Author Topic: New Malachi Martin Book (Read 73345 times)

Bonaventure · « **on:** December 03, 2025, 08:30:41 PM »

Haven't read it, so can't comment on it. Haven't even ever heard of the author. Until now. Thought I'd pass it along nonetheless.

Per description at Amazon:

Quote

Former CIA operations officer Robert Marro Jr. pens a gripping memoir about his close friend and confidante, the famed enigmatic exorcist, bestselling author, and Vatican insider Malachi Martin.

In this riveting firsthand account, Robert Marro Jr. pulls back the veil on the life of the mysterious and controversial Reverend Dr. Malachi Martin. Over the course of their decade-long friendship, Martin revealed secretive details of the Vatican’s efforts to combat Stalinist Iron Curtain governments during the Cold War. Martin also revealed to Marro previously unknown details of the controversial Third Secret of Fatima, which to date has still not been fully disclosed, despite Vatican protestations to the contrary. Marro also sets the record straight on Martin’s status as an ex-Jesuit priest and alleged womanizer. Martin was not only a renowned exorcist who literally fought the demons of Hell—he was a Dead Sea Scrolls archeologist, Cold War Vatican spy, and advisor to three popes. In Malachi Martin, Marro pulls back the curtain on the only priest who could legitimately be called “The Indiana Jones of the Catholic Church.”

Galilean · « **Reply #1 on:** December 04, 2025, 05:11:52 PM »

Morrow's interview w/Life Site.
"Prophet Priest: the truth about Fr. Malachi Martin."

Yeti · « **Reply #2 on:** December 04, 2025, 05:41:46 PM »

Quote from: Galilean on December 04, 2025, 05:11:52 PM

Morrow's interview w/Life Site.
"Prophet Priest: the truth about Fr. Malachi Martin."

.

I realize Life Site is not a trad website, but man this is embarrassing. Did you see episode 520?

Quote

Marro unveils Martin’s secret elevation as a Vatican “apostolic administrator” a covert cardinalate established as a Cold War contingency plan. He details Martin’s intimate involvement with the Third Secret of Fatima, his clandestine work behind the Iron Curtain, his profound spiritual warfare encounters, and his prophetic warnings about diabolic disorientation and future crises within the Church.

This is some weapons-grade retardation, right here. I don't know where to begin. A secret cardinalate? Let me guess ... Martin was one of them?

And Martin was involved with the third secret of Fatima? Okay, then why didn't he publish what it says?

"Profound spiritual warfare encounters?"

Prophetic warnings? Future crises?

SkidRowCatholic · « **Reply #3 on:** December 04, 2025, 06:45:11 PM »

What do;

"The Beast"
"The Nine"
and Malachi Martin

have in common?

Ladislaus · « **Reply #4 on:** **Yesterday** at 08:07:08 AM »

Quote from: Yeti on December 04, 2025, 05:41:46 PM

.

I realize Life Site is not a trad website, but man this is embarrassing. Did you see episode 520?

This is some weapons-grade retardation, right here. I don't know where to begin. A secret cardinalate? Let me guess ... Martin was one of them?

And Martin was involved with the third secret of Fatima? Okay, then why didn't he publish what it says?

"Profound spiritual warfare encounters?"

Prophetic warnings? Future crises?

So, not publishing the Third Secret I can understand, if of course it's true at all. I do believe it's been verified that Martin was a secretary for Cardinal Bea, and the story is that Bea let him read the Secret. Of course, while pretending that he (and Bea) were among the "good guys" (with Bea allegedly complaining about Roncalli et al not acting on the Third Secret, even though Bea is likely a Mason), at another time Martin related a story in which he enjoyed blackmailing various bishops and Cardinals at Vatican II, and I doubt it was for good or noble purposes, i.e. to reject the heresis at Vatican II. So that's where Martin's BS starts contradicting itself. He's one of the secret good guys here, but then he admitted to being an agent of the bad guys. Which one, then?

I knew someone who followed Martin around on various lecture tours, and he told me that Martin would change up his narrative (in contradictory ways) depending on his audience.

At this point, I just don't know how much is true, how much BS, whether Martin was a bad guy or a good guy, or a bad guy converted into a good guy, or just a total fraud like Moran, where he was a nobody who knew next to nothing but then made a grifting career out of telling stories.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #5 on:** **Yesterday** at 08:09:36 AM »

Quote from: SkidRowCatholic on December 04, 2025, 06:45:11 PM

What do;

"The Beast"
"The Nine"
and Malachi Martin

have in common?

