J
Jean_Anthony
Guest
Please return to the original topic or start a new thread on free will and possession. Thank you for your cooperation.
- Status
S
Sobieski
Guest
Didn’t Fr. Martin promote off the wall conspiracy theories about the Vatican in some of his books?
Also, I know that some “traditional Catholics” attack him for being too ‘liberal’; but maybe he was just too involved with conspiracy theories.
Also, I know that some “traditional Catholics” attack him for being too ‘liberal’; but maybe he was just too involved with conspiracy theories.
P
paramedicgirl
Guest
The only book of his I read was Windswept House. It was a good book, full of conspiracy theories. It was good fiction.
S
Sobieski
Guest
Also, I think that the Keys of the This Blood book contained some conspiracy theories. I haven’t read either book, but I have read overviews of them. I seems that they are just fiction. However, some people actually take them to be representative of the real situation in the Vatican.
P
paramedicgirl
Guest
I read Windswept House nine years ago, so don’t remember much of it, but at the time I saw some parallels. I just don’t remember what they are now.
J
jbuck919
Guest
You’re not going to like this, but my short answer is: A complete phony. The bookstores didn’t know what to do with his books, which are sui generis works of fiction.
In fairness, since I’ve just been re-admitted here on condition that I behave myself, I think I understand why people want to take Martin seriously. We want there to be a global importance to Catholicism that might comprehend something like the Jesuits being more these days than schoolteachers or the Pope more than a fun diversion for the press which has mainly to cover the mundane awful. In my opinion, we’re not going to find any comfort in that direction. We’re stuck with doing it the hard way: By their fruits shall you know them.
S
Sobieski
Guest
I think that I agree with you. Martin’s fiction books are just that, fiction. There was no enthronement of Lucifer in the Vatican like is portrayed in one of the books. The the leadership of the Church hasn’t been secretly infiltrated by Luciferians, Roscurians, or Masons. It has just been infiltrated very openly by liberals, pansies, and criminals.
M
M-Dent
Guest
I had read the book ‘Hostage of the devil.’ I found it interesting. I can’t say that about any other of Malachi Martin books.
The section you are speaking about, the perfect possession was noting in some very rare cases a possessed person could show little disturbance indicating the affliction. They pray. They do not have an aversion to sacramental, etc.
The issue was that Exorcism in that rare case would most likely fail.
I’m not sure that would be considered heretical? A failed “deliverance” from an exorcism doesn’t condemn the victim to eternal hell - more-so it simply means they are not healed from the evil affliction.
Even Christ’s disciples failed to cast a demon from a boy (Mat 17;17,20), Jesus had to do it himself then rebuked his followers.
C
childofmary1143
Guest
About 5 years ago I read his book “Windswept House” and it was listed as fiction but the writing suggested to me that he considered what he wrote to be non fiction but said it was fiction to protect himself (in his mind) from any threat.
I had E-Mailed a man who was a secretary for Father Martin and asked him if Windswept house was nonfiction and he assured me it was nonfiction.
Now I am not here suggesting that what he wrote is non fiction but I am reasonably convinced that HE THOUGHT it was non fiction.
Having read that book, I came to the conclusion that he doesn’t think much of Pope John Paul 2. In his book he portrays the Pope as weak and VERY liberal and it shows the “good guys” as Priests with sedevacantist beliefs.
I had E-Mailed a man who was a secretary for Father Martin and asked him if Windswept house was nonfiction and he assured me it was nonfiction.
Now I am not here suggesting that what he wrote is non fiction but I am reasonably convinced that HE THOUGHT it was non fiction.
Having read that book, I came to the conclusion that he doesn’t think much of Pope John Paul 2. In his book he portrays the Pope as weak and VERY liberal and it shows the “good guys” as Priests with sedevacantist beliefs.
R
Ruben
Guest
I would recommend reading The Jesuits. After reading it you’ll understand why many would want to attack his credibility. He hits it on the head with that book.
Some info here:
geocities.com/Athens/Parthenon/6401/malachi3.htm
Some info here:
geocities.com/Athens/Parthenon/6401/malachi3.htm
S
Sobieski
Guest
http://www.wandea.org.pl/IMAGES2/RC2b.jpg
Malachi Martin during the “ordination” of Dr. Rama Coomaraswamy.
Malachi Martin during the “ordination” of Dr. Rama Coomaraswamy.
