Malachi Martin

  • Thread starter Thread starter redrosetea
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
maybe malachi martin loves the church and, therefore, he is trying to point out groups who he believes are trying to damage the church. perhaps we should not blame the messenger when he is trying to deliver a message of warning. i haven’t read anything yet, but i think this could be what mystic warrior is trying to say.
 
I will take the word of a Catholic brother who is acually an exorcist, in good standing with our church…he is on the same page as I am spiritually ,and obeys the magesterium and is faithful to the Pope…I am not going to be pushed into doing something just because someone thinks I should…I am very careful to support only things the church approves of with my time and money
 
maybe malachi martin loves the church and, therefore, he is trying to point out groups who he believes are trying to damage the church. perhaps we should not blame the messenger when he is trying to deliver a message of warning. i haven’t read anything yet, but i think this could be what mystic warrior is trying to say.
I think he loved the church. It’s evidenced by his call to the priesthood, his call to the Jesuits, his work at the Vatican and based on his own words and the words of his friends this is true. He is responsible before God just like we are for our wrongs, but he certainly believed in the message he was sending.

Reformers always rub people the wrong way. Jesus did. Paul did. (Note: I’m not putting Malachi on the same pedestal here, so people - don’t give me grief over this). And countless other reformers have suffered at the hands of people who didn’t understand nor did they want to hear the message. The OT is filled with prophets who gave warnings. What did the people do? They killed them. It seems not much has changed.

Peace…

MW
 
I will take the word of a Catholic brother who is acually an exorcist, in good standing with our church…he is on the same page as I am spiritually ,and obeys the magesterium and is faithful to the Pope…I am not going to be pushed into doing something just because someone thinks I should…I am very careful to support only things the church approves of with my time and money
The horse is dead. Stop beating on it. And by the way, he is not an exorcist. Only priests can be and then only by permission from the local bishop. Unless I missed something in the documents I’ve read.

Peace…

MW
 
He assists and I was not posting to you. Nor do I feel it is up to you to tell me what I can post on a thread I started

You are entitled to your opinions but you are not entitled to mine…I get it you like MM and can’t seem to grasp that not everyone agrees with you
 
I think he loved the church. It’s evidenced by his call to the priesthood, his call to the Jesuits, his work at the Vatican and based on his own words and the words of his friends this is true. He is responsible before God just like we are for our wrongs, but he certainly believed in the message he was sending.

Reformers always rub people the wrong way. Jesus did. Paul did. (Note: I’m not putting Malachi on the same pedestal here, so people - don’t give me grief over this). And countless other reformers have suffered at the hands of people who didn’t understand nor did they want to hear the message. The OT is filled with prophets who gave warnings. What did the people do? They killed them. It seems not much has changed.

Peace…

MW
at this point in time, i agree with you mystic warrior. i am not sure about him being a reformer, because i am not that familiar with his writings. i did hear him on radio interviews, which isn’t a lot of information, but i never got the feeling he was trying to destroy or harm the Church. i think he wants to protect the Church that he loves. i also was thinking along the lines of prophet, but wasn’t sure if that was taking it too far. did the roman catholic church ever come out and speak against him? perhaps there were people in the church who approved of his writings and the message he was trying to bring. i am no expert.
 
He assists and I was not posting to you.
I was just clarifying for accuracy. When one is called an exorcist in the CC that means he is a validly ordained priest who has permission from the local bishop to do so. Father Martin was one of those. The other fellow is not.
Nor do I feel it is up to you to tell me what I can post on a thread I started
Where did I do that?
You are entitled to your opinions but you are not entitled to mine…I get it you like MM and can’t seem to grasp that not everyone agrees with you
I’m not entitled to yours? Yes, I like Father Martin. Oh, I grasp it alright. And that’s okay. As I’ve repeatedly expressed on the thread - everyone that is a human being is entitled to their opinion. Whether it means anything or not is a different story. Lighten up. The sky isn’t falling. You are now on my ignore list. Congrats 🙂 Please don’t post to me again because I won’t see it.

