Has anyone changed there mind here?

[GerardP]

Uh, oh. Looks like I really stirred up the hornet’s nest!

No. You didn’t. No just wrote a bunch of ignorant and foolish junk and I’m running around with the pooper scooper to clean up after you.

Oh, dear, I’m shaking in my boots!

Judging by your response…nevermind.

I must admit that I have not read them.

No. You don’t have to admit it. It was plainly obvious.

Nor do I wish to, based on what I’ve read about them.

So you’re the expert. Right?

Similarly, I have not read The DaVinci Code or the Left Behind series or other such fictional nonsense, yet you wouldn’t accuse me of prejudging a book in those situations.

You can’t seem to stay on point. The conversation isn’t about Tim LaHaye or Dan Brown. As far as I know, neither or them worked in the Vatican under Cardinal Bea in the late 50’s and early 60’s. Neither of them were Jesuits trained at Louvain, Neither of them taught at the Pontifical Biblical Institute. Neither of them were the Religion editor at National Review. Neither of them were experts on the Dead Sea Scrolls. Neither of them were fluent in a dozen languages. Former Exorcist of New York, Fr. James LeBar didn’t say to Raymond Arroyo that it was Tim LaHaye or Dan Brown that helped him learn the ropes on exorcism. All of those examples are true when it comes to Fr. Martin though.

This conversation is about what Fr. Martin had to say about the documents of Vatican II.

If you’re not up to having any facts and only derision you should just shut up and get out of the conversation.

But you’re not. If you had been you would have presented them and if you weren’t jumping in with an agenda already you’d have been open minded enough to actually ask what it was Fr. Martin had to say.

(more later…)

 

[GerardP]

Take Keys of This Blood, for example.

I quote from a review posted on the Amazon page by Publisher’s Weekly:

And also, from Library Journal:

amazon.com/Keys-This-Blood-Versus-Control/dp/0671747231/ref=sr_1_4?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1205468242&sr=1-4

What specifically about those reviews bothers you? Do you disagree with the chapters on Antonio Gramsci?

It is interesting to note that the book is listed under the following categories on Amazon: “Christianity, Church Institutions & Organizations, Conspiracy Theories, Controversial Knowledge, Cults & Demonism, New Age, Occult, Politics, Religion & Spirituality, Rites & Ceremonies, Roman Catholicism, True Crime, and World”.

Why is that interesting to note? Cross marketing by Amazon is somehow an indictment of Fr. Martin? You’re grasping at straws here. Fr. Gabriel Amorth gets the same categorizations because he also wrote about exorcism.

All of which begs the question, “Have you read his books, GerardP???”

I’ve read them all except the two volume “Scribal Character of the Dead Sea Scrolls.”

I rest my case.

A few inocuous reviews and you “rest your case?” You aren’t trying at all.

And I don’t understand how your straw man attack on my “rolleyes” smiley is supposed to support your position (what, like you’ve never used smilies or something?)!

Wait. Let’s take this in proper order. I cited Fr. Martin as a scholar who had opinions on the docs of Vatican II that he was intimately familiar with. You disparaged him with no knowledge of him. I pointed out that your mode of criticism was invalid.

You’ve set up the straw man arguments. I pointed it out.
I can at least back up my comments and cite sources, but I’m not going to until I’ve pointed out your derision for the sloppy argumentation and willfull ignorance that it is.

I notice how you completely evaded the point I made about Fr. Martin being on the Art Bell show (and just his being on it gives one an inkling of his credibility or lack thereof).

Another “guilt by association” attack. Just as stupid as the previous ones. Did you listen to the interviews? Yes or No?

They were fantastic! The gospel of Christ and His Church was truthfully being explained by a priest who loved the Church and taught unashamedly what the Catholic Church taught. He took on all comers in conversation and judiciously pointed all towards the truth of Christ.

Didn’t you seem to notice how I pointed out that according to that article he made a claim that is obviously false, namely that he read the “real” third secret, which he described as being something that ultimately turned out to be nothing close to what we got in 2000 from the Vatican.

Keep going…

So who’s the liar here: Pope John Paul II and then-Cardinal Ratzinger, or Fr. Malachi Martin who tries to excite people’s curiosity on national TV??? (I think I know where my money is )

Fr. Martin is not the liar. Prior to 2000’s “revelation” Fr. Martin was saying a line about Fatima that was consistent in character with what Cardinal Ratzinger and JPII were telling as well.