So, here's another contradiction in the narrative. Here we have the +Thuc bishop +Lopez-Gaston ordaining Coomaraswami, but then there's another story that Martin had secretly been ordained a bishop. Then why didn't Martin simply ordain Coomaraswami himself?

josefamenendez · « **Reply #6 on:** **Yesterday** at 08:12:28 AM »

I understand the need for clandestine Bishops, especially behind the Iron Curtain during the Cold war, but what actually is the point of a clandestine Cardinal? Especially one from the UK or America?
It's just a titled office to elect the Pope.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #7 on:** **Yesterday** at 08:15:59 AM »

BTW, there's a serious issue with the orders of +(?)Lopez-Gaston. He had in fact been ordained to the priesthood by +Carmona, but then he was consecrated by one of the Duarte-Costa bishops (doubtful) and then conditionally consecrated by this +(?)Roux guy who claims to have been consecrated by +Thuc, but many people have asserted that +(?)Roux was a fraud and had never been consecrated by +Thuc, and I think they had some good evidence for that.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #8 on:** **Yesterday** at 08:17:41 AM »

Quote from: josefamenendez on Yesterday at 08:12:28 AM

I understand the need for clandestine Bishops, especially behind the Iron Curtain during the Cold war, but what actually is the point of a clandestine Cardinal? Especially one from the UK or America?
It's just a titled office to elect the Pope.

I COULD see that, where, let's say a Pope Pius XII somehow got wind of the fact that they were planning on installing an Anti-Pope, or he received some private revelation, where he might create secret Cardinals. But I doubt that actually happened.

There is such a thing as a Cardinal "in pectore", where somtimes the Popes would create Cardinals but not publicly announce it, and the reason sometimes was because they were behind the Iron Curtain.

josefamenendez · « **Reply #9 on:** **Yesterday** at 08:34:23 AM »

I did post the Maurice Pinay archive on Malachi Martin in the comments under this new Lifesite video yesterday- but it wasn't there when I looked today.

SkidRowCatholic · « **Reply #10 on:** **Yesterday** at 09:26:27 AM »

Quote from: Ladislaus on Yesterday at 08:09:36 AM

So, here's another contradiction in the narrative. Here we have the +Thuc bishop +Lopez-Gaston ordaining Coomaraswami, but then there's another story that Martin had secretly been ordained a bishop. Then why didn't Martin simply ordain Coomaraswami himself?

ON THE VALIDITY OF MY ORDINATION

While Fr. Cekada’s paper entitled Untrained and Un-Tridentine Holy Orders and the Canonically Unfit demonstrates a strong desire to return to the Church of the 50’s rather than a return to sound Catholic principles, and as such demonstrates a certain lack of understanding of the problems that many Catholics face at the present time, I shall only address myself to that part of the paper which in a thinly disguised manner almost certainly pertains to, and aims at devaluating my ordination.

Despite his failure to use names several friends have pointed to possible similarities. The following comments are made with the intention of avoiding further confusion.

On the assumption that Fr. Cekada is referring to myself, let me say that if he had any doubts about the facts surrounding my ordination, he might have given me the courtesy of asking for the facts. I am reminded of verses 14 and 15 of Psalm 55. Again, on the assumption that his comments refer to myself, let me say that he has almost all the facts wrong. In fact the only thing he got right was that Bishop Jose Lopez-Gaston used a photocopy of the Pontifical.

First of all, Bishop-Lopez Gaston is extraordinarily well educated and qualified for his function of ordaining Bishop. He studied with the Marists in Cuba with the intention of entering the priesthood from 1944 to 1960. With the advent of Castro, he left for Spain. He subsequently completed studies in Philosophy, and Theology and received certificates of competence from Cardinal Manuel Aertaga (also exiled from Havana) in Theology and catechesis as well as a degree in theology. In the interim the changes in the Church occurred and he met his wife and married.

He has two separate doctorates, one in Romance Languages and one in Humanities, Philosophy and History obtained from universities in this country as well as degrees from the University of Havana in Philosophy and History. He is fluid in Latin, Greek and Spanish and indeed was head of the Department of Humanities at the University of New Mexico where he taught, among things, Latin.

When he was older, and after Bishop Carmona was consecrated by Archbishop Thuc (he incidentally in turn consecrated Bishop Pivarunas and Bishop Pivarunas consecrated Bishop Dolan), Bishop Carmona who knew Lopez-Gaston suggested to him that he should now be ordained. Both Bishop Gaston Lopez and his wife took public vows of celibacy and Bishop Carmona ordained him. He was subsequently consecrated as a bishop in the Thuc line.

It is virtually impossible for Bishop Gaston Lopez to have skipped a page at the time of my ordination – especially as there were several bishops and priests present. Every detail of the ordination rite was in fact followed correctly, and there are photographs that bear witness to this.

One problem arose. One of the people present thought Bishop Lopez-Gaston didn’t actually touch my head during the critical part of the rite. I of course cannot bear witness to this as I was too much too involved in the process of ordination to check on such a detail. I however recently looked at the photographs which were taken and offer two as evidence to the contrary.

However, my close friend and mentor, Bishop Malachi Martin, stated that he wished there to be absolutely no doubt about my ordination. He therefore proceeded to conditionally re-ordain me. Hence it is that I received the graces of Ordination from a double source.

