Charlie Johnston.

Father Malachi Martin was one of the most compassionate, well spoken souls I've ever heard. He was popular because ANYONE, no matter what faith--pagan or druid or whatever could ask him any question and he was kind, had a great sense of humor, always lifted them up and he loved, loved, loved the Church! He was a very brilliant learned man with tons of inside knowledge; but his greatest gift was to explain the faith in kindergarten terms...He truly spent himself pouring out what he saw as truth, especially among those who were his enemies--inside the Church he loved! My husband who was Methodist used to sit by the radio and listen to him. He learned so much from him! He had great respect for JPII and as a mystic himself, saw that JPII was in such a tough spot! As with ALL of us who have studied the secret of Fatima and those who think they have inside knowledge etc...THAT was just the tip of the iceberg! Malachi knew JPII's charisms and as with all of us only wished, prayed and firmly desired for JPII to DO IT--! Consecrate Russia!!!
But, alas he did not. As one who is standing in the moment, it is hard to see things. As one standing and looking in hind-site; its a very different view!
I would not fear at all to listen to his tapes. Maybe its the evil one not wanting you to?? Truly, he is delightful and insightful!

 

I have my doubts about MM. There is plenty of conspiracy about him. Just google his documented affairs, and double agent status.[which of course could be lies]

 

Fr Malachi , I recall, used a very striking image off , 'Grace leaking from the world'.

It is a bit as though we all had a collective bank account from which we could all either make withdrawals or deposits. But since we are all only making wtihdrawals it gets smaller and smaller and light and love get dimmer and colder in the world.

Our Jewish brothers have a legend that several just men at any one time hold the wrold in their backs.

I thnink we Catholics have a similiar respect fro Victim Souls who through their suffering and prayers make massive deposits into the collective bank account.

But there is such a huge, 'Run' on the banks
we face grace bankruptcy..

The devil one time , through a possessed person said, 'Two more like the Cure of Ars and my Kingdom in France would fall!'

But were are our Cure of Ars and Padre Pio's today? Oh there are saints out there of course, even today. But far, far, far less than enough.

 

I must admit to being very interested in anything I read or heard of interviews with Malachi Martin. His connections to the Vatican of the 1960s and his potential knowledge of the Fatima Third Secret made what he said almost a 'must read'. However, the interview I have just listened to (which has been posted earlier somewhere on the forum) has him stating that most Masses celebrated since Vatican II have been invalid. Now that, for me, puts into question much of what he spoke about over the years. I am quite happy to believe he was a good man, following his conscience but as for discernment, it seems not to have been his strong point.

 

I would be most grateful if you could point out that interview. That word "most" would be a shock for me. So I would like very much to hear it for myself. If so, then I would, with pain, have to re-assess how much to rely on the arguments of Malachi Martin.

 

One thing is clear to me. I have seen this many times where a person or ones name is tramppled upon with no justification and they loose credibility quickly. Rumors fly like sparks in a camp fire. We have seen this many times on this forum where someone's name is tarnished for one unfounded reason or another. I have always enjoyed listening to Father Martin's talks and reading his writings. I have never found anything in them that was evil or anti-Church teachings. He was at times controversial, because he spoke of a dark future, but if anything we are seeing his prophecies being fulfilled as we speak.

 

The interview can be heard in this video:



The relevant bit is 4min.30sec into the video. Sorry, Fatima, but you will hear Fr Martin speak the words I quoted (actually not quite the same words I quoted but near enough).

 

Doesn't surprise me but there may be other reasons for invalid masses. Among traditionally minded priests there was an idea going around that since a number of bishops (such as Joseph Cardinal Bernadin) were thought to have entered the priesthood to destroy and were not "validly" ordained bishops that their own sacramental orders were invalid. As memory serves me correct, many of these same traditional priests went back and got "re-ordained" by traditional bishops giving them the confidence that they, themselves, were now validly ordained and thus dispensing valid sacraments. Because of this they believed many sacraments/masses may have been invalid

 

Thanks be to God, the validity of Sacraments does not depend on the holiness of the priest, or the one who ordained them. A bishop or priest who takes their orders with evil intent does not invalidate any Mass, or any Sacrament. Without conversion, evil priests will get a ticket straight to the bowels of hell, but Jesus protects His sheep.

Getting the people of God to look with a jaundiced eye at every Mass for signs of evil in the priest is a trick of the enemy.

 

I like Malachi Martin but cannot agree with his analysis of the Novus Ordo. If what he says is true then the 'gates of hell have overcome Christ's Church'. I still find him very interesting though as he has great insights into the times we live in.

