Malachi Martin

  • Thread starter Thread starter redrosetea
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Mystic_Warrior said:
Malachi was Catholic and I valued his opinion. Father Amorth is Catholic and I value his opinion. Pope JPII was Catholic and I value his opinion. Mercygate is Catholic and I value her opinion…may I go on? But as for that fellow…no.

Peace…

MW
Click to expand...
Code:
Hey, you forgot me!:eek: 😉
 
Shoshana said:
Code:
Hey, you forgot me!:eek: 😉
Click to expand...
LOL!! Yes, dear sister, I forgot you. Sorry :o Actually, I do respect your opinion a lot. I’ve seen your posts in the spirituality section and the conversations we’ve had bring a lot of respect. There are so many Catholics on this board that I respect to be honest. You know that in my mind you were there sister 👍

Peace…

MW
 
Mystic_Warrior said:
LOL!! Yes, dear sister, I forgot you. Sorry :o Actually, I do respect your opinion a lot. I’ve seen your posts in the spirituality section and the conversations we’ve had bring a lot of respect. There are so many Catholics on this board that I respect to be honest. You know that in my mind you were there sister 👍

Peace…

MW
Click to expand...
Code:
Just playing…the french side of me needs to play sometimes!🤷
 
redrosetea said:
I sort of have trouble with people who mix fact with fiction. It seems sort of Da Vinci Code to me
If he had something to say, why not just spit it out and be done with it…Makes me sort of wonder if he was doing this kind of thing to attract a crowd and sell more books?
Click to expand...
He did it because he had to in order to avoid claims of libel and charges of violating Church Canon, among other things. His book Windswept House, for instance is an example of roman à clef:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_%C3%A0_clef

“Writing about controversial topics and/or reporting inside information on scandals without giving rise to charges of libel.”
 
i haven’t read it yet. how much do you think is believable?
 
deborahaz said:
i haven’t read it yet. how much do you think is believable?
Click to expand...
He claims it’s about 80 or 85% accurate. I believe him. There is a key posted on the web revealing the likely identities of most of the characters: traditio.com/tradlib/wind.txt

Prior to reading this book, I think it might be helpful for most to read “The Devil’s Final Battle”, by Father Paul Kramer. It’s an easy read full of verifiable facts, and it will go far to help one understand certain topics that are brought up in “Windswept House”.
 
i used to hear malachi martin when he was interviewed by art bell, but i wasn’t catholic then, so i didn’t pay a lot of attention.

wow, that is scary about number 70!!

i don’t know if any of his books are sold by the national chain bookstores.

i think i will have to find a copy of this somehow, somewhere.

thanks for the link to the key.
 
i read some of this. i was always suspicious of the statement they gave saying it had to do with the assasination attempt of the Pope.

i think there is controversy now also about the medjugorje apparition.

it makes me want to read more and find out more.

i think it is interesting that our first catholic president was assasinated after the vatican II council convened. i am watching conspiracty theories of the jfk assasination on tv right now so i have an overactive imagination! LOL

i wonder why the date of 1960 was so important and why it was requested that the 3rd secret be given before 1960.
 
Seems like we’ve already reached the ‘talking past each other’ stage on this thread, but will offer my opinion. Sometimes writing it down clarifies my thinking…

MM was opposed to Bayside and Medjugorje, and was in turn attacked by the NatCat Reporter: usually, that would put him on the side of the angels in my book.

But his central claim is that there was/is a large, satanic conspiracy working within the Church intent on changing established Dogma.

I would very much like to know which dogmas were changed, when and where: if this has happened, it seems clear to me that the Church has failed to uphold Christ’s promise that the ‘gates of Hell would not prevail’: therefore, the Church is false, and Christ was not divine.

I cannot accept this, and can’t accept that it’s a valid Catholic position.

But ordination is no guaranty of sanity, sanctity, or wisdom.

