What do you think about Malachi Martin?

  • Thread starter Thread starter matt1985
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
VitaminC said:
So what part drove you away… was it all the work Martin did to expose the child sex abuse scandal where the Church policy was to keep this quiet? Is this what you mean by sticking with the Church in the context of Martin?
Click to expand...
That he was laicized, released from his vows, whatever. He moves outside of the priesthood of the Catholic Church. I do not know, I can not know, nor do I care if those who say he was laicized are right or those who say it was Martin’s decision. I have seen many people axed and they all say they resigned, regardless of what really happen. Since the last official word of the Church on him is that he was moved out of the priesthood, he moves away from having any more say than you or I. I see here no one has come up with any recognition he is received from the Catholic Church. As a Catholic, there is no valid reason to give him any more consideration as a prophet than any fellow parishoner.

And no, Vitamin C. Unlike antiCatholics, the journalist of today and you, every Catholic issue does not boil down to sex scandals. I always see that as being the argument of last resort on all things Catholic.

This may seem overly simplistic to you, but in a world full of false apparitions, false prophets, Mary on a tortilla here and apocalyoptic prophecies there, Catholics need a real standard. The Church provides this standard. That is why we have a canonization process. Saints aren’t infallible, but they are reliable. Private revelations aren’t for all, but they are true to our Faith. If the Church’s last action was 45 years ago, being removed as a priest of the Catholic Church, I truly do not get why any Catholic would give him the time of day.

edit - There is one reason. If he resonated on the emotional level some of the angst felt by Catholics: feelings of betrayal and alienation. I can understand this and should not judge it. I would just advise caution, as Satan can play us like a violin where our emotions and pride are at stake.
 
VitaminC said:
No, he’s not. That BS was all made up. Fake and altered documents and everything else.
Click to expand...
After reading the links at that page, I need to apologize and retract what I wrote about these particular documents being fake. I was remembering wrong. The issue was not with the authenticity of these particular documents but as to what they truly imply. There was some other unrelated document over a different issue that was believed to not be authentic.

Martin was hired by Jewish groups and publishing companies to write and translate books due to his scholarship and fluency in various language, including work he did in the Vatican that these groups may see as exonerating Jews from being primarily responsible for Christ’s death. That’s what these particular documents are about. Martin did not keep this secret and wrote openly for AJC in the 1960’s.
 
I have been reading about him this morning. He sure is polemic. I will add one more thought. I also believe that everyone, here, blogosphere and elsewhere, need to cease the nasty attacks on the man and his character. There is so little evidence of the accusations against the man that those that spread these accusations are gossips and slanderers. Maybe the stuff said about him is true, maybe not. Unless you witnessed it, you should be gossipping. Instead, study the Catechism on offenses against the truth.

Obviously I was greatly offended at some of the garbage his enemies have put out.

The other thing I found striking is how similar his life is to the semi-mythical persona of Alberto Rivera of Jack Chick comics. I have to wonder if Alberto modeled some of this character around Malachi Martin.

I have searched for anything official and found nothing, pro or con. I am going to keep looking.
 
Paul_Folbrecht said:
Fr. Martin was definitely right about many things, and was hardly the only one saying them - though he was frequently the only one saying them publicly and saying them long before most others.

In my neck of a woods, a priest who was a good friend of a good friend of Malachi’s was murdered. According to the police themselves, the crime has indications of a satanic nature. The murdered priest was about to expose the ring of satanic pedophiles in Chicago. This was around '97. All of this is documented, and by the secular media as well.

I have spoken personally to two people that knew someone well who knew Malachi well, and unfortunately some of the rumors about his personal life were most likely true.

As for his behavior in the 60s, I’m one of the ones who think he was a spy at the Council. I think he had a change of heart. I think the last 30 years of his life bears that out.

But I also think he had to make a living and that he may not have been above a bit of sensationalism.

Not every long string of events and certainly not every person fits perfectly neatly into either a ‘White’ or ‘Black’ bucket, people.
Click to expand...
What was his name?
 
VitaminC said:
Father Kunz.
Click to expand...
That is correct.

And there was another in Chicago as well. Same type of thing. The names involved in that one are truly eyebrow-raising.

As for people who talk about this stuff sounding like Jack Chick, Mr. Chick does not understand the Catholic Church, and neither do those who liken those who dare to bring up such things to him. It’s so simple: the Church is holy, pure, and infallible, but its members (as a rule) are not.

