One thing is for certain and that is RUSSIA has never been consecrated by the pope and the bishops of the world. This was the specific request by Our Lady of Fatima. Now several attempts have been made, but fell short of either not naming Russia or not having the bishops in collegiality. This there is no argument about this. Those who feel it was done, believe that Lucia told someone, who told someone who someone wrote down that she said the pope did it......... you get the picture. Same goes with the 3rd secret. Some felt the Vatican released all the information they had on it and others (some who actually ready the secret) say it was not. What we all know is that the era of peace, which is the result of the consecration having taken place, has not taken place (unless I missed it in my 59 years of living). The reason for Garabandal, Akita and Medjugorje is to give the people what those who responsible for giving the Fatima message failed to do, which is specific information as to the purification that awaits us. God will not be mocked. Lucia said it would be late. The only question that remains is, how late?
Sorry that it's a bit off-topic now, but why were people at the beginning of the thread saying that we should pray for Pope John XXIII and that they hope he makes it to heaven? Like him or not, he was canonized a saint on 27 April 2014, meaning that the Church infallibly declares him to be in heaven. Am I missing something here?
I agree Mark...we are all trying to find the truth. I guess some of us have lost faith in the Curia at the Vatican. We no longer trust them. BUT we have not lost our faith...not at all. But we are trying to search for answers about all of this. Increasingly it is harder to have any faith in the "organization" called the Vatican. Very sad.
Can't blame you for laughing because it does come across as such a naive statement. The second letter is something of a character assassination of the woman while exonerating the man. It's strange, also, to see a priest describe someone as a devil, even if it is a Jesuit describing a fellow Jesuit who has broken his vows and caused the breakdown of a marriage. What do you make of Fr. Martin's claim to have performed exorcisms when the official exorcist for New York said that Fr. Martin's only participation had been to refer likely candidates to him? Then there's this from the EWTN website: http://www.ewtn.com/expert/answers/malachi_martin.htm "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]." There's no doubt that the owner of the website is no fan of Fr. Martin. He seems to have been a friend or acquaintance of the woman's husband. I wonder whatever happened the couple. There was something about the woman going on to write for some magazine but no mention about how the alleged relationship with Fr. Martin ended. Hope I'm not getting into the realms of gossip here but I hate trying to make an assessment based on bits of information.
I agree completely....I had a site that explained this and I cannot find it now. I'm sure the Vatican would like to discredit him....as it was he who exposed their evil ways.
I think it was doubly funny because you are such a no nonsense type of person. In any case the claim that he wasn't an exorcist is ludicrous. This was what he was mainly known for. He wrote a major book about it. It was out for many years and is still in print I believe. If it wasn't true then the army of reporters who checked up on him just had to call the diocese and ask. In fact the diocese most likely would have hounded him and discredited him. All it would take would be one official letter from the Bishop and Fr. Martin's illustrious career would have been over. He would have been relegated to the dustbin as a fraud. You cannot perform an exorcism without faculties from the Bishop (or possibly get faculties directly from the Pope I am not sure about that). He was also on many radio shows and he was a television news contributor. News channels check up on their sources. If his credentials didn't check out then he wouldn't have been used by the news stations as a contributor. I would imagine his publisher would have checked his credentials as well, there are legal and other ramifications to deal with if he was a fraud. So do I trust all of these well respected industries to have done their job correctly or do I trust an anonymous site out with an axe to grind? As to the EWTN excerpt, it states that Fr. Martin himself states this is accurate. I think this just states he was secularized, but once a priest always a priest. You can always be called back into service. I believe Pope Francis is considering doing this with some priests now. An important note: Fr. Martin did not "retire" in disgrace. He was never defrocked for poor behavior. He chose to live as a celibate secular priest and was apparently granted a special dispensation by Pope Paul VI. I think he had powerful friends in the Vatican and they very well could have used him for various tasks if they so chose. I think it is more than reasonable to accept that he left the priesthood after Vatican II because he was a traditional at heart and didn't like the changes. If he was a liberal or some such why would he leave? And why would he maintain an oath of celibacy when he didn't have to?
Well said Praetorian. I believe that in several of Fr. Martin's talks with Mr. Janzen, he speaks of his reasons for leaving, and for asking Pope Paul VI to secularize him. He wanted to continue the fight against the modernist attack on the Church since Vatican II, and he knew that he would be silenced if he was under a Bishop, or under his order. How else could he have written the Jesuits? Fr. Martin also appeared on the William Buckley program, Firing Line, on several occasions, they are available to view on Amazon.