It’s clear that he became disillusioned and angry with the heirarchy of the Jesuits, and by extension the rest of the Church as well.

His anger was such that it seems he was willing to accept the ‘truth’ of any statement slandering his superiors, the more outrageous, the better.

As to claims that the cardinals of New York allowed him to retain his priestly faculties, I’m a bit skeptical: isn’t a priest required to ask for such faculties when he comes to a new diocese? Do we know if he ever made such a request, or if it was granted? There is no more evidence for this than there is of MM’s claims about satanism.

I think MM was probably a good man, but surely he did the Church more harm than good: his late night radio talks took a lot of people out of the Church: I remember many people calling the shows and saying that they were leaving thanks to having their eyes opened by him.

The fact that he claimed to be a priest in good standing gave him a credibility far in excess of any collaborating evidence. Loud, virulent anti-Christians and anti-Catholics like Art Bell LOVED MM, were more than happy to accept his claims at face value, and promote them at every opportunity.

The fact that no one in the Church acted decisively to remove him proves nothigng: first, there’s the question of who would have had jursidiction, and second, there is so much inertia to overcome when a popular leader must be disciplined.

By way of illustration, I’m well aquainted with the case of ‘Brother Gino’, the false stigmatist of San Vittarino, so I know for a fact that lack of public opposition on the part of senior churchmen is no proof that a priest is on the up and up. One of the people Gino hoodwinked was the respected Fr. Rober Fox, frequent guest on EWTN.

Gino has been pure poison for the Church, desroying lives and vocations, some within my own extended family.
 
since i have only been a roman catholic for a short time, i do not know who brother or father gino is.

being outside the catholic church for so many years before i joined, i remember the dark, secret side that were always the backdrop for novels and movies. that always added to the mystery of the hierarchy of the Church.

the 1960’s seem to be a key decade in the roman catholic church.

in fact, i think the whole world began changing at that time. maybe the 3rd secret of fatima should have been read in 1960 and everything that transpired wouldn’t have. who knows? it is only speculation!!!

i also want to believe that the Church is divinely protected and that she cannot be harmed, but right now, i don’t want to go there.
 
Sam_Maloney said:
Seems like we’ve already reached the ‘talking past each other’ stage on this thread, but will offer my opinion. Sometimes writing it down clarifies my thinking…

MM was opposed to Bayside and Medjugorje, and was in turn attacked by the NatCat Reporter: usually, that would put him on the side of the angels in my book.

But his central claim is that there was/is a large, satanic conspiracy working within the Church intent on changing established Dogma.

I would very much like to know which dogmas were changed, when and where: if this has happened, it seems clear to me that the Church has failed to uphold Christ’s promise that the ‘gates of Hell would not prevail’: therefore, the Church is false, and Christ was not divine.

I cannot accept this, and can’t accept that it’s a valid Catholic position.

But ordination is no guaranty of sanity, sanctity, or wisdom.

It’s clear that he became disillusioned and angry with the heirarchy of the Jesuits, and by extension the rest of the Church as well.

His anger was such that it seems he was willing to accept the ‘truth’ of any statement slandering his superiors, the more outrageous, the better.

As to claims that the cardinals of New York allowed him to retain his priestly faculties, I’m a bit skeptical: isn’t a priest required to ask for such faculties when he comes to a new diocese? Do we know if he ever made such a request, or if it was granted? There is no more evidence for this than there is of MM’s claims about satanism.

I think MM was probably a good man, but surely he did the Church more harm than good: his late night radio talks took a lot of people out of the Church: I remember many people calling the shows and saying that they were leaving thanks to having their eyes opened by him.

The fact that he claimed to be a priest in good standing gave him a credibility far in excess of any collaborating evidence. Loud, virulent anti-Christians and anti-Catholics like Art Bell LOVED MM, were more than happy to accept his claims at face value, and promote them at every opportunity.

