Definitely a trawl. I reckon it would be easier for me to find the link I posted on one of the threads about Fr. Martin on this forum but I really don't think it's worth the effort. Context matters in these things. Fr. Hardon was acting as a liaison between the Vatican and the SSPX. I think that the FSSP may have been his brainchild or that at least he was involved in setting it up. He said that the Vatican was concerned about liturgical abuses the vernacular had enabled in the Mass and that Cardinal Ratzinger had been tasked with cleaning it up. Fr. Martin seemed to have been heading to the opposite extreme of Karl Rahner et al. I also saw a video where Fr. Martin seemed to have been championing the cause that Fr. Feeney had been unfairly treated. Judging from the content of that video, it would appear that he had been unfairly treated with the Pope agreeing privately with Fr. Feeney but failing to go against Fr. Feeney's Bishop. I don't know much about the Feeneyites. Fr. Hardon might have seen Fr. Martin's loose lips as a hindrance to his efforts for reconciliation with the SSPX. We'll never know. May they both rest in peace. Some people seem to have believed that Fr. Martin had been consecrated a Bishop in secret. Such a thing has happened in the past. Were that the case, it might explain his conducting exorcisms apparently without seeking permission from the local Ordinary. Every Bishop is also an exorcist.
I think you have some very good insights, Dolours. Thank you for taking the time to write it all out. -AN
There was another priest murdered, here in the Archdiocesan of Washington. Msgr Thomas Wells He was a good friend of my current pastor. I’ll have to look it up and try to post the article.
This article explains a lot. Fr Hardon although a wonderfully dedicated priest was clueless on what was going on in the Church. I believe Malachi Martin opened a Pandora box of secret truths that many good priests refused to believe at that time. http://www.crisismagazine.com/2009/blood-from-a-stone
It's very nice of you to say that, but please don't take anything I say as an opinion which is somehow better informed than your own. I'm speculating which is all any of us can do considering we weren't personally involved. My speculation is based on bits I have read or heard as well as my own vague memory of that time. I remember seeing Fr. Martin interviewed on TV and dismissing him as a failed priest with an axe to grind. With the benefit of hindsight, I can see that it was my own faith which was failing although I thought I was a good Catholic. That revelation about the 400 Bishops threatening to break from Rome goes some way towards explaining to me what Pope Benedict meant when he said his authority ended at the door of his office. Rome having spoken meant nothing to those 400 Bishops. Fr. Hardon's lectures are well worth the time spent watching them. So is the content on the Coming Home network site. The more I watch, listen and read the more I realise how little I know. There has been apostasy and heresy in the Church since the beginning. It's only in latter years that it is tolerated and sometimes fostered by those who should know better. We also must be careful of confirmation bias (I think that's what it's called). For example, I was nodding my head when Fr. Hardon spoke about dodgy Jesuits but I was less convinced when he suggested that Archbishop Lefebvre was a throwback to the old days when the French Bishops accepted nothing from Rome unless they approved of it. (Was that Gallicanism? I'm not sure). Anyway, it seemed to me that Fr. Hardon was blaming Archbishop Lefebvre for something the 400 Bishops had actually been guilty of. There doesn't seem to have been a huge difference between what Archbishop Lefebvre wanted and what Pope Paul VI wanted before those 400 Bishops threatened to go into schism. It seemed to me that Fr. Hardon was a little unfair to Archbishop Lefebvre. But Fr. Hardon knew a lot more about it, so his opinion can't be discounted. What disappoints me most of all is an apparent lack of trust in God on the part of faithful Popes. Pope Paul VI caving in to those Bishops, Pope John Paul only consecrating Russia in a roundabout way, Pope Benedict saying his authority ended at the door, and all three of those Popes' failure to face down the Jesuits although Pope John Paul did make some attempt at that. In a way, I think that Archbishop LeFebvre may also have lacked trust in God when he consecrated those Bishops. Malachi Martin, on the other hand, had no doubt about the power of the papacy. Anyway, what's done is done. Reading up on what was happening back then does help cast some light on how we got to where we are, but we can't change it other than through prayer.
I know for a fact that Father Martin knew Father Kunz which was a horrific case. My friend was advised very strongly to high tail it out of the US in the aftermath. No joke.
In fact, Dolours, from all you’ve written, I believe I can honestly say that you’ve shown me that you do, indeed, have a better informed opinion than I do on these topics. It shows in what you’ve written and I am grateful that you took the time to do so. I do, however, know that it is only opinion. Also, your noting and reflecting upon certain events I have found beneficial.
Thanks for confirming that. The name rang a bell. I had read something about Fr. Martin having known a priest who was murdered but wasn't sure it was the same case. May the light of Heaven shine on Fr. Kunz and may his murderer repent and receive mercy from the Lord.