Also, I dont think that that guy who accused Fr Malachi of alienating his wifes affections, was a holy man in any sense of the term. I have read some things that he wrote and they demonstrate he suffered from either extreme arrogance or delusions of grandeur. The claim has been made that Fr. Malachi tried to frame him as a paranoid schizophrenic. If it was true, (if he was in fact a paranoid schizophrenic), then possibly that marriage was not valid anyway. Can a person who is a paranoid schizophrenic consent to marriage? It is my understanding that that is the most serious of mental illnesses and is not curable. I have just spent the last two months working in the community, nursing people with this condition and I cannot imagine any of them having a marriage! So perhaps Fr.Malachi gave some comfort and counsel to the wife of a very unwell man? Do not trust this man who tries to denigrate a holy Priest. Fr.Charles Fiore, RIP, was a very close friend of Fr Martin for 20 years and would not allow anyone to criticise him. He wrote the following: http://www.fatima.org/news/newsviews/malachi.asp.
Let me thank you Praetorian to Respect and Defend the Memory of one of our Greatest Priest and Exorcist Malachi Martin, as you probably know we own a lot to this Great Man especially about the Fatima 3rd Secret so between us only and by experience, you will find out that often his enemies based on calumnies found on some ridiculous websites, are the same who still think that the Consecration of Russia as requested by our Lady in Fatima was done in 1984 by St John Paul II, it is quite easy to demontrate that they are most of the time the same people, so to conclude and with all due Respect, if still anyone has the innocence of thinking that if the Consecration was realy and properly done as requested by our Lady, we would have today on the Seat of Peter, Pope Francis then I have nothing else to add, thanks again.
I was thinking about this last night and it occurred to me that if Pope St John xx111 in 1960 of Pope St John Paul in 1984 had tried to ask all the Bishops of the World to come to Rome to perform the Consecration most or many of them would simply have refused to do so. In fact many of them would have given off a snigger. For instance if they refused the teachings of the Church on a serious matter like Artificial Birth Control there is no way they would have made that trip to Rome. So the Popes, for reasons of prudence, decided not to expose this weakness, this fracture in the Church by making a request that was never,ever going to honoured. I am not saying they would have been right or wrong in this, its just a thought. In either case neither saintly Pope strikes me as being shrinking violets. They were both men of great courage and prayer. I think it is safer to assume they knew what they were doing. That if they asked the Bishops to come to Rome there would be a lot of no shows.
Pope Pius XII: “I am worried by the Blessed Virgin’s Message to Lucy of Fatima. This persistence of Mary about the dangers which menace the Church is a divine warning against the suicide of altering the Faith in Her Liturgy. It is clear that there is second part to the 3rd secret that has not been released --- ' “In Portugal, the dogma of the Faith will always be preserved etc.” http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/c...on_cfaith_doc_20000626_message-fatima_en.html
Yes, it's at odds with the predominant sceptic side of my nature. Perhaps I was lulled into accepting it because of what appear to be photocopies of documents containing the signatures of two priests. The common practice of people pushing fake news is to quote out of context rather than publishing a full document complete with signature. It is ludicrous to claim that Fr. Martin couldn't have been an exorcist based on the reasoning that he didn't have authority to practice exorcism in one diocese. Nevertheless, the author makes a good case against Fr. Martin's being an exorcist in New York. The strongest grounds he has for making that case are the statements from New York's official exorcist. Then again, he claims to have a recording of his conversation with the exorcist but doesn't provide a link to the recording. Yes, he could have been called back into service as a priest. If he was, it's remiss of EWTN not to have updated their article about him although, in their defence, their resources are limited to viewers' voluntary contributions. The strongest argument supporting his claims about being a priest in good standing is the absence of denial from the New York Archdiocese. I'm assuming that the Archdiocese didn't issue any such denial because if they did the owner of the website would have referenced it. While Fr. Martin certainly appears to have been a traditionalist at heart, I wouldn't be so sure that he was much of a traditionalist at the time he left the Jesuits. I did read somewhere that he was a liberal turned traditionalist. He was Cardinal Bea's assistant and I don't believe that Cardinal Bea was much of a traditionalist. Fr. Martin heaped a lot of praise on Cardinal Ottaviani who seems to have been treated disgracefully at Vatican 11, but it's hard to tell whether he was any kind of cheerleader for the good Cardinal during Vatican or traditionalism prior to his leaving the Jesuits. People change. I get the impression that Pope Benedict was quite liberal in his youth and was a very useful ally to a strong opponent of Cardinal Ottaviani during Vatican 11. Absent credible evidence to the contrary, we have to take Fr. Martin's word that the reason he left the Jesuits was that he feared he would lose the faith had he remained. Thank you, Praetorian, for your patience and the manner in which you demonstrate true Christianity in your contributions to the forum.
