As Latin Mass Network devoted several articles covering the Legion of Christ deception, it seemed only fair to cover some of the con artists operating in traditionalist circles. As we know, Holy Mother Church is under attack from all sides and it's good to keep a watchful eye on all those who come bearing gifts.
The biggest trad deception is, of course, the sedevacantist schism which purports that the Chair of Peter is either empty or somehow not functioning at full authority. The definitions of the First Vatican Council are sufficient to end this heresy. On a smaller scale, though, are those who talk a good trad line to sell us books and movies, such as Malachi Martin and Mel Gibson. But there is more to Fr. Martin than his off-color and conspiratorial intrigue books. Martin was a Judiazer who worked to undermine Church doctrine at Vatican II.
"Malachi Martin's Double Agent Status Documented" is a 1997 2007* article by John Grasmeier, founder of Angelqueen.org, a Catholic discussion site. Based on my years of observation, Mr. Grasmeier is an honest Catholic who takes the Commandments seriously, especially in this matter, the 8th. In Martin's case, he did his homework well and further confirmed for me the distrust I always had for the man.
Below are some excerpts from the article; please visit Angelqueen.org for the full story.
Angelqueen.org has obtained numerous incriminating documents proving not only that Malachi Martin was indeed the infamous Vatican II "double agent," but also that his duplicitous activities during the Council ran far deeper than had been previously thought.
During the Second Vatican Council, Martin acted as an assistant and translator to Cardinal Augustin Bea, head of the Secretariat for the Promotion of Christian Unity (SPCU). At the time, a major focus of the SPCU was the Jewish declaration portion of Nostra Aetate, the Vatican II document that addressed the Church's relations with other religions. Cardinal Bea would later be referred to by Archbishop Lefebvre as an "instrument of betrayal."
In January of 1966, Look Magazine ran an article entitled "How the Jews Changed Catholic Thinking," a lengthy, in-depth look at the influence various Jewish lobbying groups had over the final draft of Nostra Aetate. In the article, Senior Editor Joseph Roddy tells of an unnamed Jesuit priest who held a key position in Rome during the time the Second Vatican Council was in session. The priest, described as a double agent who "could never turn down work" and a "savior in the diaspora," would use his position to gather and disseminate inside information to the secular press and the Jewish lobbying groups, who would in turn use that information in their efforts to influence the Council fathers, particularly the progressive American bishops. Although the priest's actual name is withheld, several pseudonyms he used for his various activities are revealed.
...There is no doubt whatsoever that the double agent described in the Look article by Joseph Roddy was in fact Malachi Martin. The document at exhibit G undeniably ties Michael Serafian - who is undeniably Malachi Martin - to the F.E Cartus pseudonym.
* 2007: typo caught below - thanks
Easy to attack a Roman Catholic Priest when he is dead! If you had confronted him when he was alive Angelqueen would probaly have lost all credibility. SHAME ON YOU!
Hi Tony,
Should that be the rule for all deceased priests, no matter how good the evidence? Even for Fr. Maciel of the Legion of Christ?
Here's Malachi Martin in his own words
Very poor example! Father Malachi Martin is not being accused of Father Maciel's crimes.
From your comments, i guess because we have had some bad Priest, all Priest are bad.
Let's first establish the principle. Is it permissible to uncover the sins of a priest after his death?
Let us all just take care of our own souls and evangelise others to the Catholic Faith.
Hopefully we can get our and help get others souls to heaven without wasting time on commenting on the actions of one who has already been judged.
We know the Faith.
Let us be Doers and not just Hearers of same Faith.
This is an old article that has been thorougly debunked. It's part of a series of articles attacking Fr. Martin unfairly by Grasmeier.
