Posted: Thu May 03, 2007 4:24 pm Post subject: AQ Exclsv: Malachi Martin's betrayals (forges papal prayer)
Malachi Martin's traitorous endeavors against the Church during the 1960's
Clever pseudonyms, paid intelligence work and fabricated Papal Prayers
by John Grasmeier
May, 2007
Late 1400s
Jews are expelled from most of the Iberian Peninsula in southwestern Europe (Portugal and Spain). The Jews who were expelled consisted primarily of two groups; those who refused to convert to Catholicism, and the “conversos” - sometimes referred to as “New Christians” or Marranos. The conversos vastly outnumbered their non-converted brethren. Many of New Christian conversions had been voluntary, while others had been brought about by coercion or force. The conversos consisted largely of three groups:
1. True converts.
2. Those Jews who weren’t particularly religious in any sense, but converted in order to “get along” or access societal circles of influence and opportunity that weren’t available to their non-Christian counterparts.
3. “Crypto Jews”, who would publicly profess Catholicism for many of the same reasons as their non-religious conversos, but illegally continued to practice Jewish religious rituals and customs behind closed doors.
The expulsion, which marked the beginning of the Inquisition, was at first partly an effort to religiously and culturally homogenize the region in order to bring about stability. The preceding century had seen a great deal of societal upheaval, violence and bitter strife between the “New Christians” and Christians. The contentious political climate was rather complicated, with Christians often aligning themselves with Jews and visa-versa. These alliances usually had more to do with business relationships, social connections and political sympathies than the religion or lineage of those involved. Deadly riots - instigated by either side at various times – claimed the lives of many innocent Jews and Christians.
Converso and non-Converso Jews and their descendents settled in numerous diverse areas around the world, among them Palestine, Greece and Amsterdam. Even though England, like Spain, had expelled the Jews 300 years earlier, small groups of conversos settled there as well. To this day many Christian descendents of the conversos still practice many Jewish customs such as not eating pork, circumcision and eating unleavened bread during Passover.
1828
Russian literary icon Alexander Pushkin pens “Gavriiliada,” an obscene poem about the Virgin Mary that was so blasphemous, the Church sought to prosecute him for its publication. To this day, it is difficult to find reproductions of the poem as few (Christian or non-Christian) will dare reproduce it due to the repulsive content.
Only two years before writing Gavriilada, Czar Nicholas I had released Pushkin from an exile imposed on him by Nicholas’ brother and predecessor, Czar Alexander I. The exile was due to Pushkin’s promotion of atheism and political agitation. Pushkin was also a Freemason, a leftist radical and a political activist. His legacy and writings were often used for propaganda purposes by the Bolsheviks.
August 15, 1954
Malachi Brendan Fitzmaurice-Martin is ordained a priest.
Mid through Late 50's
Martin receives doctorates from University of Louvain, Oxford and Hebrew University in Jerusalem.
March 25, 1960
John XXIII charges Jesuit Cardinal Augustin Bea with establishing the Secretariat for the Promotion of Christian Unity (SPCU).
June 5, 1960
John XXIII officially establishes the SPCU. Cardinal Bea is appointed president and Bp. Johannes Willebrands is secretary. By September, the secretariat has two-full time staff members, 15 bishop members and 20 consultors. Malachi Martin is to serve as periti (or “expert”) and translator to Cardinal Bea.
Mid-June 1960
John XXIII meets with French Jewish historian and scholar Jules Isaac, who once proclaimed “the permanent and latent source of anti-Semitism is none other than Christian religious teaching of every description, and the traditional, tendentious interpretation of the Scriptures.”(1) Isaac presents the pope with a lengthy memorandum on supposed abuses Jews have suffered throughout history as a result of Catholic teaching, then offers his ideas on what Christian teaching regarding Jews should be according to his interpretation of the Gospels. After the 30 minute discussion concludes, Pope John asks Isaac to discuss the memorandum with Cardinal Bea.
September 18, 1960
Cardinal Bea meets with Pope John XXIII to discuss Isaac’s memorandum and positions. Bea recommends that SPCU should take up the “Jewish question”.(3)
Nov 14-15 1960
The SECU is told that they now have a second mandate of dealing with Catholic-Jewish relations.
October 11, 1962
Second Vatican Council begins.
March 31, 1963
Cardinal Bea is picked up in a limousine by members of the American Jewish Committee for a meeting at their headquarters in New York City that was kept secret from the press and the Holy See. The meeting ends with those in attendance drinking sherry and toasting. (4)
June 3, 1963
John XXIII dies
September 29, 1963
The Second session of the Second Vatican Council begins.