Peace…

MW
 
Jesus Now Author Not A Swashbuckler

Ben L. Kaufman - Enquirer Reporter
The Cincinnati Enquirer
December 22, 1973

Malachi Martin was nothing like anyone could have expected.

From his previous books, I knew he had been a Jesuit priest, archaeologist, rogue and strong-arm man for liberal organizers in the Vatican Council, and somewhat depressed observer of organized religion in the West.

I was not prepared for an almost elfin white-haired Irishman, impeccably dressed in tweeds and white, soft turtleneck sweater, and a limp from what he said was a fresh sabre wound.

He fences, not duels, and a partner slashed carelessly, hitting Martin’s right Achilles tendon.

Painful as the wound is, it is more troublesome to explain why he drives metal detectors at airports wild as he tours the country promoting his newest book “Jesus Now.”

Airport guards are willing to accept the steel brace on his right lower leg he said in a rushed late night interview in Cincinnati, and he has learned NOT to tell them it is a sabre wound.

What about the other guy? “I broke my sabre over his helmet.” Martin said with a grin of satisfaction.

Martin was finishing his doctorate in Semitic languages at Louvain University in Belgium in the 1950s when he came to the attention of the liberal caucus in the Roman Catholic Church, Cardinal Bea.

His dossier included Martin’s request for lay status, that is, he wanted to leave the priesthood.

Paths kept crossing and the cardinal recruited Father Martin as his aide-de-camp: Martin said, and a new career about which Martin has really written little begun.

Martin went to Rome with Bea, and as the cardinal and Pope John XXIII began rallying forces to push the Vatican Council, Martin was given exciting and seductive chores he said.

Some of his work involved intelligence gathering behind the Iron Curtain and throughout the Middle East, he said, and some of it involved shaking long-closeted skeletons in the faces of cardinals who didn’t quite want to do what Cardinal Bea and the pope wanted at the Vatican council.

**“I saw cardinals sweating in front of me.” Martin recalled with mixed emotions. It was heady having that power, “and I began to enjoy it.” **

A clear understanding of this malicious joy brought Martin to decide to get out of the Vatican power game, he said with a rare calm and almost serious expression on his lively face, and he called in Cardinal Bea’s promise to promote his request for lay status.

By that time Pope John was dead and Pope Paul VI was on the Throne of Peter, and no one really regretted seeing Martin go. You don’t play that game without making powerful enemies Martin said, and his effectiveness had ended.

With it had ended the missions Cardinal Bea had imposed on the somewhat reluctant Jesuit scholar, and he moved on.

His first major book in the popular field was “The Encounter” where he argued that the “priceless moments” that hold men and women to Islam, Christianity and Judaism have been lost and with them, the mystery, excitement and fun of their religion.

Then came his autobiographical history of part of the Vatican Council intrigue, “Three Popes and the Cardinal” (Pius, John, Paul and Bea). Here Martin gave some pretty keen insights into what Pope John had set loose on the church and the Catholic Church’s apparent inability to cope.

“Jesus Now” is the next step in Martin’s journey of a soul, his and his church’s, published recently by Dutton at $7.95.

“Jesus Now” operates on many levels. One is to make plain to the pious that every age has drawn its own Jesus, and these images have failed to sustain belief because the crumble when they become obsolete.

“You mean the way it was argued that Jesus would have been a labor leading in the 1930s, a warrior with the Allies or Germans in World War II and a civil rights demonstrator in 1963.” Martin was asked.

That is exactly his surface theme. “If Jesus is truly Jesus, then He is more than just a Jesus of Nazareth or any of these other Jesus figures.” Martin said.

Jesus is more than a “small sectarian leader.” And Jesus is “dissolving” these images in order that mankind can see Him more clearly.

That’s the easy part of Martin’s new book.