This started a year earlier when Grasmeier in what appears to be an effort at "taking down" a traditionalist in order to build his reputation attacked Atila Sinke Guimareas in which he falsely stated Guimareas and his coworkers at Traditioninaction.org accused the Vatican of murdering Sr.Lucia the Fatima Seer. http://www.traditioninaction.org/Questions/E019_Grasmeier-AbbotAttack.htm
After having his hat handed to him by Guimareas. Grasmeier went on the attack against Fr. Martin since Fr. Martin was already dead.
Grasmeier has misrepresented a great number of the sources that he has bothered to divulge.
He has misrepresented Fr. Martin's use of the pen-name Micheal Serafian, He has misrepresented the article by "F.E. Cartus" for Commonweal.
He has misrepresented the the position of the late Fr. James Lebar (exorcist). He has misrepresented the diaries and comments of Edmund Wilson which mention Fr. Martin.
He has purposely avoided in all of these articles anything that sheds a positive light on Fr. Martin and gives disporportionate creedance to dubious and known enemies of Fr. Martin.
Grasmeier has been corrected on these matters and has deliberately avoided dealing with them.
Here's one of many discussions on the topic
http://catholicforum.fisheaters.com/index.php/topic,1983227.0.html
Thanks for the info Gerard. You make an interesting connection that I hadn't made before, namely, that there might be a tie-in between Guimaraes-Horvat (Tradition in Action) and Martin. This adds another player to the whole Fatima-Conspiracy operation of TIA, TFP, America Needs Fatima, and Fr. Gruner.
This reminds me that I should publish the refutation of the supposed apparitions of Our Lady at Akita, yet another distraction to the faithful.
You don't have to research whether or not there is a tie-in between Fr. Martin and Atila Sinke Guimareas. They "conspired" to have Fr. Martin write the foreward to "In the Murky Waters of Vatican II."
http://www.traditioninaction.org/bkreviews/G_001br_MW_Malachi.htm
That will probably be "breaking news" on Angelqueen at some future date when hits are low and the need to resurrect a persecution comes up.
The truly interesting thing is how Grasmeier's articles both on Fr. Martin and Atila Sinke Guimareas are marinated in deception. Deception he's been corrected on and never amended. So your assertion that Grasmeier takes the commandments seriously is subject to doubt considering his behavior.
Guimareas and those at TIA never accused the Vatican of murdering Sr. Lucy. Grasmeier asserted they did "implicitly." A total fabrication.
One of the most overt lies about Fr. Martin was Grasmeier's assertion that Fr. Martin lied about his past to Fr. Charles Fiore. He cited the Edmund Wilson diaries. (of which copy I just happen to have.) In it Wilson paraphrases a conversation he had with Fr. Martin claiming that he was having troubles with the Jesuits who were "enemies of the faith." Wilson actually confirms Fr. Fiore's statement about Fr. Martin's claims about his relations with his former order. All of that Grasmeier was shown at the time he posted his articles. He chose to ignore it and has yet to retract his articles.
The question isn't whether there is a conspiracy on the Fatima proponents side of things. The question is whether there is a conspiracy among deceptive writers and webmasters. From Free Republic to Angelqueen to Renew America there is a consistent effort at consensus cracking and selective attacks against certain positions or people to the detriment of the truth.
Oh good, the "why are you picking on a poor dead priest" defense so typical
of Martin's cult.
Please.
Never mind that that he was a public figure who still has a obstinate cult
following? Never mind that in his books (which are still available) that Satan
was enthroned in the Holy City? Never mind that in his books he lied about being
an exorcist? Never mind that was on the bribe-roll of the American Jewish
Committee during his work on Vatican II? Never mind that he was laicized for an
adulterous affair with his friend's wife during his work for the Council? Never
mind that he admitted on several occasions to blackmailing Cardinals during
Vatican II in order to get them to go along with the liberalists' agenda? Never
mind that he (while writing secretively for secular liberal U.S. magazines)
planted fabricated prayers that he attributed to the Vicar of Christ? Never mind
that he publicly portrayed himself as the traditionalists hero during the
council sessions, when he was in fact, just the opposite?