November 8, 1963
Cardinal Bea’s schemas are printed and distributed to the Council Fathers. They read in part:
In addition the Church believes that Christ, our Peace, embraced both Jews and Gentiles in a single love and made them one (cf. Eph. 2:14) and by the union of both is one body (cf. Eph. 2:17) announced the reconciliation of the entire world in Christ… since the Church has so much of a common patrimony with the Synagogue, this Holy Synod intends in every way to promote and further mutual knowledge and esteem obtained by theological studies and fraternal discussions…
Members of the Curia and others immediately express grave concerns that among other problems, the schemas are against Catholic teaching and even heretical. They strongly suggest that the vote on certain chapters be postponed or cancelled altogether, claiming they are a danger to Paul’s papacy and will jeopardize the standing of the Church in the Middle East - where Paul was planning an upcoming visit.
Paul VI decides to take their advice and instructs the Council Fathers to vote only on chapters 1-3 and that chapters 4 and 5 will be voted on “afterward.”
1964
A tell-all book, “The Pilgrim: Pope Paul VI, the Church, and the Council in a Time of Decision” by pen-name Michael Serafian by is published by Farrar, Straus and Giroux. Roger Straus, head of the publishing company, is the sole heir to the Guggenheim fortune.
“Serafian” is of Armenian/Persian origin that translates literally to “money changer” or “son of a money changer”. A summary on the dust jacket reads in part “
“At the two Council sessions held in Rome during the autumn months of 1962 and 1963, there was a sharp struggle between the progressive tendencies (the majority of the bishops) and the conservative forces (powerfully represented in the Roman Curia). The author describes the crisis in the Council last November which presented Pope Paul VI with a grave and difficult choice.
The Pilgrim is an authoritative and devastatingly frank analysis of Catholicism at a cross-roads. The author sees the present drama of the Council as the latest, and perhaps the decisive, step in an age-long struggle to free the Roman Catholic Church from historical accretions which prevent its message from reaching the modern world in a language it can understand. This drama is related with an utter frankness and the author gives intimate disclosures of behind-the-scenes plans, conversations, deals, and arguments among various Vatican personalities. The author contends that the crisis of last November was resolved in a way that may prove to have been disastrous, in the long run, for the Church and for humanity.
The author uses the sense of frustration felt by numerous bishops, as well as many observers, at the end of the second session of the Council last December as the basis of one of the most critical self-appraisals of Catholicism to appear in recent years.”
The author – pen named Michael Serafian - believed when he wrote “The Pilgrim” that the turn of events in early November of 1963 (described above) which led Paul VI to keep the council from voting on the chapters on the Jewish issue and religious liberty was “disastrous.” He was fully on the side of the progressive bishops, believing that the “historical accretions” of traditional teaching was an obstacle to modernization.
Late May, 1964
The text of the Jewish declaration which failed to come to a vote during the previous council session in November is amended by the council coordinating committee despite resistance from the SECU. (2) The amended version contains language that expresses hope that Jews will eventually enter into Holy Mother Church. While strongly condemning the denigration or imputing of Jews for Christ’s sufferings, it does not specifically mention the word “deicide”. The “conversionary” tone of the document and the fact that it failed to specifically mention “deicide” were against what progressive bishops and Jewish interest groups had fought for all along.
June, 1964
Martin receives a “dispensation from all privileges and obligations deriving from his vows as a Jesuit and from priestly ordination.” From that point forward he wore only layman’s clothes in public and when asked, told others he should be referred to as “Malachi” or Dr. Martin.
September 14, 1964
The third session of the Second Vatican Council begins.
September,1964
Debate on the Jewish declaration ensues. Progressive bishops and cardinals mount an effort to keep any perception of Jewish proselytism out of the declaration, and insist that it mention specifically the word “deicide”. Conservative and Arab bishops (who worry that Catholic clergy, congregations and institutions in the Middle East will suffer and that Israel will make political hay out of what is not “purely a religious matter”) are concerned that the process has been politicized in a way that is not in the interest of the Church.
After the debate, the document is sent back to Bea’s committee with scores of recommendations.
October, 1964
After various internal political struggles (one that involved then Bishop Marcel Lefebvre) a new document emerges. All references to Jewish proselytism or desire for conversion are struck.
November 20, 1964
Third session of the Second Vatican Council ends with a successful vote on the Jewish and religious liberty documents. It is not yet promulgated and could still be amended or struck down as it awaits final approval by the Council and Pope Paul VI in the last session of the council set to take place in fall of 1965.
January, 1965
The article “Vatican II and the Jews” by the pseudonym of “F.E Cartus” appears in the American Jewish Committee magazine "Commentary".
“Vatican II and the Jews” is a lengthy article (over 10,000 words), that offers a vast wealth of data detailing the internal machinations of the Second Vatican Council and the sensitive dealings in regard to the Jewish declaration contained in “Nostra Aetate.” The article identifies the various key figures and groups, giving background information on their positions, influence and ideological/theological leanings. It extensively delves into the internal politics and organizational structure of the council and the various official and unofficial satellite groups both inside and outside of ecclesiastical hierarchy. In meticulous detail, the article reveals the who, what, when, where, how and why of the behind-the-scenes inner workings of the council, the Curia, the SPCU, the Council Fathers and others involved in the process. The information contained in the article would not have been known by anyone but a well placed insider.
