Although I found his rather non-fiction story "Windswept House" interesting, I never trusted Malachi Martin. Now I begin to understand why.
Thanks Diego for forwarding the good work of the Maurice Pinay group.

Thanks for posting that. The blog comments are interesting, too.

The argument that some would use to counter this is that Malachi Martin experienced a conversion in the 80s or thereabouts, which I don't buy. He never substantially addressed the role he played at VCII, and he was shifty up to the end.

I think a lot of people use Martin as a way of avoiding the Jєωιѕн problem. 10 years ago I enjoyed listening to Martin, but in the same way one enjoys reading an escapist novel. He was entertaining.

Well, first of all let me say that I am very fond of MauricePinay and his writings. I think he does a good job exposing the ʝʊdɛօ-Masons that infiltrated the Vatican.

However, he and I got into a debate over on Ignis Ardens about Fr. Malachi Martin a few weeks ago, and with all due respect to MauricePinay, I don't think his arguments againt MM prove that he was a phony.

Hugh Akins, author of the book "ѕуηαgσgυє Rising", said that he knew Fr. Malachi Martin personally and that he was once a liberal, but after Vatican II he rejected liberalism and converted. So all MauricePinay has proven is what Hugh Akins confirmed: that Martin WAS a liberal. But he doesn't understand that he converted.

The poor man isn't even alive to defend himself, so I don't think we should be grinding an axe against him. There is no proof that he was a "double agent".

You're all entitled to your opinion, and I'm not going to down you for it. I just don't think there is any sufficient evidence against him, other than him being a liberal at one time, but as Hugh Akins said, he converted.

Ah, MauricePinay. Nice timing.

You flatter yourself. There was no debate. There was the presentation of Malachi Martin's writings and your wet-blanket denials of them.

Isn't that a debate, though?

I flatter myself? I think you're being a bit too defensive.

Your continued bizarre, euphemistic dismissal--that a man who wrote a book drawing a parallel between Christianity and nαzιsm in order to shape a Church council, among many other such treacheries, was merely 'a liberal'--calls your judgement into question.

But you repeatedly ignore what Hugh Akins said, that the man CONVERTED. Did he not convert? If not, what, in your opinion, didn't make his conversion legit?

Malachi Martin's own docuмented words prove him to be not only a phony but an unapologetic destroyer of the Church. My arguments are hardly the issue. I'm sorry that you're unwilling or unable to discern the reality here.

But again, he converted.

Here is the evidence of the conversion of an enemy of the Church:

Men, brethren, and fathers, hear ye the account which I now give unto you ... I am a Jєω, born at Tarsus in Cilicia, but brought up in this city, at the feet of Gamaliel, taught according to the truth of the law of the fathers, zealous for the law, as also all you are this day: Who persecuted this way unto death, binding and delivering into prisons both men and women. As the high priest doth bear me witness, and all the ancients: from whom also receiving letters to the brethren, I went to Damascus, that I might bring them bound from thence to Jerusalem to be punished ...

I cast into prison, and beat in every ѕуηαgσgυє, them that believed in thee. And when the blood of Stephen thy witness was shed, I stood by and consented, and kept the garments of them that killed him.

Paul confessed the full extent of his wrongdoing and collusion with the Pharisees, repented, reformed himself and preached the true Gospel. This is conversion.

Malachi Martin minimized the extent of his Vatican II treachery with the Pharisees of the AJC and Rabbi Heschel, lied about his intentions and blamed others until the year he died. Post-'conversion' he exploited his Vatican insider reputation to get rich peddling storybooks instead of informing people from his pharisee-insider experience. He preached an entertainment Gospel suitable to New Agers and UFO enthusiasts. He harped on the idea that the Church was collapsing and that 'there's no going back.' He preached libertarianism; that the state should not prohibit abortion. He gratuitously blasphemed Christ's crucifixion. Aside from some token external gestures there is no evidence that Malachi Martin converted.

There is no debate here, only blindness in the face of the evidence.

Sorry, MauricePinay, but I think I'm more inclined to believe someone who knew him PERSONALLY. Good day.

In other words, you value hearsay above substantive evidence.

I don't require someone who knew Martin to explain to me what it means that he published a book comparing Christianity to nαzιsm in order to sway Vatican II in the favor of the Pharisees and that he never repented of this treachery.

I base my judgement upon the evidence from Malachi Martin's docuмented words and actions.

I base my judgement upon the evidence from Malachi Martin's docuмented words and actions.

And that's a better way to go about judging someone's Catholic heterodoxy.

People can be easily fooled by seemingly charitable gestures.