Then he launches into what he admits is the scene-setter for his next book, saying all we have left is the “true Jesus, the Jesus-Self who is the immutable, ageless Jesus, the stumbling block of the Jews and the folly of the Gentiles, who lives within each man and from whom there is no escape, the Jesus-Self which every man inexorably is”

Martin believes in the Jesus who “did not come in order to depart, and need not come again because he (sic) never went away. Jesus past, Jesus future, Jesus now.”

Whether Martin is working up his own Jesus image after damning Jesus images is for each reader to judge.

Disagreement is possible, yes, he said with a wily smile, but rejection of his views as beyond acceptable belief, no.

“Jesus is the expression of man’s desire for universal truth and harmony.” Martin said almost as a teaser to classic theologians, saying he is not quite that blunt in his book. To do that would risk losing the agreement he wants from readers whom he expects to help save the church from itself. “I must bring the people along.”

Martin bemoaned the situation in the Catholic Church where “the power to command obedience is gone.” Because the “cement” that held the church together for almost 2000 years, its “authority” has withered as impotence has faced demands for renewal.

“Jesus images” are impotent idols, Martin said, and they cannot satisfy each individual’s “longing” for God which besieges Christians and others today.

“How am I going to survive” remains a primary question or religion, Martin writes and says, and life today is a “theater of longing” where Jesus-images are poor companions.

To the extent that Jesus is dissolving these images men cast of Him, the fragments are merging into His spirit, what Martin called the “primary ingredient in the religious experience” in every person.

This will allow mankind to combat this longing as each person newly aware of Jesus says, “Let us be human together,” according to Martin. If Jesus is anything, “He is the spirit moving among men. This experience is genuine” and what believers say about it will provide the new “cement” for the church and belief.

Martin grinned when he conceded that in his thinking he has gone “beyond conventional belief” but not necessarily beyond what others can believe without a wrenching dislocation.

“I’m not traditional, I’m not heretical.” Martin said, reaching down to knead his right calf beneath the steel support. “I’ve put it too carefully for that.”

As to where it may lead him, Martin said the last six chapters of “Jesus Now” give a hint to those who can cope with the complex, lively and free-swinging debunking of conventional Christian imagery.
 
thanks for the post. this man led a very interesting life and seemed to know where he was in the scheme of things.
 
deborahaz,

I’d be careful about getting too steeped in this conspiracy theory stuff. As a new convert, it can be easy to get on the wrong track with things early on. Best to stick with solid stuff before tackling this type of thing.

If Martin is right, then there are people out there who will deal with it internally - and I’m sure you can smell a rat, too. You also have access to this forum, where anything fishy would be pointed out very quickly.

If Martin is wrong in his predictions, then you will have wasted your time forming your faith experience on shifting sand.

If you are interested in the crisis in the Church, then Id be happy to offer you some titles. PM me and I’ll be happy to oblige.
 
Which is what? Please state it. I assert that what I wrote is consistent with popular Catholic commentary.
Come on. What you wrote most certainly denies the doctrine of Papal Infallibility, among other things.

“Popular Catholic commentary”? The Church teaches - infallibly - that the Magisterium is prevented from teaching moral or spiritual error by the protection of the Holy Spirit, as originating with Christ’s promise to Peter. You’re clearly denying that - or am I mistaken?
 
I refuse to believe that the Jesuits are not good holy men. However, Judas was hand picked as an Apostle by Jesus and look how he turned out. Whether Malachi Martin was associated with the occult or not has no bearing on the Jesuits.

I belong to a Parish run by Jesuits. They are committed, knowledgeable, loyal…the best!
The Jesuits you know are, I have no doubt, but as an order they have not been in the last several decades - they’ve been a long way from loyal, as our current pontiff pointed out not long ago.
 
Paul I am glad that you posted this. Bro Ignatius Mary worked in the publishing field before he entered the holy orders

He said that Martin used every slick trick known to publishing when he wrote…He said at some point he may do a book about him but that is in the future…He told us to pray for his soul
 
deborahaz,

I’d be careful about getting too steeped in this conspiracy theory stuff. As a new convert, it can be easy to get on the wrong track with things early on. Best to stick with solid stuff before tackling this type of thing.