It’s very interesting that the Vatican didn’t release the alleged information until 11 months after the death of the one man in the entire world who could’ve disputed what was said?

Even Mother Angelica sensed that something was wrong when she said she thought there was more to it.

Hasn’t it occurred to you that authentic prophets throughout history have not sought attention and publicity at all, much less a TV audience of over a million?

Ah yes…St. Albert the Great didn’t stand in the squares preaching and teaching to the widest audiences possible.

(

I think it was St. John of the Cross (?) who visited the house of an alleged seer one day and asked if this was the home of “the saint”. When answered in the affirmative he turned right around and walked away!)

So St. John squares with Fr. Martin who said, 'I’m not a prophet."
What’s your point?

continued…

 

[GerardP]

…continued]
I note your failure to cite sources for these alleged “prophecies”.

Here’s your style of answer:

You want sources? Figures…

Here’s my answer:

*As far as Fr. Martin’s predictions go, He always prefaced that he wasn’t a prophet and that he was not a gambling man. But he managed to correctly predict the election of Albino Luciani as Pope John Paul I in 1978, *
Lila Karpf his publisher described it in the Brian Doran produced audio memoir, “Malachi Martin: God’s Messenger” She cites the reporter from a German newspaper that printed the prediction.

He predicted in 1993 that “we’ve only had a foretaste of what’s to come with what they’ve done with the World Trade Center…They’re going to blow it up.” (Fr. Martin died in 1999 by the way.)
Interview “The Shoes of the Fisherman” by Bernard Janzen (Triumph Communications)triumphcommunications.net/mmartin.html

*In 1972 in “Three Popes and the Cardinal” he predicted that by the year 2000 as a cliche’ date the Church would be so changed from what it had been in 1960’s that it would be virtually unrecognizable. *
First sentence of the Introduction. Fr. Charles Fiore mentioned it prior to his own death

“1972 - In the opening lines of Three Popes and the Cardinal, Malachi Martin made the then astounding prediction that “Well before the year 2000, there will no longer be a religious institution recognizable as the Roman Catholic and Apostolic Church of today.” That prediction, which sent his publisher into near-apoplexy, is now totally vindicated. It also made the lead on Martin’s Today Show appearance, produced headlines in lead reviews and feature stories around the country, and produced another bestseller.”

geocities.com/Athens/Parthenon/6401/malachi3.htm

*He stated in 1995 that “Actuarially speaking, John Paul II has 7 to 10 years left to live.” *
Interview “Peter in Chains” with Bernard Janzen (Triumph Communications)

In 1996 in an interview with Bernard Janzen, he blew the whistle on a number of prelates who were protecting priests who were sexually abusing Children. Among the problem bishops he cited, “Bernard Law is NOT a conservative, Bernard Law is interested in one thing and that’s Bernard Law.” Virtually all of the names he cited in those interviews have since been named and removed for their sees or positions after their scandals broke.

Interview “The Deserted Vineyard” with Bernard Janzen (Triumph Communications)

 

[GerardP]

…continued]
And this was fulfilled when? What objective criterion can we use to determine whether this guesswork passed off as “prophecy” has been fulfilled?

You keep trying to reframe the argument into a claim that Fr. Martin was a Prophet like Isaiah or something. That is not what is being claimed. If you don’t see how the Church is unrecognizable from prior to the Council then you either are too young or you haven’t been in Church since the 60’s.

Textbook application of the classic “fuzzy method” used by alleged “psychics”, that. (So-called “psychics” make predictions that are so vague as to make their eventual “fulfilment” inevitable.)

No. As he stated it was an actuarial timetable and he was talking about the potential papabile. He wanted JPII to last long enough so that an extreme liberal Cardinal (like Martini) would not be elected.

If he were a real prophet he could have simply said “in ten years”. As it is, “7-10 years” is pure guesswork, and a probable guess at that.

He didn’t claim to be a prophet. But, you are saying that he was accurate in his guess?

JP2 had already reigned for 17 years; it wouldn’t be too far off the mark to limit the rest of his pontificate to ten more years, 27 years being one of the longest pontificates in history. This is about as much of a prophecy as the weatherman’s prediction that “there will be a 50% chance of precipitation tomorrow”.