In the footnotes, the article references Michael Serafian’s book, “The Pilgrim”
If one’s sympathies regarding the formulation of Nostra Aetate were with the progressive bishops and the Jewish lobby groups, there would have been no better venue for “Vatican II and the Jews” to be published. The American Jewish Committee was and is a high profile and powerful Jewish/Israel advocacy organization. Its magazine “Commentary” according to Benjamin Balint, fellow at Jerusalem’s Van Leer institute, is “one of the most influential opinion magazines in American history”. (5) In the mid-60’s it had a circulation of around 60,000.
“Vatican II and the Jews” was arranged by the author in chronological order, told in easy to read “storybook” fashion, then submitted to a prominent Jewish advocacy organization for publication in their flagship periodical. Not only would it, of course, have been read by those involved with the American Jewish committee who already had contacts and dealings with the council, but it would also have been distributed to a veritable “who’s who” of individuals and organizations that would have had an interest in the Jewish declaration succeeding at the council. This would include, but not be limited to, advocacy groups, lobbyists, cronies of episcopates, media organizations, power brokers and journalists of all stripes.
The article contains a curious statement that the author, F.E Cartus, attributes to Pope John XXIII. Cartus claims that it was written three months before John XXIII’s death, and was intended to be read in all Roman Catholic churches worldwide on a specific date. The statement reads as follows:
"We are conscious today that many many centuries of blindness have cloaked our eyes so that we can no longer either see the beauty of Thy Chosen People nor recognize in their faces the features of our privileged brethren. We realize that the mark of Cain stands upon our foreheads. Across the centuries our brother Abel has lain in the blood which we drew or shed the tears we caused by forgetting Thy Love. Forgive us for the curse we falsely attached to their name as Jews. Forgive us for crucifying Thee a second time in their flesh. For we knew not what we did. ..."
Cartus goes on to say about the statement:
“It is against this superb Christian statement, with its acknowledgment of past injustices, its recognition of false accusations, and its affirmation of the intrinsic value of Judaism, that the various drafts of the document on the Jews must be measured…”
February 2, 1965
Dr. Henry Allen Moe, The trustee of the Harry F. Guggenheim foundation, receives a note from Harry F. Guggenheim (founder of both Newsday and the Guggenheim Foundation and relative of Roger Strauss) suggesting that Malachi Martin be sent an application for a Guggenheim fellowship. Dr. Moe forwards the note along with Martin’s curriculum vitae to Dr. Theodore M. Newcomb, the Director of the brand new fellowship program.
April 29, 1965
According to minutes taken from a meeting of the Fellowship Committee, all nominations for the new Guggenheim fellowship program were culled from a symposium called the “Fair Lane Symposium on Domination.” Director Newcomb contacted those who attended the symposium as well as those who were invited but did not attend. He canvassed 40 people in all, from whom 10 nominations were received.
The minutes of the meeting indicate that Martin’s explicit nomination by Harry Guggenheim himself (as per the note from February 2, 1965) seems to be the sole exception to the fellowship nomination process.
May 3, 1965
Henry Allen Moe, sends a letter to Harry Guggenheim, Director Newcomb and two others of the Fellowship Committee regarding two interviews he conducted with Martin. Moe states that Martin’s proposed studies for the fellowship program “may have been inspired by the possibility of support by a Fellowship.”
June 23, 1965
Martin is one of the two nominees finally selected for the first Guggenheim fellowship, receiving a grant of $7,350 (approximately $48,000 in 2007 dollars).
September 1965
The article “The Vatican Council Ends – Reform on borrowed time?” by F.E. Cartus appears in “Harper’s” magazine. It is shorter in length, noticeably dourer in tone than the article F.E. Cartus had written for the AJC.
October 15, 1965
Nostra Aetate is adopted by the council.
October 28, 1965
Nostra Aetate is promulgated by Pope Paul VI
January, 1966
In a "LOOK" magazine article, titled “How the Jews Changed Catholic Thinking”, senior editor Joseph Roddy documents the great deal of influence various Jewish lobbies, such as B’nai B’rith and the American Jewish Committee (AJC), had over the final draft of Nostra Aetate, specifically in regard to the Jewish declaration.
The article describes a lone “double agent,” with a “warm and friendly relationship with the AJC.” The double agent, who the article describes as a “hero in the Diaspora,” was using four separate pseudonyms - each in a particular role. The four pens names are identified as “Michael Serafian”, “F.E. Cartus”, “Pushkin” and “Timothy Fitzharris-O'Boyle S.J.”