 

I don't know when this interview was done or within what context, but while I do not agree that a vast many NO masses are invalid, I certainly understand his disgust for what many priests, bishops and cardinals have done to modify the NO mass on their own with inclusive language, leaving out or modifying the creed, unapproved canon's of the mass being invented and read and the theatrical display many have put on as if it is a hollywood production. Now Father Martin may have seen this and much more and while I do not believe that these things invalidate a mass, it surely takes the sacredness away from the worship due God.

 

Thank you for Malachi, I never had the opportunity to tell it to you so let me tell it to you today, I respect and love you since a long time now, Bravo as we are saying in French, my regards to your husband.

Aviso

 

Kathy,

You know more than I. But I was talking about priests who were some of the top canon lawyers in the country who thought this.

 

Not saying certain words may invalidate a mass. Also, using the wrong substance for the bread may also invalidate the mass. I do believe they were on to something.

 

Having listened to the video a few times I am 'squaring the circle' by deciding that Malachi Martin meant to condemn with the word illicit rather than the word invalid.

Below is a c&p of an article which expresses a view that Malachi Martin may have understood if he was fully aware of what he meant when he used the word invalid.

"...
Fr. Roger-Thomas Calmel, OP, was a liturgical rebel in the late 60s and early 70s who steadfastly refused to offer the Novus Ordo. He was apparently never sanctioned, even though he very stridently repudiated the Novus Ordo and penned a missive a few days before the implementation of the NO in 1969 in which he very bluntly proclaimed that the Novus Ordo was a modernist catastrophe unleashed on the Church through an egregious abuse of authority. It’s pretty hard hitting stuff, and really cuts to the core regarding the modernist agenda, liturgical or otherwise. I’d say in places it goes beyond what I feel comfortable saying/thinking. See what you think (I add some emphasis, some in original. My comments):

I hold to the traditional Mass, that which was codified, but not fabricated, by St. Pius V, in the XVI Century, in conformity to a centuries old usage. I therefore refuse the Ordo missae of Paul VI.
...
If we accept this new rite, which fosters the confusion between the Catholic Mass and the protestant supper––as the two cardinals (Bacci and Ottaviani) sustain and as a solid theological analysis demonstrates––then we will pass over, without delay, to an interchangeable mass (as recognized, moreover, by a protestant pastor) to a mass which is completely heretical and therefore nothing. Initiated by the Pope, then diffused by him to the national Churches, the revolutionary reform of the mass leads to hell. How can we accept to become accomplices of this? [As I said, some of this is pretty strong. I would not say the NO is heretical. Gravely deficient and seemingly deliberately designed to foster abuse, yes, but not heretical.]

You will ask me: by keeping the Mass of ages at all costs, have you reflected upon what you have exposed yourself to? Certainly. I risk, so to say, persevering in the way of fidelity to my priesthood, thus rendering to the High Priest, Who is our supreme Judge, the humble witness of my office as a priest. I also risk being able to reassure the faithful who have lost their way, those who are tempted to scepticism or desperation. Every priest, in fact, who remains faithful to the rite of the Mass which was codified by St. Pius V, the great Dominican Pope of the counter reform, permits the faithful to participate in the holy Sacrifice without any possible ambiguity,, to receive, without risk of being deceived, the incarnate and immolated Word of God, rendered truly present under the sacred Species. [That's what it's all about. The Lord, truly Present in the Eucharist, so clearly elucidated by all the prayers] On the contrary, the priest who conforms to the new rite, composed of various pieces by Paul.... "

http://veneremurcernui.wordpress.co...to-the-church-the-new-mass-only-to-modernism/

 

While I agree wholeheartedly that so many illicit liturgical abuses were and are going on, I do not adhere to his belief that the Novus Ordo was not valid. He knew many, many good and holy priests who said the Novus Ordo Mass. In his world, seeing demons and angels and such; his thought was , why take a chance?!

 

I read this comment on Charlie's blog today and thought yes, yes, that's me - there is hope. So I felt I had to share it. (sorry I can't get rid of the itlaics!)
charliej373 says:
July 30, 2014 at 9:06 pm
Thanks, Kati! Your Dad sounds like a man of uncommon taste and judgment Have no fear for your daughter. If she truly seeks to do what is right and just, she will find her way clearly. In fact, often God allows people to wander far afield in order to prepare them for the work He has for them. How often are the best addiction counselors those who have lived, and overcome it, himself. I say frequently that I look to the heart of a person – if they are merely vain and eager to be seen as superior, not much good can come from them until they get that right, even when they seem to agree with me. But if their heart truly reaches out to those around them, I am content that they will be fine even if they are chasing up some blind alleys. In fact, I am usually subdued about that, for if their heart is sound, I figure any errors God allows them to explore are valuable in helping to prepare them for the work He has waiting for them. Remember that St. Paul was once a passionately, faithful Pharisee and scourge of the Christians. Would he have been as fruitful an Apostle had he been less passionately faithful when he was misguided? I often see such qualities in one who has a good heart but is misguided and think, with inner satisfaction, “Boy, this one is going to be a champion when she recognizes and follows the Lord’s call.” Thanks to both you and your sister for joining me here.