Especially in the latter half of the 20th century.

If there’s no motivation to talking about such things other than sensationalism, then obviously there is no legitimate purpose. But sometimes there is motivation that is more proper.
 
Paul_Folbrecht said:
That is correct.

And there was another in Chicago as well. Same type of thing. The names involved in that one are truly eyebrow-raising.

As for people who talk about this stuff sounding like Jack Chick, Mr. Chick does not understand the Catholic Church, and neither do those who liken those who dare to bring up such things to him. It’s so simple: the Church is holy, pure, and infallible, but its members (as a rule) are not.

Especially in the latter half of the 20th century.

If there’s no motivation to talking about such things other than sensationalism, then obviously there is no legitimate purpose. But sometimes there is motivation that is more proper.
Click to expand...
As far as I know, I am the only one in this thread who has said that the accusations that their is a satanic cult of bishops and priests residing in the heart of the Vatican, manipulating the Church, performing ritual murders, and so on, sounds like the ravings of Jack Chic. I agree that Mr. Chic knows very little of the Church or Catholicism, and I will be the first to admit that my knowledge of the Church could use polishing as well, but you know, the more I think about it, the more I’m convinced that these accusations, whether made by Malachi Martin or not, are evil and are lies certainly worthy of Jack Chic and proceed from someone who is equally ignorant of the Church and the presence of numerous holy men and women within her (yes, even in the latter half of the 20th century). You may choose to believe the lies if you wish, but I do not believe them. I trust in the Holy Spirit and the promise of Jesus that he is with us always. I fully understand that there have been unholy men and women who have influenced the Church, but I do not believe that evil has ever prevailed within the Church to the extent that these accusations claim.
 
Paul_Folbrecht said:
As for people who talk about this stuff sounding like Jack Chick, Mr. Chick does not understand the Catholic Church, and neither do those who liken those who dare to bring up such things to him.
Click to expand...
The only thing I likened to him was the character (who is largely fictional) of Alberto Rivera. The similarities are striking. * It in no way reflects on Malachi Martin, who is the real person if someone used his life to model himself after. *

They are both Jesuit priests, excorcists, left the order in some form, are polemic and spoke against the New World Order conspiracy taking over Rome. This is a correlation that striking indeed. It is not sensationalistic to point this out. It is a dodge to claim sensationalism just for pointing out this similarity.
 
pnewton said:
That he was laicized, released from his vows, whatever. He moves outside of the priesthood of the Catholic Church. I do not know, I can not know, nor do I care if those who say he was laicized are right or those who say it was Martin’s decision.

As I said before, I don’t know enough about Malachi Martin to yet comment on “what I think about him”. However, I’m researching & when I DO have enough info, it will be REAL info.
Whether or not Malachi Martin was a good & holy priest, I don’t know yet. I DO know that he was not laicized:

“In 1964, Pope Paul VI released Martin from the vows of poverty and obedience in the Jesuit Order, but at Martin’s request confirmed his vow of celibacy. This step has been explained by Martin’s growing dissatisfaction with the reforms of the Second Vatican Council”.

You do realize that there are more ex-Jesuits than there are active Jesuits. I would have left this order, myself, had I been involved in the “mess” that they’ve become.

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR
229 West 43d Street VIA FAX
New York, NY 100363959 212,5563622

To the Editor:

Your obituary (July 30) of my collaborator and friend of almost twenty years, Father Malachi Martin, contained one outright falsehood, a slanderous connotation, and repeated the subjective and erroneous biases of several reviews of his books in the TIMES.

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.

(From Father Fiore)
Click to expand...
 
The Jesuits certain are a far cry from what the started out to be…I will agree with anyone on this issue
 
Note from Colin B. Donovan, STL at EWTN
Malachi Martin states, and the Holy See will confirm if asked, that “In 1965, Mr. Martin received a dispensation from all privileges and obligations deriving from his vows as a Jesuit and from priestly ordination.” [Congregation for Institutes of Consecrated Life and Societies of Apostolic Life, 25 June 1997, Prot. N. 04300/65].
Click to expand...
 