His lies, heresies and scandalous works are still affecting Catholics this
day, and he still has (what's left of) a committed following that he leads
astray from the grave. Yet those of us who know better are supposed to shut up
and look upon it all with glazed over eyes because he's dead and he was, at one
time (3 decades before his death), a priest?
No thank you. Catholics aren't charged to watch in silence while charlatans
(dead or alive) turn innocent Catholics into goats. In fact just the opposite:
Its a spiritual work of mercy to instruct the ignorant.
As to Gerard Heimbecker, he's a Martin fan-clubber extraordinaire who,
inconceivably, advocates that Martin should become a canonized saint.. No
the preceding sentence is not in jest, he really believes, or at least claims to
believe, that Holy Mother Church should count Malachi Martin among our holy
saints. Hence, from this mentality, Gerard has been plopping these
kill-the-messenger screeds on whatever venue happens to mention my name in
regard to Martin. I don't engage him directly any longer, so he takes my refusal
to indulge his confusion and calumnies as my being "debunked" or "corrected."
I learned the hard way that it's beyond useless to attempt dialog or
objective conversation with Martin cultists and hardwired conspiracy theorists
who believe in bilge such as the fables Martin told or that there could have
been a two Sister Lucy conspiracy. This pathology only leads them to smear the
messenger, because the empirical evidence mangles their cherished memes. Hence,
instead of refuting the documentation, Gerard can hardly get through a paragraph
off without mentioning my name.
Now I discover I'm even part of a grand conspiracy involving Free Republic (a
website I was banned from for 4 years for being too Catholic) and Alan Keyes'
Renew America.
As to my apologetics against the clownish "Two Sister Lucys" conspiracy
theory spewed by TIA,
here's the original article where Matt Abbott quotes my position. Compare it
to Gerard's contentions of my position here. I stand by what I submitted.
And no the documents linked at the top of this post, which are held in the
archives of the New York Public Library, haven't been "debunked" by
anyone. They can't be debunked as they are simple financial records submitted
innocuously by Martin's publisher. They simply are what they are and they have
nothing to do with "John Grasmeier" or any of John Grasmeier's real or perceived
sins and imperfections. They indisputably prove that during the development of
Nostre Atate, when Martin was supposed to be working on behalf of Holy
Church under Cardinal Bea, he was colluding with the American Jewish Committee
and American media interests while getting paid well for doing so. They also
indisputably prove something the Martinoids have denied for years; that Martin,
in fact, was the multi-pseudonymed "double agent" and "savior in the Diaspora"
described in Joe Roddy's 1966 article for LOOK magazine entitled "How the Jews
changed Catholic thinking." The LOOK article can be
read here. The section highlighted in blue is what pertains to Martin.
Read that article,
then read the documents from the archives of the New York Public Library
which were scanned from the originals. They (the subject of this very thread)
are available to any member of the general public.
The only debunking has been Gerard's hilarious assertion that the Swiss bank
account was set up for Martin's charity work. You know, Martin was such a great
guy and all (a saint in fact), that he set up a Swiss account with the American
Jewish Committee so that he perform his charitable works. It's beyond absurd, as
it is beyond absurd that Martin calling the Jesuits "enemies of the faith" is
somehow proof of my "overt lies." As if Martin despising the Jesuits is proof of
anything.
Oh, and BTW, I don't need to post Tradition in Action's nonsense on
Angelqueen when "hits are low." Even if "hits" mattered on AQ (they don't, and
they're never low anymore anyway) nobody is really interested TIAs toxic swill.
They can't generate hits to their own site, much less another. Thanks to grace,
they're irrelevant.
For those interested, here are a few more references.
Malachi Martin's double agent status documented
Documents Martin's various pseudonyms. Documents the Swiss bank account opened
on Martin's behalf by the American Jewish Committee. Documents Martin getting
"pimped out" by his publisher to the American Jewish Committee and various media
organizations.
