from: Anthony Benedict

One question, Maurice, if I may. You ARE a Catholic, right? I've seen the question raised before and, probably my own fault, not seen your response.

It didn't occur to me that he might not be. Now I'm curious, too.

I am Catholic, and this is a thread about Malachi Martin, the Catholic who, inter alia, colluded with the Pharisees to foist Nostra Aetate on the Church but never admitted or apologized for it to his post-'conversion' audience.

The reasoning is misguided. People better start learning how to discern the essence of things and value such above externals; what the gurus say about themselves or others, etc.

Neil Obstat · « **Reply #18 on:** October 20, 2012, 05:12:43 AM »

I knew several people who knew him personally, and I spoke to MM on the
phone in regards to topics of mutual interest. He was extremely patient and
most efficient in his thinking and conversation. His primary purpose in those
last years of his life was to encourage Catholics to remain steadfast with the
Canonized Traditional Latin Mass and sacraments. That was what he was all
about.

To come off half-cocked, proclaiming that his intentions were sinister, his
conversion faked, his true motives cloaked, his words a stream of lies, his
books a pile of fables and his death a mockery of God's mercy has got to be
nothing short of a bad example of what Christian charity is all about. It might
even be a serious sin, especially on a public forum.

Now, since that time, I have read some of his writings that make me cringe.
But they were earlier works. In my conversations with him, he was not too
eager to accept any praise for his books. I got the impression that he was
struggling to forget that he had ever written them. He was associating with
Fr. Charles Fiore in those last years, when Fr. Alfred Joseph Kunz was murdered,
and MM wasted no time in doing what he could to assist in that situation. He
came out with a statement that he was rather confident that the murder was
tied up with a certain coven of witches in the greater vicinity of Dane, Wisconsin.
To this day the police department is unwilling to comment on that aspect.

You have to consider the times, when MM was working with Bea in Rome, we
were having the abominable 60's, when standards of morality were up for
grabs. If he had been a holy man at that time, he would have behaved
differently, for sure. He was a writer, and he was trying to sell copy. You can't
deny he was a gifted story teller. As years went by, I suppose he had to make
a choice: if he had come clean and repented of his misdeeds of years past, there
very well could have been a few 'disappointed' associates who would not have
appreciated the info coming to light, and his life could have been on the line,
literally. What good would he be able to do wearing concrete shoes? By keeping
a mildly low profile and not entirely spilling the beans, he could perhaps lead
a number of wandering souls to the True Mass and sacraments. So his books
in the later years became more expository but not so much so that he would
set his would-be persecutors against him with a vengeance.

In any case, he was a complex fellow, certainly not a holy man. It's kind of
bizarre to try to compare him with St. Paul. There isn't only one kind of
conversion. Maybe his conversion was a gradual one, or incomplete for a long
time. No holy man could have written the things he did. It's my suspicion that
he was in the end trying to draw in the straggling fringe with material that they
would find interesting, and hopefully would get them to show up at Mass now and
then. The rest could be someone else's project.

Telesphorus · « **Reply #19 on:** October 20, 2012, 05:27:37 AM »

Malachi Martin did say on the Art Bell show that the government should stay out of the abortion issue.

Lots of shady characters can give the advice they're expected to give "in character."

Everything about Malachi Martin suggests he was a very shady character.

That's not to judge his soul.

Why of all the Catholics out there, was he chosen for fame?

Sigismund · « **Reply #20 on:** October 20, 2012, 08:48:56 AM »

Quote from: s2srea

I'm curious how many members here are now disciples of MP... :detective:

I am determinately not, although I am no fan of Martin's either.

And isn't this old news? I remember reading about this years ago.

Sigismund · « **Reply #21 on:** October 20, 2012, 08:50:04 AM »

Quote from: Telesphorus

Malachi Martin did say on the Art Bell show that the government should stay out of the abortion issue.

Lots of shady characters can give the advice they're expected to give "in character."

Everything about Malachi Martin suggests he was a very shady character.

That's not to judge his soul.

Why of all the Catholics out there, was he chosen for fame?

Wise words, I think.

MauricePinay · « **Reply #22 on:** October 20, 2012, 10:38:15 AM »

Quote from: Sigismund

And isn't this old news? I remember reading about this years ago.

You've seen the quotations I've presented from Martin's books The Pilgrim and The Encounter in print years ago. Where?

The titles of these books have often been mentioned in traditionalist commentary, often with misleading descriptions of the contents. I've never seen any traditionalist cite the quotations I've brought to light HERE and HERE.

Anthony Benedict · « **Reply #23 on:** October 20, 2012, 12:45:52 PM »

Thanks for your answer, MauricePinay.

I thought I had seen someone claim otherwise, awhile back.

On the matter of MM, I am inclined to think the critics have the better argument and - presuming your own analysis is definitive - that would close the question, for good. I recall when Serv did an extensive workup of the issue several years ago on AQ and, following both similar and different leads as your own, came to pretty much the same conclusion as did you about MM.