Fr. Foire states he was a laicized priests.
worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=15689
“But Malachi also received permission to remain a priest and made sure he told Paul VI that he desired to keep his vow of chastity so he could continue his work as a laicized priest,” Fr. Fiore told me. Malachi still gave Mass, still heard confession, and still was, in fact, a priest in every sense of the word.
Click to expand...
Emphasis mine.

Fact: Martin was released of his vows in 1964.
Fact: After this Martin was not allowed to say Mass publicly.
Fact: Martin was not allowed to wear a Roman Collar in public.

As far as I can tell Martin himself is the original source that he had special permission to still say mass in private. As far was the other sacraments go, what diocese did he belong to that gave him faculties to administer them? (This is one of the major problems with the sspx is it not?)
 
Tsuwano said:
As far as I know, I am the only one in this thread who has said that the accusations that their is a satanic cult of bishops and priests residing in the heart of the Vatican, manipulating the Church, performing ritual murders, and so on, sounds like the ravings of Jack Chic. I agree that Mr. Chic knows very little of the Church or Catholicism, and I will be the first to admit that my knowledge of the Church could use polishing as well, but you know, the more I think about it, the more I’m convinced that these accusations, whether made by Malachi Martin or not, are evil and are lies certainly worthy of Jack Chic and proceed from someone who is equally ignorant of the Church and the presence of numerous holy men and women within her (yes, even in the latter half of the 20th century). You may choose to believe the lies if you wish, but I do not believe them. I trust in the Holy Spirit and the promise of Jesus that he is with us always. I fully understand that there have been unholy men and women who have influenced the Church, but I do not believe that evil has ever prevailed within the Church to the extent that these accusations claim.
Click to expand...
Matthew 16:18 doesn’t mean what you think it does. If it did, La Salette and Akita would have been condemned. These people you accuse of making evil accusations and telling lies include the Pope’s Chief Exorcist, Fr. Amorth.
 
The La Salette secret never stated “ROME WILL LOSE THE FAITH AND BECOME THE SEAT OF ANTICHRIST”.

The above statement is slavishly accepted and promoted, by many deluded people - almost as if it is “a matter of Faith” that the Blessed Virgin Mary spoke those words to Melanie Mathieu/Calvat and Maximin Giraud at La Salette.

Were these words spoken by the Virgin Mary all those years ago? Or were they, they repetitions by an innocent Melanie of the apocalyptic ravings of convincing but deluded fanatics who succeeded in confusing her? (E.G. Martin Luther developed the penchant for calling the pope the anti-Christ.) It is important to understand that Melanie NEVER mentioned this phrase when she first communicated the message in 1851. This phrase only began to be attributed to her after 1878 - long after the actual event happened, and the official message had been recorded.

Link

Here is the official La Salette secret:

Link
 
Message of Akita:

…"The work of the devil will infiltrate even into the Church in such a way that one will see cardinals opposing cardinals, bishops against bishops. The priests who venerate me will be scorned and opposed by their confreres … churches and altars sacked; the Church will be full of those who accept compromises and the demon will press many priests and consecrated souls to leave the service of the Lord…

Link
 
CradleCath said:
Whether or not Malachi Martin was a good & holy priest, I don’t know yet. I DO know that he was not laicized:

“In 1964, Pope Paul VI released Martin from the vows of poverty and obedience in the Jesuit Order, but at Martin’s request confirmed his vow of celibacy. This step has been explained by Martin’s growing dissatisfaction with the reforms of the Second Vatican Council”.
Click to expand...
It is still only about 50/50 those who say he was and those who say he wasn’t, among even his supporters. You are one more that say you know he wasn’t laicized.
 
eyeofliberty said:
The La Salette secret never stated "ROME WILL LOSE THE FAITH AND BECOME THE SEAT OF ANTICHRIST
Click to expand...
I already know about all of this, and I don’t take a position on it at this point. It is my understanding, however, that this version is the one that was approved and received the imprimatur of a Bishop in 1979, and my point, if you read above, has to do with approval of the apparition.
 
To answer the OP, I think he’s one of the best writers/storytellers I have read, ever.

Whether everything he wrote was historically true, I don’t know for sure. Even his non-fiction is compelling enough to read like a good novel. He seems to have an excellent understanding of Catholicism and the Church, for what that’s worth. I learned a lot from his books. So I wouldn’t be at all suprised if the positive things people are saying about him here are all true. But again…just my opinion.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top