Martin a 60s liberal? No FAR worse
Contains transcriptions from the memoirs of Martin's friend Edmund Wilson with
first hand accounts of Martin mocking a priest for dedicating a book to the
blessed virgin, ridiculing sacred relics and adhering to the "fabricated
Gospel" theory that some Dead Sea scrolls scholars ascribe to. It also shows
that those who had immediate contact with him were claiming that one of the
reasons he was defrocked was for the an affair with a Time magazine
correspondent's wife. It shows that those associated with Martin at the time
considered Livanos his girlfriend. The memoirs also give the reason he ran into
trouble with the Jesuits as being because of his heterodoxy, not his
orthodoxy as Martin supporters claimed.
The story also contains the transcription of a radio interview in 1996 where
Martin is put on the spot about the heterodoxy charges, which Martin actually
made against himself in Wilson's memoirs.
Malachi Martin 1973 interview with the Cincinnati Enquirer
Martin relates to the interviewer how during the council he was blackmailing
cardinals by digging up dirt from their past and using it to get them to go
along with him and Cardinal Bea during the council. He also provides more of his
absurd views on religion and Christ.
Another interesting Malachi Martin article (1974)
Martin lauds Judaism, Buddhism and Chairman Mao while his harshest criticism is
for Catholicism. He also proclaims more of the heretical gunk he was given to
during that time. He tells us of how he was named after his Jewish banker
ancestor.
Malachi Martin's exorcism snake oil
The chief exorcist from the Archdiocese of New York explodes Martin's claims of
being an exorcist in anywhere in New York. A REAL exorcist - Father Lebar -
gives REAL verification of how REAL exorcisms were handled in the Archdiocese
during the time when Martin claims to have been one there. He tells us that
Martin had nothing whatsoever to do with any REAL exorcisms. This article also
has Martin in 1986 telling the New York Daily News that he wasn't clergy and
wasn't under any bishop (as he did with Art Bell about a decade later). Also
provided is Martin's dispensation from ALL duties and privileges from the
priesthood and the Jesuit order. In other words, Martin was indisputably
laicized as per the documentation contained in the Holy City of Rome. The
exact reference number and the language from the Congregation for Institutes of
Consecrated Life at the Holy See is provided.
What Malachi Martin's traditional Catholic countrymen thought of him in 1973
Documents Martin's Irish more traditional or orthodox countrymen completely
outraged with his appearance a TV program. It also presents him as a liberal,
and portrays him as a fantasist even back then. In fact the journalist calls him
"Walter Mitty". The article has Martin yet again telling of how he was tasked
with going after cardinals during the council.
Malachi Martin's betrayals (forges papal prayer)
More connections to the pseudonyms Martin was using while he was feeding
information to the press and Jewish lobbying groups at the time he was supposed
to be working for the Holy See on behalf of the Catholic Church. Incredibly, in
an article he wrote for the American Jewish Committee under the pseudonym F.E.
Cartus, Martin fabricates an implausible statement that he attributes to Pope
John XXIII which has the pontiff apologizing for supposed past sins Catholics
committed against Jews. It also shows how Martin received nearly $80,000 in 2007
dollars from his publishers family - the Guggenheims - shortly after leaving
Rome.
Malachi Martin's attempted wife-stealing documented
Available for download, is a PDF of a letter written and signed Father William
Van Etten Casey S.J., on Holy Cross College stationary, sent to the office of
Archbishop Eugene Cardinale, #3 in the Vatican secretary of state. The letter
was written in order to shed light on the breakdown of the Kaiser's marriage
because an annulment was being sought. It documents not only that Martin had an
affair with Kaiser's wife, but that he tried to steal her away from him,
destroying Kaiser's family in the process. More evidence of Martin's tall tale
that he that he left the priesthood because he was a pained, goodly, orthodox
priest.