S
system
Guest
For whatever reason, people really like to bash him. People would ask those leading questions:
“didn’t he have some “off the wall” conspiracy theories?” and just leave it hanging there. It has happened in this thread.
At least do a google search before you ask others to do your work for you!
Here’s an example:
People would mock Father Martin for saying the communists are trying to infiltrate the church.
And then we get headlines like these in 2007:
So now, what SHOULD happen (but won’t) is that those people who discredited him about that, should be saying - oh yeah, he was right about that one!
“didn’t he have some “off the wall” conspiracy theories?” and just leave it hanging there. It has happened in this thread.
At least do a google search before you ask others to do your work for you!
Here’s an example:
People would mock Father Martin for saying the communists are trying to infiltrate the church.
And then we get headlines like these in 2007:
iht.com/articles/2007/01/07/news/poland.php
So now, what SHOULD happen (but won’t) is that those people who discredited him about that, should be saying - oh yeah, he was right about that one!
S
Sobieski
Guest
theharrowing.com/martin.html
“At the time of his passing on July 27, 1999, Martin was at work on what he said would be his most controversial and important book. Primacy: How the Institutional Roman Catholic Church became a Creature of The New World Order
] was to deal with power and the papacy. This work was to analyze the revolutionary shift that lies at the heart of what many see as the breakdown of papal power. It was to be a book of predictions about the Vatican and the world in the first decades of the new millennium.”
“At the time of his passing on July 27, 1999, Martin was at work on what he said would be his most controversial and important book. Primacy: How the Institutional Roman Catholic Church became a Creature of The New World Order
] was to deal with power and the papacy. This work was to analyze the revolutionary shift that lies at the heart of what many see as the breakdown of papal power. It was to be a book of predictions about the Vatican and the world in the first decades of the new millennium.”
S
Sobieski
Guest
I believe that the Wielgus affair is rather complicated and that your citing this as evidence does not lend credibility to Martin. There is a difference between some Church officials having cooperated to a certain extent with the government in Poland and a wholesale “communist infiltration” of the Church.
I
Imryl
Guest
This is a very interesting thread. The things you learn from reading a thread.
S
system
Guest
You start the thread with this lure:
You continue the passive aggressive technique with this:
Then you post a picture with no story attached to it, but you put ordination in quotations as if we are all supposed to “just know” something was wrong.
And then there is the old standby for when words fail you - the rolling eyes icon:
] was to deal with power and the papacy. "
Which should have no place at all on a discussion website.
Anyway - I have no problem with you trying to discredit or detract or even TRASH the man; I just want you to do it by citing real facts or quoting from his books.
Rolling eyes and saying a man is "off the wall is nothing but calumny.
You get one answer, but then answer your own question with this:
Using “he seemed” and “discredited” has already revealed your stance.
You continue the passive aggressive technique with this:
“off the wall”? “Conspiracy theories” ? No citations, just attacks, slurs or questions.
Then you post a picture with no story attached to it, but you put ordination in quotations as if we are all supposed to “just know” something was wrong.
If you know something about that ordination, please speak up and cite some sources. For instance, I went to the website the photo came from, and they were offering 59 sound files of Martin and calling it "
So they are apparently supporters, but you used their photo against him.
And then there is the old standby for when words fail you - the rolling eyes icon:
] was to deal with power and the papacy. "Which should have no place at all on a discussion website.
Anyway - I have no problem with you trying to discredit or detract or even TRASH the man; I just want you to do it by citing real facts or quoting from his books.
Rolling eyes and saying a man is "off the wall is nothing but calumny.
S
Sobieski
Guest
This is a link to the first 1/5 of a speech that Malachi Martin gave at a Pro-Life event. In this speech, he promotes a New World Order-esque conspiracy theory.
youtube.com/watch?v=doqG3CAVDuM
It was a sedevacantist ordination and probably invalid.
The title of what was to be his last book was,
How the Institutional Roman Catholic Church became a Creature of The New World Order.
What does this say about his credibility?
K
KMXV
Guest
If the bishop possesses apostolic succession, it is a valid ordination, though probably illicit.
J
JKirkLVNV
Guest
The Holy See has said that Milingo’s aren’t valid.
S
Sobieski
Guest
Yep. And there are many problems concerning validity and succession with the sede bishops.
- Status