This wasn’t lile predicting the pontificate of Leo XIII. This was when JPII was first noticeably beginning to falter in his health. The Vatican was not admitting that JPII had Parkinson’s at the time. Fr. Martin was pointing out the ludicrousness of the denial but he established that JPII still had a chance to a long distance.

This is without question interesting, if it’s true. But it could signify nothing other than that Fr. Malachi had inside information on Bernard Law and those other people.

Yet. He was called a “conspiracy nut” and an “exaggerator” by the people who calumniated him. A lot of kids would have been helped if more people had listened to him. It would be years before the media would blow the lid off the story.

Track record indeed! I like how you boast about his “track record” when you don’t even cite sources!

I’ve cited the sources. Now are you going to prove that he was no scholar and wasn’t someone who had the education to comment on the documents of Vatican II?

Throughout history there have been plenty of people who, either for money or publicity or both, have passed off scams on the people with their predictions of the end of world. (Edgar Whisenant is a prime example of this.)

Guilt by association…again. St. Pius X speculated that the anti-Christ was alive an well in his first encyclical. Was he a scam artist?

With thousands of predictions so far and a .000 batting average, there is no reason at all to believe that Fr. Martin was not just another sensationalist.

How do you come up with that “average”? Or, are you just pulling it out of thin air?

And this is not something unique to Fundamentalists or New Age psychics. Catholic priests have failed in their predictions before (an example would be Fr. Stephano Gobbi).

Another dodge and another attempt at guilt by association.

How about if you tell us about Fr. Martin? Truthfully this time.

We need to keep in mind that we “know not the day nor the hour” of Christ’s return. Despite past fraudulent “prophets”, last time I checked the world is still here; and when 2017 rolls around as it likely will then we’ll know that Fr. Martin was wrong.

What’s your point? Are you even paying attention to the reason he was brought up? You’ve provided nothing, you are making a straw man argument that Fr. Martin claimed to be a prophet when he specifically stated “I’m not a prophet” on multiple occasions. (Including the Art Bell interviews that you deride a priori)

There you go with the smiley thing again.

Are you saying a smiley is a logical refutation of Fr.Martin’s academic credentials and a self evident proof of your position?

And I never even addressed Fr. Martin’s being a scholar (though I freely admit in retrospect that my sarcastic comment was presumptuous and premature at this stage).

I wonder why you’d thing that?

But on the contrary, I debunked your presumption of Fr. Martin’s credibility with common sense thinking and the prudence to avoid false prophets (whom Our Lord warned against) and their silly predictions of the end of the world.

1. where did I claim Fr. Martin was a prophet?
2. where did you debunk Fr. Martin’s knowledge of the documents of Vatican II?
3. where did you show any common sense?
4. what do predictions of the end times have to do with this conversation at all?
5. what knowledge do you really have of Fr. Martin?

It’s interesting, in that interview of Fr. Kramer, he said that “war will probably break out in 2008”.

What does that have to do with Fr. Martin?

Quite a few traditionalists I know have been convinced that China is going to attack the U.S. “no later than 2008”. Well we’ll see if that happens. If it doesn’t then it’s just more proof in the pudding that you can’t trust the scams of these self-proclaimed prophets.

“…and that’s how you learned to play the saxophone!” What are you talking about?

OK, fair enough, I retract what I said about “insulting intelligence”. And I apologize; I guess I came across as a little harsh.

 

[Cat]

I guess this is just the Protestant coming out in me, but frankly, I place a lot of value on real people that I actually know and can see as they live out their daily lives year after year.

In our diocese, our bishop (Thomas Doran) has lived a faithful walk with Jesus for decades. A lot of Catholics in our city despise him and ridicule him because he refuses to back down and “liberalize” on issues like abortion and women priests.

But a lot of Catholics love and respect him because he is orthodox and conservative and because he passes down the truth of the Catholic Church to those of us in the pews.

He is a saintly man who is constantly busy helping his parishes. I used to listen to him on the radio while I was still a happy evangelical Protestant, and I knew I was listening to an apostle. (The word actually came into my mind back then, and I had no idea that Catholics believe their bishops are successors to the apostles.)

He has never messed up. He has never been involved with a scandal. Our diocese has had ONE incident of priest abuse, and it was not very well proven and I don’t believe there has been a settlement. I understand that the reason we’ve had no scandals is because our bishops followed the Church recommendations to prevent sexual abuse that were given back in the 1970s.

We actually have a surplus of vocations in our diocese.