Whoa! Welcome John. Looks like a hot time in the old town tonight.
Y'all are welcome to "discuss." Know that our spam buffer catches posts with over 1500 characters or with 2 or more links, as you've already found out. Also remember, love thy enemy, judge not, no flaming, stick to the facts, and all that kinda stuff.
Mr. Grasmeier is simply rehashing the "cottage industry" of trashing Fr. Martin. It's the same garbage, with a smidgeon of refinement. He's deleted the "Israeli Spy" accusations or the more adventurous conspiracy theories. He's rummaging through the garbage of Fr. Martin's and the Church's worst enemies and taking their implausible accusations, innuendo and gossip, dressing it up and presenting it as solid evidence.
You can find Fr. Martin's quote about the "cottage industry" in Michael Cuneo's book "American Exorcism" a book Grasmeier never read when he wrote his articles but felt comfortable quoting from. Actually, he didn't quote from it directly. He copied without giving proper citation to Kevin Christopher who reviewed the book in a shoddy manner.
After that, we've got a bunch of unproven assertions that will remain unproven.
Actually, they are lies and distortions.
Since a close examination of Grasmeier's biased research, such as the Edmund Wilson diaries or researching the late Fr. James Lebar's statements will convey the opposite conclusion.
Regarding this old chestnut: "Oh good, the "why are you picking on a poor dead priest" defense so typical of Martin's cult.
Please."
Now where did that pre-packaged bit of "well-poisoning" come from?
[deleted] There's no need to give someone a benefit of the doubt when they've obviously demonstrated a lack of interest in the truth.
Of course, who can blame him? It's tough to withstand watching so much "hard work" being dismantled, logically and factually on his own site right below the very same article that was supposed to sink Fr. Martin and possibly more importantly thrust the author into the spotlight of Catholic Apologetics and journalism.
THAT is the reason why he doesn't interact me, not because I happen to believe Fr. Martin was a man of heroic virtue and great character, who perhaps when the Church has recovered will look upon as a key figure for his work in preserving and restoring the Church.
Fr. Martin misleading people? Oh yes. Encouraging, The Traditional Latin Mass,True loyalty to the Holy Father, The Roman Catechism, the Remnant newspaper, The Rosary, The Chaplet of St. Michael, Morning Prayers, Evening Prayers, Supporting the SSPX, the FSSP, the SSPV and anyone else trying to preserve authentic Catholicism, and the list goes on. Oh yes. He mislead people by writing the pre-eminent book in English on Exorcism just recently touted on EWTN by Fr. Tom Eutenauer who was trained by Fr. James Lebar, who also praised the book and Fr. Martin as being his main teacher live on EWTN.
The main problem is Mr. Grasmeier's imagination. Anyone who disagrees with him or points out obvious non-sequiturs or flat out errors is a traitor of sorts and labeled with some sort of suffix like "-ite" or "-oid" or the "cult" label is thrown around as a dodge, just as "LeFebvrites" is used as a disparaging term. And of course, when the arguments get difficult and the pieces don't fit together, we also have to read about all the hard work involved in cobbling together this bit of biased, incoherent "work."
[TIA rehash deleted]
Now it has only transferred to his new "mission" to save hapless Catholics from the "wolf in sheep's clothing" Only his X-ray vision and keen perception was able to see through the deception. It's a strawman attack of near pathological proportions.
Strange how we've never gotten an answer to certain foundational questions. What exactly was Fr. Martin responsible in the "abomination" that was Nostra Aetate?
What doctrinal teaching prevents the possibility of the occurance of a Satanic ritual inside the Vatican? Taking a position of personal umbrage is unfortunately not a valid argument.
What exactly is a "real" exorcism by the way? Fr. James Lebar credited the underground Church with doing the heavy lifting when the Church had dropped the ball on it. Does Bishop McKenna do a "real" exorcism? Fr. Lebar thought so.