 

I loved what Charlie had to say yesterday- I am a convert, I was Saul of Tarsus for many years about the Catholic Church but a strong believer. The Lord was able to write beautiful lines on the crooked paths I wandered and here I am today- in the Legion of Mary! My kids are not Catholics but they are seekers and they have been raised to love Jesus. I know they will find Him.

 

Dear Charlie (if you're reading this thread), I am writing after reading your always stimulating and vigorous blog with great interest in order to respond to your post regarding the Fatima conspiracy theorists in this public forum rather than in your own space. Please excuse the length of what follows, but this is a serious subject which deserves careful scrutiny.

My intent is not at all to question your own revelation, nor to give unqualified approval to all the conspiracy archeologists out there. If I am proposing a slightly different reading from yours, I do so not in order to argue a case, but as a professional theologian (one of my lines of work is as part of a faith-science team at a European university headed by a man who recently prefaced René Laurentin's latest book) seeking to assess the evidence as completely and dispassionately as possible. In trying to do so, I take as my watchword the advice of famous Canadian Jesuit philosopher Bernard Lonergan: 'be attentive, be intelligent, be reasonable, be responsible'. My provisional conclusion based on my own research, taking into account both the work of historical scholarship and an extensive survey of alleged private revelation in a number of languages, is more or less as follows:

a) St John Paul II's Consecration of 1984, as an act of faith and obedience, was indeed of great benefit to the Church and humanity, and is in a causal relationship both to the collapse of the Soviet Empire in 1989-1991 and to religious freedom in Russia. However, the case that it did not entirely fulfill Heaven's original wishes, which not only concerned the Pope but all the bishops, is one that needs to be taken seriously, not least because of the state of affairs in the world at the present time. For example, the fact that the Russian Orthodox Church remains sadly prone in public statements to attacking the Catholic Church (as the crisis in the Ukraine has demonstrated) would seem to indicate that the conversion of Russia is at best a work in progress.
Although I have the greatest respect both for Sr Lucia and St John Paul II and would not, unlike the conspiracy buffs, for a moment question their sincerity, their pronouncements about the fulfillment of Heaven's wishes for the Consecration of Russia were stated as personal convictions, not as the result of revelation. The same of course goes for those taking the other side, starting with Fr Gabriel Amorth, whose eyewitness testimony that politicians prohibited John Paul II from mentioning Russia explicitly in 1984 cannot be overlooked, given that he was the organizer of the event in St Peter's Square. It seems that we have a genuine conundrum here.

As regards whether contemporary alleged prophecy is of any assistance in resolving the question, it has to be said that in all my reading I am yet to come across a credible source that explicitly confirms the total conformity of the Consecration (I know that 'JNSR' in France has said this, but she is regarded by many as questionable). On the other hand, several sources which warrant serious consideration more generally - and I say this on the basis of having studied hundreds of pages - have indicated the contrary; this is not only a question of 'Locutions to the World' (towards which I for the moment take an agnostic to moderately skeptical view), but also Luz de Maria Bonilla and Verne Dagenais. My personal opinion, although this could change in the light of new material, is that the nuanced position found in the purported words of Jesus to Verne D. quoted elsewhere on this forum is the reading of the 1984 Fatima Consecration which best fits the evidence, i.e. as a partial fulfillment.

 

b) Regarding the Third Secret, there are still a number of unanswered questions which suggest that the matter cannot yet be considered closed, not least concerning John Paul II's statement in Fulda in 1980 (which seems to refer to material other than that in the published secret) and the whole role of Cardinal Bertone in the release and interpretation of the secret in 2000, which have been subjected to penetrating and as yet unanswered critique from scholars such as Antonio Socci. Besides more general ongoing question marks concerning the activities of Cardinal Bertone, many reservations being expressed from within the Magisterium itself by senior cardinals, a particular issue is the rationale for Bertone's published view that Fatima can be consigned to the past, one which he was forced to revise in the light of widely-publicized remarks of Benedict XVI in 2010 concerning the prophecy's future dimension.