We’ve had the TLM in our diocese in several locations since the 1980s. And at the same time, we have Children’s Masses and the LifeTeen Mass. Bishop Doran has a Doctorate in Canon Law, and I feel very safe knowing that he would never allow anything illicit or invalid in his parishes, and that he is always going to follow the “rules” of the Catholic Church. If he says LifeTeen or Children’s Mass (with no kneeling in the gym) is OK, then by golly, it’s really truly OK! End of debate in my book!

We have a very active pro-life movement in our diocese, and our priests preach about the evils of abortion and contraception, along with the evils of sexual sin. They don’t back down and I’ve seen people walk out who were “offended” by a fiery homily denouncing abortion or contraception.

I certainly believe in reading works of other bishops and priests and know that they have much to teach us. But to me, the most important bishops and priests are the ones you see day in and day out over the decades. If these men disagree with the “published” priests that I don’t know in person, then I would be inclined to go with the priests I know and love rather than follow after a media priest that may be a completely different person in real life than his literary persona.

 

[elt1956]

I guess this is just the Protestant coming out in me, but frankly, I place a lot of value on real people that I actually know and can see as they live out their daily lives year after year.

In our diocese, our bishop (Thomas Doran) has lived a faithful walk with Jesus for decades. A lot of Catholics in our city despise him and ridicule him because he refuses to back down and “liberalize” on issues like abortion and women priests.

But a lot of Catholics love and respect him because he is orthodox and conservative and because he passes down the truth of the Catholic Church to those of us in the pews.

He is a saintly man who is constantly busy helping his parishes. I used to listen to him on the radio while I was still a happy evangelical Protestant, and I knew I was listening to an apostle. (The word actually came into my mind back then, and I had no idea that Catholics believe their bishops are successors to the apostles.)

He has never messed up. He has never been involved with a scandal. Our diocese has had ONE incident of priest abuse, and it was not very well proven and I don’t believe there has been a settlement. I understand that the reason we’ve had no scandals is because our bishops followed the Church recommendations to prevent sexual abuse that were given back in the 1970s.

We actually have a surplus of vocations in our diocese.

We’ve had the TLM in our diocese in several locations since the 1980s. And at the same time, we have Children’s Masses and the LifeTeen Mass. Bishop Doran has a Doctorate in Canon Law, and I feel very safe knowing that he would never allow anything illicit or invalid in his parishes, and that he is always going to follow the “rules” of the Catholic Church. If he says LifeTeen or Children’s Mass (with no kneeling in the gym) is OK, then by golly, it’s really truly OK! End of debate in my book!

We have a very active pro-life movement in our diocese, and our priests preach about the evils of abortion and contraception, along with the evils of sexual sin. They don’t back down and I’ve seen people walk out who were “offended” by a fiery homily denouncing abortion or contraception.

I certainly believe in reading works of other bishops and priests and know that they have much to teach us. But to me, the most important bishops and priests are the ones you see day in and day out over the decades. If these men disagree with the “published” priests that I don’t know in person, then I would be inclined to go with the priests I know and love rather than follow after a media priest that may be a completely different person in real life than his literary persona.

Lovely post Cat. Way to go.

 

[pnewton]

Do you have anything to say, or do you enjoy attacking people personally. Post on the topic, or stop wasting people’s time and space.

If you read more and wrote less, you would see that I have. In fact, I was the first to post that I had changed in some ways and specified how. Fortunately, you are in not position to tell others what they can or can not do.

 

[latinmasslover]

You’re prooftexting just like a Protestant. I gather from this that you believe intelligence or competence in a relevant field is not required if one is going to presume to bash Holy Mother Church?

In all Christian charity (I’m being sincere) you presume incorrectly; however, my statement was rather broad.

I’m saying that the intelligence of a person doesn’t mean their way is right. I used that with my mom as a child:

But Mom, Fr. X says that we should only go to Confession once a month at the most. He went to the seminary, he’s a priest, I think *he *would know.

It’s like truth without charity, and vice versa. I don’t trust the simple but ignorant any more than I trust the haughty but learned. Am I making sense?

 

[Aragorn1]

In all Christian charity (I’m being sincere) you presume incorrectly; however, my statement was rather broad.

I’m saying that the intelligence of a person doesn’t mean their way is right. I used that with my mom as a child:

But Mom, Fr. X says that we should only go to Confession once a month at the most. He went to the seminary, he’s a priest, I think *he *would know.