I also love the accusations of the "secret" workings with the Jewish lobby groups. All above board and published at the time. The F.E. Cartus article is no tell-all. It presents a much stronger Paul VI than we actually had and tells the jewish groups sympathetically to not wish for the world and not expect what the liberal jewish groups wanted.
That's just a cursory pointing out of the errors, omissions, non-sequiturs, falsehoods and incongruencies in this repackaged set of attacks against a good and holy priest.
OK. I think Gerard has gone over about everything he posted on the fisheaters' site. I don't know why we've hopped over to Bishop McKenna's supposed exorcism, which can't occur outside the authority of the Holy Father. But I think we get a clue from this: Fr. Martin encouraged "True loyalty to the Holy Father" while also "Supporting ... the SSPV" which denies the full authority of the Holy Father. Both sides of the fence, eh?
As I made clear at the top of the article, the sedevacantist deception will cost you your soul, and promotion of it is not welcome here.
Why in the world would the Latin Mass Network allow unfounded attacks upon Father Malachi Martin? These attacks occurred many months ago on Grasmeier's Angelqueen website. At the time he removed many, many posters who had the temerity to suggest that Father Martin was a courageous priest who did a lot of good. Father Martin supported the Latin Mass and our faith's traditions against those who tried to undermine the church from within. He is also not around to defend himself. Shame on those who now try to defame him.
I'm no sedevacantist, so please don't use that as an excuse to muzzle me.
Rash judgment will actually cost you your soul more so than the possible error of sedevacantism.
And rash judgment is part of the Angelqueen deception.
How does supporting people who can provide the sanctifying grace of the Catholic Church and the traditional sacraments equate to promoting sedevacantism? Fr. Martin's only comment about sedevacantism was, "No sedevacantist will see the face of God." Which many people disagree with. But that's not relevant. By the same token Fr. Martin's support for the FSSP must be taken as a capitulation to modernism as well as his support of priests that say the TLM as well as the N.O.
By your standards you must support the Holy Father's ecumenical efforts it seems, or is the Holy Father a "double-agent" too?
With regard to Bishop McKenna's exorcisms, the AQ articles pretend they were never "real" and Valid exorcisms do occur outside of the normal jurisdiction and they occur outside the authority of the Catholic Church. Going all the way back to the Apostles "And John, answering, said: Master, we saw a certain man casting out devils in thy name, and we forbade him, because he followeth not with us. And Jesus said to him: Forbid him not; for he that is not against you, is for you."
Cyprian,
Why did you delete the part of my comment that states when I contacted Grasmeier [deleted again]
I even gave him specific page numbers in the books. I guess that's what he means by "dialogue" and "objective conversation." There was no reason to delete that.
Gerard,
So, you go on defending sedevacantists when I said that's not welcome here. Sedevacantists do not provide sanctifying grace. Same with the Orthodox.
I'll continue deleting the derogatory comment you attribute to Grasmeier. Not to excuse him, but everyone has his limit and somehow he reached his. You claim he couldn't face the facts. I'm beginning to think there's more to the story.
-----------------
I think this thread has about run its course. Anybody else want a final word?
Cyprian,
The comment Grasmeier made to me was snarky, not derogatory. And you keep deleting the fact that I privately contacted him and made him aware of his errors along with his response.
You really need to learn about Sacramentology. The Orthodox who are heretics and schismatics are allowed to give the last rites to Catholics when a Catholic priest is not present. Those sacraments administered by those heretics and schismatics are valid and convey sanctifying grace. Deny it and you are a heretic.
I'm not defending sedevacantists who performe exorcisms. Fr. Lebar did. If you don't like it, then delete Grasmeier's comments referencing Fr. Lebar. If you want, I'll give you the page numbers in "American Exorcism" where he does so.
Just as in the Wilson Diaries, I've pointed out that the same sources and authorities that Grasmeier references actually provide the evidence that proves Grasmeier's conclusions wrong.