I have a copy of "The Plot..." which lists as its author the name you use. I have found little to criticize in it.

Again, thank you for clearing up the question.

Quote from: MauricePinay

Quote from: guitarplucker
Quote from: Anthony Benedict

One question, Maurice, if I may. You ARE a Catholic, right? I've seen the question raised before and, probably my own fault, not seen your response.

It didn't occur to me that he might not be. Now I'm curious, too.

I am Catholic, and this is a thread about Malachi Martin, the Catholic who, inter alia, colluded with the Pharisees to foist Nostra Aetate on the Church but never admitted or apologized for it to his post-'conversion' audience.

The reasoning is misguided. People better start learning how to discern the essence of things and value such above externals; what the gurus say about themselves or others, etc.

ServusSpiritusSancti · « **Reply #24 on:** October 20, 2012, 04:51:55 PM »

Here is what Hugh Akins says about Fr. Malachi Martin:

Quote

Fr. Malachi Martin, whom this author had the honor of knowing personally, had come practically full circle from his earlier liberal days in the Vatican. It was a slow gradual transformation, but a certainty that the good Father became more and more traditional over the years, actually more traditional with the completion of each of his best selling books, which required of him extensive research study and prayer, until the final book, which he never got to complete, and which may have very well cost him his life. A work that was to shed light on Modernist Rome's complicity in the building of the anti-Christian Judaic-Masonic nєω ωσrℓ∂ σr∂єr, was too much for the enemies of Christ. A book of that nature written by an author of his standing would have reached millions and had to be stopped. There were many indications that the cause of Fr. Martin's death was assassination, including the disappearance of the unfinished manuscript and his own final words that he'd been pushed down a flight of stairs while in his wheelchair.He was not able to identify the assailant who attacked from behind. His murderer may have escaped justice in time, but not in eternity. God knows his identity and will exact His vengeance. Fr. Martin may your soul rest in peace.

Hugh Akins also said the following about the satanic enthronement in the Vatican:

Quote

Cardinal Bernardin's involvement in satanic rituals is well known among discerning Catholics. It was verified by both Fathers Malachi Martin and Charles Fiore, the latter whom described his Eminence as an evil man and a flaming ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ. The rape of the very young girl in the bestselling Fr. Martin novel, WINDSWEPT HOUSE, was a fictional depiction of a real-life satanic consecration, which featured forced acts with a small child on the altar of a church during a Satanic Mass, allegedly committed by Cardinal Bernardin. According to Father Fiore, the rape victim, now an adult who came forward to make her accusations known, was a very brave and credible woman.

Neil Obstat · « **Reply #25 on:** October 20, 2012, 04:56:55 PM »

Quote from: Telesphorus

Malachi Martin did say on the Art Bell show that the government should stay out of the abortion issue.

Lots of shady characters can give the advice they're expected to give "in character."

Everything about Malachi Martin suggests he was a very shady character.

That's not to judge his soul.

Why of all the Catholics out there, was he chosen for fame?

It seems conspicuous that the most outspoken of MM's critics never actually knew
him. Hoffman is an exception, who claims some of his material that he shared
with MM turned up in Windswept House, "without acknowledgement, of
course." My advice to Hoffman is, hey, if you're resentful that MM got the gold
'mine' and you got the 'shaft,' why don't you write your own book and keep the
proceeds?

I did not hear the fabled Bell show where MM mentioned his opinion on abortion
legislation. As I understand it, that was during a time when discussions were
going around about how to change the ill effects of RvsW and one idea was that it
should be a state issue and the Fed should "stay out of it." Is that what MM was
talking about? Nobody has clarified or given any context. Michael Hoffman claims
to have hoarded cassettes of the show for what, years? He doesn't really say, but
when nobody wanted a copy he discarded the tapes. Would you hire him for an
archivist? I mean, he's doing his best to tar and feather the man's legacy, but he
can't provide the evidence he so much craves. Sorry, Michael, but if Malachi were
to have done that, you'd be asking him how he could be so sure it had happened
when he couldn't be bothered to keep the evidence! -- If, that is, you would not
flatly accuse him of making it all up, as in 'another one of your 80% truth stories
but which parts constitute the 20% fiction nobody-will-ever-know' stories??

The years from 1960, when the errors of Russia would come into the fore lest the
Third Secret be revealed, until the end of the century were years when one could
get a lot of attention from controversy. Is that how MM saw fame? Was he trying
to get into the history books? Was he dedicated to making a name for himself?
Certainly during those years, one could garner more headlines with a little
controversy than without it. I heard a Brit say one time in the 80's that "what
America needs is a good scandal." I suppose that could have been a joke, but to
me it wasn't funny. He seemed disappointed that I didn't laugh.