It’s like truth without charity, and vice versa. I don’t trust the simple but ignorant any more than I trust the haughty but learned. Am I making sense?

Yes, of course.

 

[Aragorn1]

…

LOL, I guess you win by default, Gerard. I don’t have the time to respond point-by-point to a 5-post-long critique of my argument.

(I still think you’re wrong though)

I think I’ll drop out of the discussion for a while and let things cool off a bit. It seems my attempt at sparking a more lively discussion than the one on “rock music in Mass” ruffled some people’s feathers.

See everyone in about 100 posts!!!

Oh, and Happy St. Patrick’s Day everyone! :shamrock2:

 

[Brother_John]

In all Christian charity (I’m being sincere) you presume incorrectly; however, my statement was rather broad.

I’m saying that the intelligence of a person doesn’t mean their way is right. I used that with my mom as a child:

But Mom, Fr. X says that we should only go to Confession once a month at the most. He went to the seminary, he’s a priest, I think *he *would know.

It’s like truth without charity, and vice versa. I don’t trust the simple but ignorant any more than I trust the haughty but learned. Am I making sense?

Fr X was probably right. If you can’t go a month without committing a mortal sin, more frequent confession isn’t a likely solution.

 

[Aragorn1]

Fr X was probably right. If you can’t go a month without committing a mortal sin, more frequent confession isn’t a likely solution.

Still, she has a point. It’s good to go often.

 

[MrS]

Fr X was probably right. If you can’t go a month without committing a mortal sin, more frequent confession isn’t a likely solution.

So much for the need for graces found in all the Sacraments.

Better call the Pope, he needs to confess less … and shorten those lines, by golly.

Blessed are they who mourn (which means they are anguished by their own sins)…

For they shall be comforted… forte = strenght… comforter = Holy Spirit… they shall be strengthened by the Holy Spirit.

Just don’t let it happen too often.

.

 

[latinmasslover]

Fr X was probably right. If you can’t go a month without committing a mortal sin, more frequent confession isn’t a likely solution.

I refuse to believe that you’re ignorant of the purpose of the Sacraments. Surely you know that we do not only confess mortal sins. The Saints went often, and last I heard, John Paul II went *at least *weekly. Fr. X is great at inspiring the bare minimum, but Jesus Christ requires us to strive after perfection.

 

[Brother_John]

I refuse to believe that you’re ignorant of the purpose of the Sacraments. Surely you know that we do not only confess mortal sins. The Saints went often, and last I heard, John Paul II went *at least *weekly. Fr. X is great at inspiring the bare minimum, but Jesus Christ requires us to strive after perfection.

Frequency of confesion, like TLM vs NO, is subjective. But I couldn’t resist

 

[Brother_John]

Surely you know that we do not only confess mortal sins.

But what about those posts over the last few weeks, stating that venial sins were covered by the beginning of Mass?

 

[latinmasslover]

But what about those posts over the last few weeks, stating that venial sins were covered by the beginning of Mass?

And with the use of Holy Water, don’t forget.
I don’t know what was on that thread, but we should confess venial sins, especially if they’re habitual, because it helps us to:
-grow in humility
-keep away from mortal sin by making our conscience more attentive
-destroy sin at the roots

Not required, but I sincerely doubt that Pope John Paul II committed mortal sins on a weekly (daily) basis, don’t you? I’m sure you consider him an example to follow which is why I bring him up.

Many of the Saints did this as well; in fact, I believe it was St. Pio who recommended weekly confession as the minimum.

 

[stmaria]

But what about those posts over the last few weeks, stating that venial sins were covered by the beginning of Mass?

Absolution of venial sins, if you are contrite, is only available in the Traditional Mass. This absolution has been removed in the OF. This doesn’t mean that you can ignore confession. Penance is a sacrament and from it you will receive grace.

 

[Brother_John]

Absolution of venial sins, if you are contrite, is only available in the Traditional Mass. This absolution has been removed in the OF. This doesn’t mean that you can ignore confession. Penance is a sacrament and from it you will receive grace.

My pastor would beg to differ, but this could be another thread in itself.

 

[Joannm]

Absolution of venial sins, if you are contrite, is only available in the Traditional Mass. This absolution has been removed in the OF. This doesn’t mean that you can ignore confession. Penance is a sacrament and from it you will receive grace.

It is the reception of the Eucharist that absolves veniel sins. Last I heard the OF did not do away with this.