The fact that no one in the Church acted decisively to remove him proves nothigng: first, there’s the question of who would have had jursidiction, and second, there is so much inertia to overcome when a popular leader must be disciplined.

By way of illustration, I’m well aquainted with the case of ‘Brother Gino’, the false stigmatist of San Vittarino, so I know for a fact that lack of public opposition on the part of senior churchmen is no proof that a priest is on the up and up. One of the people Gino hoodwinked was the respected Fr. Rober Fox, frequent guest on EWTN.

Gino has been pure poison for the Church, desroying lives and vocations, some within my own extended family.
Click to expand...
Code:
Fr Robert Fox was also very good friends with Fr Gruner.
 
Sam_Maloney said:
Seems like we’ve already reached the ‘talking past each other’ stage on this thread, but will offer my opinion. Sometimes writing it down clarifies my thinking…

MM was opposed to Bayside and Medjugorje, and was in turn attacked by the NatCat Reporter: usually, that would put him on the side of the angels in my book.

But his central claim is that there was/is a large, satanic conspiracy working within the Church intent on changing established Dogma.

I would very much like to know which dogmas were changed, when and where: if this has happened, it seems clear to me that the Church has failed to uphold Christ’s promise that the ‘gates of Hell would not prevail’: therefore, the Church is false, and Christ was not divine.

I cannot accept this, and can’t accept that it’s a valid Catholic position.

But ordination is no guaranty of sanity, sanctity, or wisdom.

It’s clear that he became disillusioned and angry with the heirarchy of the Jesuits, and by extension the rest of the Church as well.

His anger was such that it seems he was willing to accept the ‘truth’ of any statement slandering his superiors, the more outrageous, the better.

As to claims that the cardinals of New York allowed him to retain his priestly faculties, I’m a bit skeptical: isn’t a priest required to ask for such faculties when he comes to a new diocese? Do we know if he ever made such a request, or if it was granted? There is no more evidence for this than there is of MM’s claims about satanism.

I think MM was probably a good man, but surely he did the Church more harm than good: his late night radio talks took a lot of people out of the Church: I remember many people calling the shows and saying that they were leaving thanks to having their eyes opened by him.

The fact that he claimed to be a priest in good standing gave him a credibility far in excess of any collaborating evidence. Loud, virulent anti-Christians and anti-Catholics like Art Bell LOVED MM, were more than happy to accept his claims at face value, and promote them at every opportunity.

The fact that no one in the Church acted decisively to remove him proves nothigng: first, there’s the question of who would have had jursidiction, and second, there is so much inertia to overcome when a popular leader must be disciplined.

By way of illustration, I’m well aquainted with the case of ‘Brother Gino’, the false stigmatist of San Vittarino, so I know for a fact that lack of public opposition on the part of senior churchmen is no proof that a priest is on the up and up. One of the people Gino hoodwinked was the respected Fr. Rober Fox, frequent guest on EWTN.

Gino has been pure poison for the Church, desroying lives and vocations, some within my own extended family.
Click to expand...
Sam, this is about the best summary of Fr. Martin I’ve yet seen; I concur wholeheartedly.
 
Shoshana said:
Code:
Fr Robert Fox was also very good friends with Fr Gruner.
Click to expand...
I got close to being hoodwinked by Gruner, once.

A study of his website reveals one thing: Fr. Gruner’s ministry is not primarily about Fatima - it’s about Fr. Gruner.
 
Sam_Maloney said:
But his central claim is that there was/is a large, satanic conspiracy working within the Church intent on changing established Dogma.

I would very much like to know which dogmas were changed, when and where: if this has happened, it seems clear to me that the Church has failed to uphold Christ’s promise that the ‘gates of Hell would not prevail’: therefore, the Church is false, and Christ was not divine.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
The fact he appeard on wacko’s tv and readio programs doesn’t speak well of him , nor his love for the church

I have read an article by an brother that is an exorcist and he can’t stand Martin
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top