As Michael Serafian, the agent penned the book “The Pilgrim” which gave detailed information on the politics, figures and procedures of the council.
“Pushkin” is credited with slipping notes containing timely and sensitive information under the doors of journalists from Time and the New York Times among others.
As “Cartus,” he writes the information laden article “Vatican II and the Jews,” for the American Jewish Committee. He also writes “The Vatican Council Ends” for Harper’s.
As Fitzharris-O’Boyle, the agent is credited with feeding journalists information he was privy to going all the way back to the year of his ordination, which the article has as 1954, 8 years before the Second Vatican Council began.
The LOOK article gives the year of the mole priest’s ordination (1954). It pegs him as having been a translator for the Secretariat for the Promotion of Christian Unity (SPCU), who lived for a time at the Biblical Institute. It also tells of when he was laicized and when he left Rome.
The Author, Christopher Roddy concludes: "Without him, the Jewish declaration might well have gone under early, for it was Fitzharris-O'Boyle who best helped the press harass the Romans wanting to scuttle it. The man has a lot of priests' prayers."
February 13, 1967
Famed literary critic Edmund Wilson meets Malachi Martin for the first time at a dinner party held at the home of Roger Straus. Wilson writes in his diary/memoirs that Straus met Martin in Paris and that he (Wilson) was under the impression that Straus had brought Martin over to the U.S. with him.
June 28, 1967
Henry Moe sends Martin’s unedited manuscript that was written for the Guggenheim Fellowship program to Roger Straus. Moe writes in a letter, which is also forwarded to Harry Guggenheim and Martin, that if Straus is interested in turning the manuscript into a book, “a way can be found to provide funds to make Fitzmaurice- Martin’s work on the manuscript a feasible thing to do.”
November 20, 1967
Guggenheim secretary George Fountaine informs Martin that he has been approved for a second fellowship grant of $5,000 (approximately $31,000 in 2007 dollars).
August 21, 1968
Martin signs a formal contract with Farrar, Straus and Giroux for the manuscript of “The Encounter” and receives a $750 advance. “The Encounter” is basically Martin’s work for the Guggenheim Foundation edited into book form.
April, 1970
Edmund Wilson writes in his memoirs:
It disillusions me now with life, to become aware of how long everything takes. We have not yet completely sloughed off the absurdities of those old theologies – see Malachi Martin’s Encounter piece – that have been hanging around our lives for thousands of years.
December 22, 1973
Ben Kaufman writes an article about Martin for the Cincinnati Enquirer. In the article Martins relates to him that during his work on the council, he would dig up “long-closeted skeletons” in order to coerce prelates who were not on board with Cardinal Bea’s agenda. Martin tells Kaufman. “I saw cardinals sweating in front of me... and I began to enjoy it.” Martin also says that it was at Louvaine where he first came to the attention of Cardinal Bea.
October 26, 1974
Another article from Ben Kaufman appears in the Cincinnati Enquirer on Martin. Martin tells Kaufman that his namesake (Malachi) is after an “Iberian Jewish banker refugee” ancestor on his British father’s side of the family. The article also has Martin as “laicized.”
July 31, 1999
Martin’s obituary appears in the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel:
In "The Encounter," his 1970 study of Judaism, Christianity and Islam, Martin said history showed Christians were willing to act in un-Christian ways in order to further Christianity, leading to a result he termed catastrophic.
April 27, 2007 AQ: What is your position with the United States Council of Catholic Bishops?
Dr. Fisher: Associate Director, Secretariat for Ecumenical and Interreligious Affairs, USCCB
AQ: In January of 1965, an article written by pseudonym F.E. Cartus appeared in the publication of the American Jewish Committee periodical “Commentary.” In the piece, Cartus claims that 3 months before his death, Pope John XXIII prepared a statement of reparation that was to be read in all Roman Catholic Churches. The Statement reads as follows:
"We are conscious today that many many centuries of blindness have cloaked our eyes so that we can no longer either see the beauty of Thy Chosen People nor recognize in their faces the features of our privileged brethren. We realize that the mark of Cain stands upon our foreheads. Across the centuries our brother Abel has lain in the blood which we drew or shed the tears we caused by forgetting Thy Love. Forgive us for the curse we falsely attached to their name as Jews. Forgive us for crucifying Thee a second time in their flesh. For we knew not what we did...”
Did this statement originate from John XXIII or any other pope?
Dr. Fisher: No, it did not.
AQ: Is it your contention that this statement was fabricated?
Dr. Fisher: Yes, definitely. The first papal statement of repentance for Christian mistreatment of Jews over the centuries was that of Pope John Paul II.
AQ: Who fabricated this statement?
Dr. Fisher: Malachi Martin, writing under the pseudonym, “F. E. Cartus,” in the article, “Vatican II and the Jews,” in Commentary magazine, January, 1965, p. 21.