One of the biggest obstacles to ascertaining the truth both regarding the secret and the Consecration is that so much of the writing has been agenda-driven. Here a strange and not-so-coherent alliance seems to have developed between the Catholic right (either those at the outer limits of faithfulness to the Magisterium, such as Fr Kramer et al., or those well outside the boundaries such as the SSPX, Bishop Williamson...) and the militant Protestant camp, of which a prime example is Tom Horn, the degree of whose media exposure in uninformed Evangelical circles has to be considered highly unhelpful. Having read a little of the latter's published material regarding Fatima, besides the outlandish nature of many of his theses, there is an obvious and enormous logical problem with his argument. On one hand, he states that, as a Protestant - of a certain extreme variety, I might add -, he regards all Popes as false prophets, yet one the other he appeals to excerpts from approved Catholic private revelation in search of credible evidence to build his case!! This is of course utterly self-contradictory: read properly, that same private revelation completely deconstructs his theological position and anti-Papalism. On the philosophical level, this is simply not serious writing, but it can unfortunately appear so on a cursory glance as he does quote some genuine scholarship (e.g. Socci, whose work I very much respect and who is not merely an ideologue).

c) Concerning the matter of apostasy within the higher echelons of the Catholic Church, this is indeed a highly sensitive issue which needs to be handled with extreme caution, especially when supposed private revelation is brought into the equation. This is evident from the damage that has clearly been done by self-proclaimed 'prophecy' labelling Pope Francis as a false prophet (MDM being the most spectacular example, but this tendency goes back to the sedevacantist Bayside 'apparitions' back in the 1970s).
What is certain is that the notion of coming high-level conflict resembling something akin to a schism within the Magisterium is attested by approved private revelation, at least as far back as the visions of Bl Anne Catherine Emmerich, as Mark Mallett has pointed out in a number of cogent blog posts.
http://www.markmallett.com/blog/a-black-pope/
[It needs to be acknowledged that the authenticity of the much-quoted words of Mélanie Calvat's 1879 version of her La Salette 'secret' stating that 'Rome will lose the faith and become the seat of the Antichrist' is a disputed question among scholars, some of whom feel that this was her own posterior embellishment] The words received by Sr Agnes Sasagawa during the approved apparitions in Akita on October 13, 1973 are clear:

"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."

As for the Pope's role in this conflict, the notion that a legitimately elected Pontiff will apostasize and betray the faith has of course to be rejected as contrary to the dogma of Papal infallibility - a point strongly made by Dr Mark Miravalle, Mark Mallett and others in contending against the alleged prophecies of 'Maria Divine Mercy' targeting Pope Francis. As a matter of principle, no credence should be given to any private revelation that encourages disobedience against a reigning Pontiff. In the messages of a number of locutionaries whom I view as credible, adherence to the 'three whitenesses' of St John Bosco's famous dream - the Mother of God, the Pope and the Eucharist, is presented as a litmus test of prophetic authenticity, and this would seem to be a very solid yardstick.

What is more difficult to judge is the notion that at some point in the future an illegitimately elected Pope (antipope) could effectively apostasize. This is far harder to dismiss, given that a) there have been antipopes in the past and b) obviously such an antipope would not be covered by the charism of infallibility. Here it should be said that there are a number of credible prophetic voices out there whose alleged locutions say just this, Verne Dagenais, Sulema and Pedro Regis being three examples. That the words to Sulema and Pedro Regis have been illegitmately used by others to attack Pope Francis does not automatically inauthenticate them. It should be added that according to these purported prophetic sources apostasy would, it should be added, only be very short-lived and would not therefore contradict Christ's words about the 'gates of Hell' not prevailing against the Church in any ultimate sense; we would only be talking about a temporary setback here. Furthermore, the scenario predicted by Pedro Regis a number of years ago, well before Benedict XVI's retirement, that there will come a time when there are Two Popes, only one of whom is authentic, is by no means impossible. I admit to speculating here, but the existence of a 'Pope Emeritus' (a title which Pope Francis would presumably also acquire on retirement) effectively guarantees, even in the event of some kind of illegitimate power grab at a future conclave, there will still be a genuine Vicar of Christ on earth...

It is perhaps also worth noting that what the messages received by Verne Dagenais apparently foresee - that there will come a false church led by an antipope uniting lukewarm Catholics with liberal Protestants -, lines up very closely with visions/angelic visitations that at least two of the most credible non-Catholic prophetic ministers have received independently in America and Australia, both figures being outspokenly pro-Catholic in their predictions that there will be great revival in the Catholic Church and that millions of Catholics will be martyred for refusing to accept apostasy (for what it's worth, the tentative timeline for this is given as 2022-2028, by which stage Pope Francis may well have retired).