If Martin is right, then there are people out there who will deal with it internally - and I’m sure you can smell a rat, too. You also have access to this forum, where anything fishy would be pointed out very quickly.

If Martin is wrong in his predictions, then you will have wasted your time forming your faith experience on shifting sand.

If you are interested in the crisis in the Church, then Id be happy to offer you some titles. PM me and I’ll be happy to oblige.
well, for right now i look at malachi martin from an entertainment perspective.
he was entertaining. i have no reason at this point to believe in whatever he has written or said in his radio interviews.
even though i am a recent convert, i was baptized 54 years ago, so i don’t think anything he has written will make me want to throw in the towel. LOL
 
Come on. What you wrote most certainly denies the doctrine of Papal Infallibility, among other things.

“Popular Catholic commentary”? The Church teaches - infallibly - that the Magisterium is prevented from teaching moral or spiritual error by the protection of the Holy Spirit, as originating with Christ’s promise to Peter. You’re clearly denying that - or am I mistaken?
I actually thought you talking about something else. However, since you brought it up, I do not believe there is or ever has been popular support among bishops for the doctrine of Papal Infallibility, particularly given that there were quite many popes who engaged in the most immoral behavior along with sacrilege.

The most well-known publication detailing this is “The Bad Popes”, by E. R. Chamberlin.

A quick search on Wikipedia brought up the following page:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bad_Popes

As a quick reference, also see, for example:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_John_XII

This has also been discussed before at length on the History channel, with Church scholars and clergy interviewed who acknowledged all of this.

Also, in your explanation above, you seem to have either missed or not understood the word “commentary”.
 
I actually thought you talking about something else. However, since you brought it up, I do not believe there is or ever has been popular support among bishops for the doctrine of Papal Infallibility, particularly given that there were quite many popes who engaged in the most immoral behavior along with sacrilege.

The most well-known publication detailing this is “The Bad Popes”, by E. R. Chamberlin.

A quick search on Wikipedia brought up the following page:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bad_Popes

As a quick reference, also see, for example:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_John_XII

This has also been discussed before at length on the discovery channel, with Church scholars and clergy interviewed who acknowledged all of this.
You do not know some of the most basic teachings of the faith. Are you Catholic?

Papal infallibility means that the pontiff is protected from error when teaching formally, ex cathedra, in areas of faith and morals. It most certainly does not mean that the pope does not sin. It makes no difference whatsoever if there existed popes who were not just average sinners like most of us, but downright scoundrels (as there surely were). No difference at all, because infallibility (in teaching) does not mean impeccability in character, or anything remotely close to that!

Please learn the basics of your faith, don’t come here with the anti-Catholic arguments that fundamentalist Protestants use, and possibly consider not relying on the Discovery Channel as a source of accurate Catholic theology.

This concludes my participation in this sub-discussion.
 
You do not know some of the most basic teachings of the faith. Are you Catholic?

Papal infallibility means that the pontiff is protected from error when teaching formally, ex cathedra, in areas of faith and morals. It most certainly does not mean that the pope does not sin. It makes no difference whatsoever if there existed popes who were not just average sinners like most of us, but downright scoundrels (as there surely were). No difference at all, because infallibility (in teaching) does not mean impeccability in character, or anything remotely close to that!

Please learn the basics of your faith, don’t come here with the anti-Catholic arguments that fundamentalist Protestants use, and possibly consider not relying on the Discovery Channel as a source of accurate Catholic theology.

This concludes my participation in this sub-discussion.
Just one parting detail: the doctrine of the infallibility of the See of Peter has existed in the Church from the beginning: it originates with Christ’s promise.

Practically, it is obvious from the earliest writings that the doctrine was understood by Peter’s successors and the Church at large.

One early quote: Cyprian of Carthage, writing about 256, asked, “Would heretics dare to come to the very seat of Peter whence Apostolic faith is derived and whither no errors can come?”
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top