AQ: When, where and from whom did you learn that this statement is fabricated?
Dr Fisher: From Msgr. George G. Higgins, who was at the Council as was Malachi Martin and knew Martin well.
Observations:
Six months after being laicized and one month after writing the article for the American Jewish Committee, Martin becomes the only one of the nominees hand selected by Harry F. Guggenheim himself (Roger Straus’ relative) for the first Guggenheim fellowship. Martin is ultimately awarded the fellowship. His research is then used for a book deal with Roger Straus, who published Martin’s first book under the Pseudonym “Michael Serafian.”
Martin was receiving payola from Jewish interest groups, organizations and elite New York publishing firms in order to work against the interests of the Holy Mother Church, both while he was still a priest (ostensibly working for Holy Mother Church), and immediately afterwards. From the Guggenheim Foundation alone he received nearly $80,000 in 2007 dollars in less than a year and a half span. He had already written the tell all "The Pilgrim" in 1964 for Roger Straus and received a yet to be determined sum for that while he was still under his vow of poverty as a priest. He also wrote the articles for the AJC and Harper's Magazine, for which he was surely paid.
The article provides yet further evidence of the already numerous connections to the Serafian/Cartus/Pushkin/Fitzharris-O’Boyle Pseudonyms. Martin, it seems, had a proclivity for choosing interesting pseudonyms. Alexander Pushkin was a freemason, a leftist radical and a historically infamous blasphemer of the Virgin Mother. As it turns out that the translation of “Serafian” (son of a money changer), the pen-name used by Martin to write “The Pilgrim” while he was still a priest (ostensibly working on for Holy Mother Church), was more than a mere play on words. Martin claims in 1973 to be the descendent of a Jewish banker.
Apparently, there was no lie too outrageous or inexcusable if it could be used by Martin as a means to an end. He went as far as inventing papal prayers that would be published and disseminated nationally and internationally.
During the 1960s, Martin was a traitor to his Church
Joined: 30 Nov 2005 Posts: 2808 Location: People's Republic of Kalifornia
Posted: Thu May 03, 2007 5:37 pm Post subject:
So, we're to believe that Malachi Martin was a forger because an Associate Director of the Secretariat for Ecumenical and Interreligious Affairs of the USCCB says so?
God bless you, servitium, (in my opinion, one of the few here who lives up to his Latin moniker rather than making a mockery of it). What has passed for "traditional Catholic" journalism to date stands condemned by such work.
Those journalists and lecturers who've taken money from traditional Catholics, stressing extreme individual piety to the detriment of practical Catholic militancy all the while keeping them in the dark on pertinent issues such as this, should take notice. It's time to either reform yourselves or start looking for other work.
Joined: 22 Jun 2005 Posts: 1829 Location: Upstate New York
Posted: Thu May 03, 2007 6:20 pm Post subject:
This is indeed timely, since we're being told that the official prayer of the Church should not pray for the conversion of the Jews.
What a mess! I'm sure there were devilish machinations going on behind the scenes at other Councils, but why were they so successful here? Is it because almost all, if not all, made some proclamations against the zeitgeist of the the time, whereas the purpose of this Council was to open the windows to it? _________________ Conversi ad Dominum!
Joined: 22 Jun 2005 Posts: 1829 Location: Upstate New York
Posted: Thu May 03, 2007 6:23 pm Post subject:
And for that matter, what was Martin's motive for claiming to be an exorcist and traditionalist and to claim to know so many evil secrets? To sell books and get rich? He wouldn't be the first. _________________ Conversi ad Dominum!
So, we're to believe that Malachi Martin was a forger because an Associate Director of the Secretariat for Ecumenical and Interreligious Affairs of the USCCB says so?
Anyone gainsaying him? _________________ Tear away the mask of Freemasonry... - Pope Leo XIII
od bless you, servitium, (in my opinion, one of the few here who lives up to his Latin moniker rather than making a mockery of it). What has passed for "traditional Catholic" journalism to date stands condemned by such work.
Those journalists and lecturers who've taken money from traditional Catholics, stressing extreme individual piety to the detriment of practical Catholic militancy all the while keeping them in the dark on pertinent issues such as this, should take notice. It's time to either reform yourselves or start looking for other work.
Well said Maurice! Bravo! My own opinion is that the trad journalists are more lazy about this stuff than anything else so I disagree with your implication that they are deliberately keeping people in the dark. What Serv has done in my own case was shine the light of truth on a man who I previously had niggling little doubts about.