Was he just "acting a part" in his own subjective play? I can't say he wasn't, for I
never asked him that question. I had not thought of doing so at the time, but if
I had thought of it, I doubt I would have asked because it would seem to be rude.
He was doing me a significant favor by spending his time with me, in fact, it was
his idea that we use the telephone, when I had attempted to do it "postal." His
words were, after our first phone intercourse, "Do you see how much more we
can accomplish with a live conversation?" I recall going, "Uhhhh..." and he
interrupted my hemming and hawing with "...instead of trying to do this by mail?"
I immediately agreed, having been embarrassed by seeming to not understand
his first question. His thinking was lightning fast and it was not easy to keep up
with it.

I'm happy to see you do not presume to judge his soul. How Catholic of you.
Perhaps others may learn a lesson from your example? Then again, for some,
maybe not. I recall how the legacy of Judas Iscariot was treated with kid gloves
post Vatican II, and then, the silence erupted (for me, at least) when I discovered
a sinister lay movement that held Judas in high regard, and paid more attention
to him than the other 12, even. So that's something to be wary of, I suppose.

With all the other Catholics out there, some of whom have lived lives of penance,
mortification and prayer, and some who died martyrs (maybe both??), why him?

Sorry, that one's over my league. I'd suppose we could chalk it up to the
"mystery of iniquity" (cf. II Thes. ii. 7, II Tim. iii. 1, iv. 3-4) and "itching ears" in
the "last days."

Sigismund · « **Reply #26 on:** October 20, 2012, 05:36:27 PM »

Quote from: MauricePinay

Quote from: Sigismund
And isn't this old news? I remember reading about this years ago.

You've seen the quotations I've presented from Martin's books The Pilgrim and The Encounter in print years ago. Where?

The titles of these books have often been mentioned in traditionalist commentary, often with misleading descriptions of the contents. I've never seen any traditionalist cite the quotations I've brought to light HERE and HERE.

I don't know that what I saw were these exact quoted. I read on AQ years ago about Martin's collaboration with Jєωιѕн authorities around VC II docuмents.

Sigismund · « **Reply #27 on:** October 20, 2012, 05:37:41 PM »

Quote from: Anthony Benedict

Thanks for your answer, MauricePinay.

I thought I had seen someone claim otherwise, awhile back.

On the matter of MM, I am inclined to think the critics have the better argument and - presuming your own analysis is definitive - that would close the question, for good. I recall when Serv did an extensive workup of the issue several years ago on AQ and, following both similar and different leads as your own, came to pretty much the same conclusion as did you about MM.

I have a copy of "The Plot..." which lists as its author the name you use. I have found little to criticize in it.

Again, thank you for clearing up the question.

Quote from: MauricePinay
Quote from: guitarplucker
Quote from: Anthony Benedict

One question, Maurice, if I may. You ARE a Catholic, right? I've seen the question raised before and, probably my own fault, not seen your response.

It didn't occur to me that he might not be. Now I'm curious, too.

I am Catholic, and this is a thread about Malachi Martin, the Catholic who, inter alia, colluded with the Pharisees to foist Nostra Aetate on the Church but never admitted or apologized for it to his post-'conversion' audience.

The reasoning is misguided. People better start learning how to discern the essence of things and value such above externals; what the gurus say about themselves or others, etc.

That is exactly what I was thinking of.

Clelia · « **Reply #28 on:** October 20, 2012, 06:07:17 PM »

Quote from: s2srea

I'm curious how many members here are now disciples of MP... :detective:

Nada. His writings always smacked of a whiney baby attacking anything that outshines himself. IMHO. :baby:

Diego · « **Reply #29 on:** October 21, 2012, 08:08:47 AM »

Quote from: guitarplucker

Quote from: Anthony Benedict

One question, Maurice, if I may. You ARE a Catholic, right? I've seen the question raised before and, probably my own fault, not seen your response.

It didn't occur to me that he might not be. Now I'm curious, too.

The Judaica Ardens Disease arises here now? Argument by innuendo and character assassination here now?

There, Then:

I recall GregJ of Judaica Ardens ill repute stating his intent to destroy the reputation of Michael Hoffman and much of that effort was an attempt to "prove" by innuendo and mere assertion that Michael is not Catholic. Two ironies: (1) two personal friends of Hoffman testified to his Catholicism and (2) while attempting to impugn Hoffman's catholicity, GregJ was himself touting how the тαℓмυd was useful for Catholics to understand the Faith and the Mass, also attempting to raise his selected historians as Magisterium, raising their historical theories to de fide on matters the Magisterium has never addressed. Damned by his own public defections from the Faith, GregJ impugned Hoffman's Catholicism. Hoffman's defenders were timed out and banned by Judaica Ardens; GregJ remained there as rabbi.

Here, Now, the Antidote to Judaica Ardens Disease:

Any honest rational man who has carefully followed the Maurice Pinay blog can only conclude that "Maurice" is Catholic, scrupulously Catholic. While that objective evidence is dispositive and should stand alone, you also have my personal testimony as his friend.

By the same Matthew 7:1-2 standard by which Maurice judges Malachi Martin, we may safely judge Maurice himself as Catholic. See the years of evidence yourself: http://mauricepinay.blogspot.com