I think this thread has about run its course. Anybody else want a final word?
I'm currently in the middle of a few things, but, yes, when I have some time, I would like to respond to some of the comedy written since my last visit.
Snarky. Ha!
I have ladies reading this, and I do this for Our Lady. I guess snarky is out, too.
Obfuscate. Bait and switch. Now you move onto emergency sacraments to defend your defense of sedevacantism. Yes, in such rare cases, the sacrament does provide sanctifying grace to a Catholic. But never to those outside the Church.
Enough with sedevacantism. And enough with Gerard. You've had your voice here. Please let it go now.
the one who should "let it go" is John Grasmeier who has through flimsy "evidence" attacked Father Martin. do you realize Cyprian that he banned any poster on AQ who even used the word Father in front of Martin's name? this with absolutely no evidence that Fr. Martin was ever removed from the priesthood. who does he think he is as a layman to tell people that a priest is not a priest? yet that arrogance is tolerated along with lies and half truths about a now deceased Roman Catholic priest who happens to be very popular author. something is wrong with this picture.
Servitium (JG) even banned any links to Fr. Z!!! Will horrors never cease?
I thought it was common knowledge agreed by all that Fr. Malachi Martin was laicized. I took the line that he asked for it himself because it was so bad in the Jesuit Order. I was told by those sympathetic to him that he still said Mass privately with the Pope’s permission. Later I found out that once a priest is laicized he is forbidden to say Mass. If Fr. Martin asked for laicization, he would have to agree first not to say Mass. I don’t think any priest who asks to be laicized should be looked up to or held up as a model let alone a pillar of tradition and orthodoxy. Are we now supposed to believe that he lived the life of a priest? He himself dropped his title of Father and dressed in secular garb and lived in a high class appartment in Manhatten?
I know a few people who read his book , “Wind Swept House.” One came close to loosing the Faith afterwards because of the scandal it contained, another went into depression for a while and never quite recovered and another was scandalized that a priest should write such graphic and lurid material that makes the imagination go wild.
Martin’s stock and trade was exposing corruption in the highest places of the Vatican. It was not heterodoxy alone but gross of Cardinals and bishops. It was put out there for everyone—the bruised reed and smoking flax—to read. And yet no one can say a word against him because he was a priest?
One thing that puzzles me is how upon his death, I received a letter from Fr. Fiore asking for money to help defray funeral expenses. After his writing of best sellers that must have brought in millions was I really supposed to believe that there was no money for his funeral?
First a few minor corrections. The AQ article was written in 2007 as opposed
to 1997 as stated in a previous post. Although it is without doubt that Martin
was colluding with the American Jewish Committee, I never heard of anyone
describe him as an "Israeli spy." I certainly haven't. Also, despite Gerard
Heimbecker's glaring issues with niggling things like honesty. facts and
reality, he's not, thank God, a sedevacantist. What he is, to the point of pity,
is a hopelessly devoted Martinist.
As to some of the contributions that followed my last visit here, like
clockwork, they read exactly as I've come to expect from the Martin cult. Ignore
the facts, kill the messenger. Believe it or not, I'm 100% fine with that. In
fact, I encourage anyone and everyone, to assume I'm silver tongued serpent who
never told a single truth in his life. Holding that assumption, simply READ THE
DOCUMENTATION AND EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE found at the links provided. Facts are
facts. Truth is truth. The advocate or opponent of truth eventually becomes
irrelevant, as sooner or later, the truth has an utterly reliable way of
speaking for itself.
To believe as the Martinoids who have posted here do, you have to believe
most or all of the following:
That Satan is enthroned in the Holy City. After all, Malachi Martin said
so in his best selling book.
That in order to perpetrate the most treacherous fraud imaginable (which
would have involve countless conspirators including those at the very
highest levels of Church government, Sister Lucia's own siblings and the
pope himself) the "real" Sister Lucia was gotten rid of and replaced with an
imposter.