When Serv 1st posted his exclusives I made a point of asking any defenders to post exculpatory evidence in those threads. One of Martin's defenders (who has since headed for the tall grass) sent me a PM detailing exculpatory evidence and said that he was afraid to post exculpatory evidence on a thread. So I researched his "evidence" and once again found that all of the evidence came from the mouth of M Martin. Most of it was "begging the question". Of course, anyone with exculpatory evidence ought to post it to this thread. Now I was going to send this defender a PM but thought better. Personally I'm done with this topic but I think most of Martin's defenders have already amde up their mind so they won't be concerned by actual facts.
Of course, anyone with exculpatory evidence ought to post it to this thread.
They never do. The tact is to attack the messenger, because they have no excupatory evidence. Being that they use these time honored tactics, I make it a point to get hard evidence, in addition to first hand testimony. For example, much of the stuff you're seeing on Martin's dealings with Straus and Guggenheim comes from their own pen. I'm looking at it right now.
I tried to tell the Martinoids that he was going to get flushed, and that there is nothing that is going to stop that. Not because I have some big ego or because I have a crystal ball, but only because that's how posterity has it. In the process of him and his cohorts screwing unsuspecting Catholics, they all left a huge slug trail. They weren't as smart as they thought they were, so any dummy like me is able to just pick it up at any point. Even if I dropped dead tomorrow, the toothpase is out of the tube.
See though, posters on AQ are not a problem. I don't even ban them anymore for attacking me. They're a non-issue. The issue is that this Martin thing goes way, way up - the the very top. Those folks don't worry me either, there's a dynamic here that they don't understand where they've already lost, regardless of whatever it is that they're trying or were trying to win.
So, we're to believe that Malachi Martin was a forger because an Associate Director of the Secretariat for Ecumenical and Interreligious Affairs of the USCCB says so?
You don't have to believe him. This "prayer" exists nowhere. It was never heard from ever before Martin forged it, and it was never heard of from any other source afterward. Although many media outlets ran with it (citing "Vatican officials"), it has never been documented or independently verified anywhere, at any time, anywhere. Go ahead and try to find it, nobody else has.
Not to mention the fact that the wording is absurd on its face, even for John XXII. Read the dang thing. All it ever was, was more of Martin's fabricated gutter-propaganda.
Sure you can call Dr. Fisher a bit "out-of-it," but if you're going to call him a liar without engaging in sin, perhaps you can have the courtesy of proving him wrong?
Joined: 15 Jul 2005 Posts: 2659 Location: Indiana, USA
Posted: Thu May 03, 2007 9:46 pm Post subject:
penitent99 wrote:
So, we're to believe that Malachi Martin was a forger because an Associate Director of the Secretariat for Ecumenical and Interreligious Affairs of the USCCB says so?
After hearing about Malachi Martin from a number of traditional Catholics he simply did not sound "right" to me. There were simply too many strange and conflicting stories and every picture of him I saw showed him in civilian clothes rather than clerics (this was the first thing that bothered me). I couldn't understand why so many traditional Catholics were taken with him.
All that said, Dr. Fisher's testimony carries absolutely no credibility with me. He's already living a lie working in an agency whose mission is to foster religious indifferentism. I'm not saying he's lying here, I'm just saying that I consider him as credible as Malachi Martin.
Joined: 15 Jul 2005 Posts: 2659 Location: Indiana, USA
Posted: Thu May 03, 2007 9:57 pm Post subject:
servitium wrote:
penitent99 wrote:
So, we're to believe that Malachi Martin was a forger because an Associate Director of the Secretariat for Ecumenical and Interreligious Affairs of the USCCB says so?
You don't have to believe him. This "prayer" exists nowhere. It was never heard from ever before Martin forged it, and it was never heard of from any other source afterward. Although many media outlets ran with it (citing "Vatican officials"), it has never been documented or independently verified anywhere, at any time, anywhere. Go ahead and try to find it, nobody else has.
Not to mention the fact that the wording is absurd on its face, even for John XXII. Read the dang thing. All it ever was, was more of Martin's fabricated gutter-propaganda.
Sure you can call Dr. Fisher a bit "out-of-it," but if you're going to call him a liar without engaging in sin, perhaps you can have the courtesy of proving him wrong?
The prayer doesn't exist.
Then why use Dr. Fisher as a source? Personally, I don't believe Dr. Fisher is lying. I would be willing to believe you, servitium, simply saying that this prayer cannot be found in any source prior to Martin publishing it long before I would believe Dr. Fisher for reasons I stated above.
A report is only as good as the sources and this source does not enhance the credibility of the report. The rest of the original research, on the other hand, is very good.
AQ: In January of 1965, an article written by pseudonym F.E. Cartus appeared in the publication of the American Jewish Committee periodical “Commentary.” In the piece, Cartus claims that 3 months before his death, Pope John XXIII prepared a statement of reparation that was to be read in all Roman Catholic Churches. The Statement reads as follows:
"We are conscious today that many many centuries of blindness have cloaked our eyes so that we can no longer either see the beauty of Thy Chosen People nor recognize in their faces the features of our privileged brethren. We realize that the mark of Cain stands upon our foreheads. Across the centuries our brother Abel has lain in the blood which we drew or shed the tears we caused by forgetting Thy Love. Forgive us for the curse we falsely attached to their name as Jews. Forgive us for crucifying Thee a second time in their flesh. For we knew not what we did...”