Thank you. I'm glad I could be of help. Just bear in mind that if someone else happens along with a different opinion than mine, there's a very good chance that it is more reliable. Way back then, I was probably more interested in whether George Harrison would marry his girlfriend (whose name I have long since forgotten) than what was happening in the Church. When I said I learned a lot from Fr. Hardon's lectures I didn't mean the stuff about what was going on in the Vatican. I meant that Fr. Hardon was an excellent teacher of the Faith and the videos of his lectures are a treasure. I'll preface what I'm about to say with a reminder that we all need to beware of assuming for ourselves an authority we don't have. We are students rather than teachers of the Faith. That said, I think it important to point out that, contrary to an impression sometimes conveyed on the forum, the Holy Spirit doesn't choose the Pope in the sense that God overrides the free will of the Cardinal Electors. The Holy Spirit certainly protects the Church per the promise of Jesus but it's through God's permissive will rather than His active will that we have had less than stellar popes in the past. God's grace is there for the Cardinal electors but they have the free will whether or not to co-operate with it. That doesn't make the incumbent any less the keeper of the Keys. There has been all kinds of skull duggery connected to the papacy in the past but it has survived thanks only to God keeping His promise to be with us to the end and that the gates of hell will not prevail against the Church as well as the grace from the perfect sacrifice offered from the rising of the sun to its setting. He didn't promise that the gates won't make inroads or appear to be on the verge of prevailing. In fact, Scripture tells us that towards the end it will seem like all is lost and it will take an abundance of God's grace to help the remnant persevere. I've been following a bible study by an American priest on Youtube. (The Grace Lily Productions channel on YouTube). He's doing the Book of Genesis and has reached the part where Melchizadek blesses Abraham. The similarities between the Church over the past 2000 years and the chosen people in the Old Testament are striking. They had some dreadful leaders and some great saints. Same with the Church. No matter how many times they broke God's covenant, God never abandoned them although there were times he left them stewing in their own juice for many years. God didn't abandon them and He won't abandon us although He might let us stew for a long time. I'm finding bible studies and learning about the Early Church Fathers far more interesting and beneficial than private revelations that may or may not be genuine. Sermon over. Time for me to resume my break from the forum. God bless, and thank you for your gracious responses to my posts.
I came across some interviews with Malachi Martin on YT with Bernard Janzen. I don't know if others have listened to these but because most of what comes up in the search results on YT for MM are predominately interviews with Art Bell I had never heard these and thought others might be interested as well. They are said to be less sensational and more theological in regards to the same issues brought to light on the AB show. At any rate click the link if interested... https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=bernard+janzen+malachi+martin
I had these interviews on tape from many years ago. The interviews are amazing in the scope and intelligence of his analysis. He never considered himself a prophet but I think in some ways he was. He saw very clearly where we were headed. The" Church of Accompaniment " tried to slander and defame him but we see now the tactics for what they were. They couldn't afford to have a stalwart truth teller in their midst getting the word out. IMO.
I feel that Father Martin had some truth to what he said but also some not so true. Kind of like a disinfo person. Lets throw some truth in with some non important stuff. He was selling books.
I agree, they are really interesting interviews and there are several hours of them. Martin did these interviews in the early 90's with Janzen who I prefer over Bell even though I find some of what Bell does very entertaining. I had never heard of Mr Janzen before coming across these. In the late 90's he interviewed with Art Bell who had a huge following at the time and became very popular. I remember because my mom and cousin both listened to his show regularly and talked about them. I wonder if MM did these interviews with Art simply because of the huge audience he knew he would reach. If you watch any of his other interviews or guest appearances like Firing Line with Buckley he is much more theological when speaking about what was happening in the church which of course any catholic would expect for a man of his credentials.
I think selling books was a great excuse that could be used to change the subject when things became uncomfortable for him. I've read his books and believe MM was carrying water for people who would make sure he never need to be concerned about his financial well being. Likely some of the very people invested in publishing his books.
Couldn’t have said it any better…Fr. Martin knew…… He tried in every way to warn us interviews, books, etc. it’s a miracle they didn’t kill him sooner. ( The masons…if they did it?). His interviews are on YouTube….the most interesting content on the net…IMO.
I felt like MM knew he had a large audience on Art Bell. He had the largest listening ratings for any of Bells shows. Bell was not catholic, although his wife was, yet he had a decent understanding of most topics that MM covered. His discussions on end times, Fatima, the third secret etc. were incredibly interesting, but so was his knowledge about science, the occult, exorcisms, history, etc. This guy was super intelligent and interesting. I’d give anything if he were alive today to give his commentary. The only thing I think he was wrong on was his timeline….I think he had events occurring earlier. Perhaps praying moved the needle…? Nothing like a brilliant, experienced and talented Irishman to capture the attention of the world…MM certainly did that.
Thanks for asking Beth. I am feeling better but I am not fully recovered yet. I am trying to ween off of the steroids now and start a new medication which is a battle I have been through many times so all things considered I am doing well though.
