Fr Malachi Martin interviews with Bernard Janzen.

I'm reading 'The Eternal War", the second volume in Bernard Janzen's series of interviews with Fr Malachi Martin. It is comparable to being repeatedly punched in the face by the Truth. I can't recommend these volumes enough.

 

Truth can be encouraging or conversely, discouraging, depending on the topic and to whom it is directed. Does it pertain to the enemy?

 

He identified the enemy, both within and without the Church, ultimately the devil, more precisely and bluntly than anyone I can remember reading. The Truth cannot be discouraging. It is the suppression and denial of It, something that has been ongoing for more than half a century, that causes our problems.

 

I understand your question; after all, Malachi Martin's literary work is often cited by Protestant authors to say that Roman Catholicism has apostatized from the faith and is fully at the service of the New World Order. However, I see that his works have a specific connotation for true Catholics when analyzed in light of the message of Fatima that he propagated so much, and that has been an antidote against schismatic thoughts in this time of crisis. I think that its reading is not recommended for Catholics and Protestants who are unaware of the essence of the third secret of Fatima. This is what I discovered after years of reading articles on Protestant websites that denounced the new world order based on their works.

 

Love his interviews. Especially Art Bell interviews. I still listen to them.

 

Malachi Martin certainly seems to be coming into his own these days as the things he reported in the past concerning the future appear to be coming to past right before our very eyes.

Rest in Peace Malachi. Prayers for your soul. Nice man, very entertaining gentleman.

I have a feeling the poor man suffered a lot.

 

The Protestant authors to whom you refer would have a point in that a certain faction of the Catholic Church have undoubtedly apostatised. However, Father Malachi would not have been slow to point out that Protestants themselves are apostates from the faith and also that those Churchmen who have apostatised and are now apostatising removed themselves and are removing themselves from Catholicism. Catholicism, even if it is reduced to being practised by a handful, would remain the True Church. Let's pray that Our Lady will step in long before it comes to that.

*****************************************************************

Father Malachi was powerful in his description of The Mass and of its fundamental importance. He says that the Novus Ordo Mass, in the English-speaking world, was invalid during the period of the words 'for all', in the Consecration, because they represented a change from the words of Christ (thanks be to God for Pope Benedict's restoration of 'for many').

On that subject, I remember reading of Eucharistic miracles continuing in the NO, but the occasions were in Masses said in languages other than English.

 

So Malachi Martin states that the masses we attended in English before the change of the wording were invalid. I can't believe that because it's not logical that God would leave us as orphans over a word when the priests intention was to validly bring Christ to the altar.

 

Yet, many here have expressed the fear that the words of consecration might be imminently changed or even abolished, that fear being based on the possibility that we would be left with no consecration at all. The use of 'for all' wasn't merely a technical change in wording; it fundamentally changed the meaning and intention of Christ's words. I'm in no way qualified to judge...I'm just content that Pope Benedict sorted it out.

Fr Malachi also exposed the lies that were told about this issue, at the time. It seems that those behind 'for all' claimed that the Aramaic expressions 'all' and 'many' were both the same word, implying that Christ really meant 'all'. Fr Malachi was a scholar of both Aramaic and Hebrew and said that both of those languages actually had two words for 'all' and two for 'many', thus nailing the lie of the iconoclasts.

I agree that God wouldn't leave his faithful as orphans through absolutely no fault of their own. I would trust in His Omnipotence. On the other hand, I doubt He'd be too impressed by having to 'work around' the Order He Himself had clearly outlined. What was done was abominable and a clear attempt to destroy the Mass.

 

To further elaborate...Christ wasn't just saying words, he was describing the Sacrifice He was about to undergo for the Redemption of man-but only for those who want it-and simultaneously providing the means by which men, through the priesthood, could daily Re-Enact His Sacrifice. No believer could possibly take it upon himself to interfere with words of such import.

 

Food for thought.

I was bring defensive as the thought of receiving the Eucharist from an invalid Mass for decades is somewhat too much for me to bear.

 

I read an article on a Protestant website that connects the election of Paul VI to the infiltration of black magic orders in the Vatican. The author addresses Lucifer's enthronement ceremony in the Pauline chapel in 1963 and relates this to a fusion of the forces of white magic and black magic that would be related to the election of a pope named Paul according to a prophecy of modern Satanism. So it's always good to do a "combined sale" of Malachi Martin's books with books or articles about the authentic third secret of Fatima.
https://www.espada.eti.br/n1623.asp

 

I am sure Protestant sources are sincere but I can't forget their animus toward the Catholic Church. Malachi Martin has an extensive interview with Michael Cordon on you tune--Fr Luc's site. He goes into detail on all of this.

 

It is too much to bear

 

I've been to that sight and although there are a few things that ring true. Other than that we have to consider the source.

 

I will not take a man’s word on this. It’s a rabbit hole.

 

I've tried to see it in the following way; He did shed His Blood for all, but in the end, only "the many" would accept this. The many being, imho, the faithful who understood what this Great Sacrifice really was for. The correction was necessary; it appeared to be a subtle reminder that we need to work out our salvation in fear and trembling. It made so much more sense!! From what I remember, that correction in the wording really shook up the "all are saved" crowd.

 

True enough, but there is much confusion out there and Fr Malachi Martin seems to have stuck firmly with traditional Catholicism, in opposition to the radical changes that occurred in the sixties and seventies. He was also privileged, due to his being secretary to Cardinal Bia, to be a witness to much of the architecture of the Council and the treatment of the Third Secret of Fatima. Regarding the issue of the Mass, it is irrefutable that the words of Consecration of Our Lord Jesus Christ, as recorded in the Gospels, were changed such as to have a radically different meaning. This latter is not a matter of opinion. It was taken so seriously by Pope Benedict that he reversed it, most likely in the face of severe opposition. Still, yours is a healthy and wise reminder. If I see anything contradicting the Faith from Fr Malachi, the book will go out the window!

Naturally, it made more sense, since Christ said it. I can't agree that Our Lord 'shed His blood for all', because God has always acted in freedom in His dealings with man; in other words, nobody will be taken into Heaven who chooses freely and finally not to accept the underlying conditions. Such ultimate non-acceptance implies a rejection of salvation. God will force nobody to be saved.

 

I've had a dig at Protestants myself on this thread, but I probably learned more about orthodox Catholicism from C.S. Lewis (a Protestant from Belfast, of all places) than from any other source. I suppose it depends on whether they are Christians first, or Protestants first.

 

Good point. CS Lewis's Mere Christianity was a big influence on my intellectual conversion ( after my first rush of grace).