Did this statement originate from John XXIII or any other pope?
Dr. Fisher: No, it did not.
AQ: Is it your contention that this statement was fabricated?
Dr. Fisher: Yes, definitely. The first papal statement of repentance for Christian mistreatment of Jews over the centuries was that of Pope John Paul II.
AQ: Who fabricated this statement?
Dr. Fisher: Malachi Martin, writing under the pseudonym, “F. E. Cartus,” in the article, “Vatican II and the Jews,” in Commentary magazine, January, 1965, p. 21.
One will just have to look at the aforementioned article in the January issue of Commentary magazine, to see if Dr. Fisher is right or not. _________________ Tear away the mask of Freemasonry... - Pope Leo XIII
All that said, Dr. Fisher's testimony carries absolutely no credibility with me. He's already living a lie working in an agency whose mission is to foster religious indifferentism. I'm not saying he's lying here, I'm just saying that I consider him as credible as Malachi Martin.
Dr. Fisher may be foolish, or living in error, or a liberal, or a modernist, or an ecumanicac or many things. But if one is to call him a liar, then it is incumbant on that person to point out where he's lied, or where he's born false witness. Saying that he has an undesirable formation or an unpleasant ideology is not enough. That doesn't make his testimony unreliable.
Even though I've spoken to Robert Kaiser (the husband of the woman Martin supposedly had an affair with) at length and read his book, I've refrained from using any of his testimony on Martin in any of the many articles put up so far. Why? Because I know what the Martinoids will do. They'll call him an adulterer, a former drunk, a liberal etc. etc. Heck I've barely mentioned the affair.
What they can't call Kaiser a liar . The best of the Martinoids have gone after him with everything, and haven't to this point (to my knowledge) exposed one single lie, only his sins. Yet to those same people, you can DOCUMENT lie, after lie, after lie from Martin, and they still think he's a great guy. Why? Because he whispered in their ears all of the sweet nothings that they wanted to hear. It's truly pathological, and quite pathetic.
I'll tell you what though, I don't care if Kaiser is a Stalinist who smokes crack. If he's been the victim of an adulterer, and then calumniated and trashed unjustly for telling the truth about it, he deserves vindication. If he passes the smell test, I intend to help him acheive that.
If all this is true about Martin, what would be his motivation in later posing as a traditionalist, attacking the Jesuits, exposing the corruption in the Church..........Why would he later promote Traditional and Conservative Catholicism in his books and attack liberalism in the church unless he was sincerely repentant?
I don't say Servitium is wrong. I just don't understand how it all adds up. _________________ he which hath no stomach to this fight
let him depart
If all this is true about Martin, what would be his motivation in later posing as a traditionalist, attacking the Jesuits, exposing the corruption in the Church...
Motivations are often difficult to determine. Even with the best of prosecuted court cases, the prosecutor can only present what could be the motive and the jury can accept or reject it, but the prosecutor will never be able to let the jury see inside the defendent's mind. That's not possible.
I have a good idea as to motive. It's not yet ready for publication, but will eventually come to light. I'll give you a hint though - blood is thicker than water, or even under certain circumstances with certain people, blood is thicker than their faith.
See, all of the time Martin was, as you put it, "exposing" and "attacking," from whatever perspective he came from, he truly despised the institutional, visible Church. Not necessarily the Catholic faith itself - at least near the end - but the earthly representation of it.
He he wanted the Church "dead" and predicted such many times.
Joined: 30 Nov 2005 Posts: 2808 Location: People's Republic of Kalifornia
Posted: Fri May 04, 2007 2:11 am Post subject:
servitium wrote:
penitent99 wrote:
So, we're to believe that Malachi Martin was a forger because an Associate Director of the Secretariat for Ecumenical and Interreligious Affairs of the USCCB says so?
You don't have to believe him. This "prayer" exists nowhere. It was never heard from ever before Martin forged it, and it was never heard of from any other source afterward. Although many media outlets ran with it (citing "Vatican officials"), it has never been documented or independently verified anywhere, at any time, anywhere. Go ahead and try to find it, nobody else has.
Not to mention the fact that the wording is absurd on its face, even for John XXII. Read the dang thing. All it ever was, was more of Martin's fabricated gutter-propaganda.
Sure you can call Dr. Fisher a bit "out-of-it," but if you're going to call him a liar without engaging in sin, perhaps you can have the courtesy of proving him wrong?
The prayer doesn't exist.
There are 3 points I would like to make.
1.) I do not have a dog in this fight. I have no strong feelings one way or the other about Fr. Martin.