Yes, Fr. Martin surely numbered plenty of good priests among his friends. I have to take issue with one point in your post. I'm fairly sure that a paranoid schizophrenic can consent to marriage. It may well be grounds for annulment of the marriage if the person concealed his condition from his spouse prior to the marriage. Fr. Martin may well have given comfort and counsel to the man's wife. On the other hand, if there were any truth to the allegations against Fr. Martin, it would be a terrible indictment of his character and credibility. I was troubled by what I read on the website because, on the surface, it is an attempt by someone to defend his friend against allegations and hurt caused by a famous, unscrupulous villain with powerful connections. There is another possibility: that, as a young priest, Fr. Martin was besotted by the woman and spent the rest of his life deceiving himself or simply covering up for his wrongdoing. If so, he wouldn't be the first and won't be the last.
It was an honest request for clarification. No ulterior motive or hidden agenda. There's nothing wrong with Catholics trusting that the Church has been honest about matters regarding Fatima.
To understand Pope John´s attitude towards Fatima and the world in general it may help to check out the following excerpt from Yves Dupont´s excellent "Catholic Prophecy", available online and written about 50 years ago. Dupont says Pope John´s vision was at odds with that of his predecessors and Christian tradition.: |f 21. St. Pius X (20th century). "I saw one of my succes- sors taking to flight over the bodies of his brethren. He will take refuge in disguise somewhere; and after a short retire- ment he will die a cruel death. The present wickedness of the world is only the beginning of the sorrows which must take place before the end of the world." |f 22. Pius XII (20th century). u We believe that the pres- ent hour is a dread phase of the events foretold by Christ. It seems that darkness is about to fall on the world. Humanity is in the grip of a supreme crisis." Comment: After quoting St. Pius X and Pius XII, however, it is of some interest to contrast what John XXIII said at the opening of the Second Council of the Vatican: "We feel we must disagree with those prophets of gloom, who are always forecasting disaster, as though the end of the world was at hand. 'in the present order of things, Divine Providence is lead- ing us to a new order of human relations which, by men's own efforts and even beyond their very expectations, are directed towards the fulfilment of God's superior and inscrutable de- signs. And everything, even human differences, leads to the greater good of the Church." Comment: On the strength of this declaration we cannot but observe that John XXIII disagreed with St. Pius X and Pius XII, as well as with all the holy souls who have been granted private revelations. Further, we are now to believe that men's efforts will, automatically so to speak, bring about the fulfil- ment of God's designs, even though men's efforts today are not conspicuously directed to the greater glory of God. I can- not help recalling one of the pet theses of Teilhard de Chardin (whose books were condemned by the Holy Office) which equated human progress (technological or otherwise) with spiritual development. The last sentence of the above passage further aggravates this piece of Teilhardian humanism by claiming that even differences lead to the greater good of the Church. May I suggest that since 1962, when this address was given, the growing differences within the Catholic Church do not appear to have done a lot of good! Karl Marx, to be sure, taught that conflicts and differences always work for the good of the cause concerned, but we were not quite prepared to hear this from the mouth of a Pope. In justice to good Pope John, however, I must add that this opening address was written for him by the then Cardinal Montini.
We are all navigating in rough waters with regards to all things Fatima related. So much information is dated and witnesses long gone. We need to rely on testimonies of trusted witnesses . Often we do not trust church officials statements and put our faith in the dedicated lay person who has devoted their life to uncovering the truths in these matters. I guess that what I am saying is that we might all make honest errors when commenting or posting on a variety of faith related issues...I know I have...more than once. I do trust that almost everyone here is honestly seeking the truth and are helping lead others to the same. I have learned so much from all of you here at mog. Some of you are so intelligent and are obviously more schooled in matters of faith and church doctrine. Thank you all for the time you take to thoughtfully, honestly teach less informed folks such as myself. You are a blessing. If not for some of you, it would be very difficult to understand so much of what the church cannot or will not share with us. But we can learn together....with the aid of Our Lady and the Holy Spirit....please guide us! Just my thoughts of gratitude to so many of you....and the MOG site, provided by dear Padraig!
Thank you Martina....I learn so much from all of you here. I feel so blessed. I think this forum has some very great minds...even if at times we don't always see eye to eye. The differences and arguments make you really think and sometimes reevaluate your own position. It is often very humbling...and good for the soul. When I'm challenged here, it is more often than not ...very good for me.