That Martin was a traditionalist hero during his work on Vatican II,
despite the fact that he was, financially and professionally colluding with
the American Jewish Committee and left/secular media organizations.
That Martin was a traditionalist hero during his work on Vatican II,
despite the fact that by his own account (on several occasions), he was
blackmailing council fathers in order to get them to go along with the
liberalists agenda.
That Martin was a traditionalist hero during his work on Vatican II,
despite the fact that during that time and for years afterward, by all
accounts (including his own), nearly all his friends and associates were
leftists, anti-Catholics, avowed atheists, secular media elitists and
officers of Jewish non-governmental organizations.
That the letter from Father Van Etten - written on Holy Cross
stationary and submitted to the Archbishop who held the 3rd most powerful
office at the Vatican Secretary of State, was a complete fabrication.
The letter is the priest's first hand account of his personal
experiences with the woman (the wife of a Time magazine correspondent and
mother of two) whom Martin an adulterous affair with and subsequently tried
to steal away from her husband. The family never recovered and was
subsequently broken up.
That after 1965, Martin was a priest with faculties, despite the fact
that the Vatican (namely The Congregation for Institutes of Consecrated Life
and Societies of Apostolic Life) will refer those who inquires about
Martin's status to an official document (Prot. N. 04300/65) that clearly and
unambiguously states that Martin was laicized.
That an official document held at the Vatican and available to the
public (Prot. N. 04300/65) stating clearly and unambiguously that Martin was
laicized is "absolutely no evidence that Martin was ever removed from the
priesthood."
That after 1965, Martin was a priest with faculties who performed
marriages, yet there exists not a single record at any church, diocese,
county clerk, city hall or anywhere else of Martin marrying anyone at
anytime.
That after 1965, Martin was a priest with faculties yet never publicly
referred to himself as "father" either by word or signature and never wore
clericals.
That after 1965, Martin was a priest with faculties, though there is no
record of him being incardiated into the Archdiocese of New York or any
other diocese.
That Martin performed exorcisms in New York, despite the fact that the
priest who was Chief Exorcist of the Archdiocese of New York at the time
Martin's "exorcisms" would have taken place, says that such would not have
been possible, even if Martin had faculties, which he didn't.
That a laicized Catholic priest can perform exorcisms in any way, shape
or form.
That any Catholic priest, regardless of faculties, can perform any
exorcisms without the particular exorcism and the priest himself being
"expressly and particularly authorized by the Ordinary," as per canon law.
This bullet-list is but a cursory sampling of what one must believe if riding
on Martin's magic bus. The full list would likely require a paid staff to put
together.
In the minds of the conspiracy theorists, the Martinists and the types who
inhabit the TIA site (and others like it), the innocent are guilty, the good are
bad, lies are truth, truth-tellers are liars, scoundrels are holy saints and
absurdity is reality. It's not an exaggeration in the least by to describe this
mindset as a pathology.
Then they wonder why others may wish not to suffer them. The reason why I
don't allow their nonsense on AQ is not only because they hobble the traditional
movement, or because I wish to maintain the integrity of Angelqueen.org by
refusing to give their toxicity an international stage. The main reason I don't
allow them on AQ is because personally, as a plain ol' Catholic, I don't wish to
be associated with them. Unlike them, I don't see my unwillingness to suffer
their crapola as a liability, I see it as an asset.
Worth mentioning, is that Martin's books are no longer allowed on the shelves
of SSPX book stores, and they are no longer sold by Angelus Press. On a macro
level, it's providential that the tinfoil contingent is becoming irrelevant as
the traditionalist movement grows. This is good, as the movement is far
healthier and more productive without them.
Thanks everybody. I realize this could go on and on, so I'll call it a day. Happy Feast Day (Pentecost).
For those who feel that the pro-Martin side was underrepresented, I'd highly recommend starting a project to review and post the evidence and counter-evidence. God bless.