Father Cekada seems to have a particular antipathy against married clergy – indeed this would seem to be the basis of his views on “canonicity.” Now eleven of the apostles were married; several of the canonized saints were married; some 29 popes were married, and some of them had their wives live in the Vatican; The Eastern “uniate” Churches allow for marriage and the Church has never denied the validity of their Sacramental functions, finally the New Testament speaks of the duties of married bishops. While under normal circuмstances a married clergy in the Western Church is unusual from the 12^th century onwards, cases of dispensation from Ecclesiastical canons have continually been allowed. For example, Pope Pius XII allowed married Episcopal and Anglican clergy who converted and wished to be priests to retain their wives. Just for the record marriage in no way invalidates the Sacrament. Of course there is a difference between a married person being ordained, and a priest who has already taken vows of celibacy getting married. Under the present circuмstances it would seem that there is room for a carefully selected married clergy.[1] (This should not be misconstrued as to my advocating an across the board married clergy, but is offered to show that the canons involved are “ecclesiastical” and subject to dispensation.)

I cannot resist one final comment. It is clear that Fr. Cekada, despite his vaunted seminary training, never understood the sin of calumny. In his article he refers to Malachi Martin (again, not by name) as an “Apostate priest.”

For the record, Father Vincent O’Keefe, S.J. former Vicar General of the Jesuits has publicly admitted that Fr. Malachi Brendin Martin was granted a full and legal dispensation from his Jesuit vows except for chastity and given a perpetual celebate to celebrate the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. (cf. Michael Cain, Editor of the Daily Catholic, Easter Wednesday, April 14, 2004)

Perhaps a few words from Father Fiori, O.P. who know Malachi Martin for over 20 years, and who recently passed away may be of interest.

“Malachi Martin never left the Catholic priesthood, but was personally dispensed from his vows of poverty and obedience by Paul VI on leaving the Jesuits in 1964. I have seen and authenticated his dispensation papers. He did not seek release from his vow of chastity. When he came to New York, Cardinal Cooke gave him priestly faculties and advised him to find lodging with a family rather than live alone as he initially did.”

I might add that Malachi, like many of us, changed his views over the course of time, but that Cuono bears witness in his rather puerile book An American Exorcist, that Father Malachi never said the Novus Ordo Missae.

Finally, let me make it clear that I am not interested in a debate on these issues. I initially intended to ignore Fr. Cekada’s diatribe, but as I do hear confessions, do write on theological issues, and at times impart spiritual advice, I think it important to defend the validity of my orders.

Picture #1

Picture #2

Rama P. Coomaraswamy, M.D., F.A.C.S. +

http://www.the-pope.com/validity.html

Ladislaus · « **Reply #11 on:** **Yesterday** at 10:15:07 AM »

But, this does make me question Dr. Coomaraswami's grasp of Sacramental theology here, when he states that he received the graces of ordination from a "double source". No, if the first one was valid, the second one did not confer the grace of Orders, or vice versa. And the conditional is a very simplified form of the Rite, so one couldn't say it's because of the other parts of the Rite.

In Picture 2 above, he does appear rather clearly to be touching his head.

So, my issues have nothing to do with his being marriged, or the +Thuc line in general ... but with +Lopez-Gaston, having derived episcopal consecration from a Duarte-Costa bishop and then conditionally from +Roux, the latter's consecration by +Thuc having been contested by quite a few people. Then of course we have very little evidence that Martin was actually a bishop.

I suppose one COULD say that Martin did not want it known that he was a bishop, and that's why +Lopez-Gaston did the consecration, but then after the consecration decided to step in, since conditionals are generally somewhat low-key.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #12 on:** **Yesterday** at 10:21:55 AM »

So, having watched part of the interview, I don't have a great deal of confidence in this Marro fellow, i.e. not sure he really knows what he's talking about ... and am beginning to wonder how much of this HE is making up in order to sell a book.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #13 on:** **Yesterday** at 10:24:21 AM »

I think that overall Martin might have been just a bit more credible had he not kept being evasive, shifty, changing details ... and constantly engaged in "factional" writing, where it's a blend of fact/fiction and you don't know where the line is between the two.

If he had just come out with plain speech, been direct, instead of always being behind this fog of uncertainty.

SkidRowCatholic · « **Reply #14 on:** **Yesterday** at 10:24:50 AM »

There is a link between Rama Coomaraswamy, Martin, and "The Nine".

There is a link between Coomaraswamy and "The Beast".

Author Topic: New Malachi Martin Book (Read 73345 times)

Bonaventure

New Malachi Martin Book

Galilean

Re: New Malachi Martin Book

Yeti

Re: New Malachi Martin Book

SkidRowCatholic

Re: New Malachi Martin Book

Ladislaus

Re: New Malachi Martin Book

Ladislaus

Re: New Malachi Martin Book

josefamenendez

Re: New Malachi Martin Book

Ladislaus

Re: New Malachi Martin Book

Ladislaus

Re: New Malachi Martin Book

josefamenendez

Re: New Malachi Martin Book

SkidRowCatholic

Re: New Malachi Martin Book

Ladislaus

Re: New Malachi Martin Book

Ladislaus

Re: New Malachi Martin Book

Ladislaus

Re: New Malachi Martin Book

SkidRowCatholic

Re: New Malachi Martin Book