2.) I most certainly do not have to prove that the so-called "prayer" ever existed, and cannot for the life of me imagine why you're challenging me to do so. I certainly never suggested that it was genuine. More to the point, if it is in fact a forgery, it in no way logically follows that it was necessarily written by Malachi Martin. While it might be true that he wrote it, it also might be true that someone else did. The only evidence you presented in your post was that Fr. Fisher claimed it was so. If you presented any other evidence I couldn't find it, and would appreciate it if you could bring it to my attention.
3.) I neither called Fr. Fisher "a bit 'out-of-it'" nor a liar. I merely called attention to the fact that he is an associate director of the Secretariat for Ecumenical and Interreligious Affairs of the USCCB. My apologies to the good father if I am being unfair to him, but I'm afraid that anyone who works for a body which promotes the heresy of indifferentism just doesn't have much credibility in my eyes. Of course, it's conceivable that he is a staunch traditional Catholic who fought and clawed his way into the associate directorship of the USCCB's Secretariat for Ecumenical and Interreligious Affairs so that he could do everything in his power to stop the spread of ecumenicism and interreligious affairs. Do you happen to know if that's the case?
I do not have a dog in this fight. I have no strong feelings one way or the other about Fr. Martin.
I think that we all have a dog in this fight. If the story is true, Martin was a Judas. How many other Judases were actively involved in the Second Vatican Council? I've never engaged in any of the Martinoid debates and I've only read one of his books, Hostage to the Devil. (I started to read Windswept House but finally stopped because it was so terribly written.) In any case, I look forward to learning more about this key player in the debacle of Vatican II.
I finished reading a trilogy called "Barbarians Inside The Gates", by US Army retired colonel Donn de Grand Pre'. Mr. de Grand Pre' became a Catholic convert late in life. The series deals with various faces of the world elite and de Grand Pre states in one of his chapters that Malachi Martin was a "plant" by the 'Jewish Cabal'.
Joined: 30 Nov 2005 Posts: 2808 Location: People's Republic of Kalifornia
Posted: Fri May 04, 2007 10:11 am Post subject:
Sed Contra wrote:
penitent99 wrote:
I do not have a dog in this fight. I have no strong feelings one way or the other about Fr. Martin.
I think that we all have a dog in this fight. If the story is true, Martin was a Judas. How many other Judases were actively involved in the Second Vatican Council? I've never engaged in any of the Martinoid debates and I've only read one of his books, Hostage to the Devil. (I started to read Windswept House but finally stopped because it was so terribly written.) In any case, I look forward to learning more about this key player in the debacle of Vatican II.
Of course I have a dog in this fight in the sense that my "dog" is the truth. What I meant was that after having read servitam's post I learned only that servitam and Mr. or Fr. Fisher believe that Fr. Martin was a hostile plant.
I do not have a dog in this fight. I have no strong feelings one way or the other about Fr. Martin.
I think that we all have a dog in this fight. If the story is true, Martin was a Judas. How many other Judases were actively involved in the Second Vatican Council? I've never engaged in any of the Martinoid debates and I've only read one of his books, Hostage to the Devil. (I started to read Windswept House but finally stopped because it was so terribly written.) In any case, I look forward to learning more about this key player in the debacle of Vatican II.
Of course I have a dog in this fight in the sense that my "dog" is the truth. What I meant was that after having read servitam's post I learned only that servitam and Mr. or Fr. Fisher believe that Fr. Martin was a hostile plant.
Agreed. I also want to see if that "dog" will hunt in this case.
Msgr. George Higgins said Malachi Martin wrote it. Msgr. Higgins was mentioned in the Roddy article. Read that article and google Msgr. Higgins. He would had very good knowledge of all this.
1 of only 3 posts by the Martinoid on that forum and the first in over a month. Not to mention conveniently a few hours after this thread is put up on AQ.
I didn't need to read the post, it was evident in the title that this was going to be a negative attack on Fr. Martin. I am just not sure why we have had so many negative attack pieces against Fr. Martin, and it sounds like we will have more in the future. I don't know why it is necessary to be so obsessive about what a dead priest may have done in the 1960s. May God rest his eternal soul, regardless!
I didn't need to read the post, it was evident in the title that this was going to be a negative attack on Fr. Martin. I am just not sure why we have had so many negative attack pieces against Fr. Martin, and it sounds like we will have more in the future. I don't know why it is necessary to be so obsessive about what a dead priest may have done in the 1960s. May God rest his eternal soul, regardless!
Yeah so you won't bother to actually have any idea what you're talking about.
I didn't need to read the post, it was evident in the title that this was going to be a negative attack on Fr. Martin. I am just not sure why we have had so many negative attack pieces against Fr. Martin, and it sounds like we will have more in the future. I don't know why it is necessary to be so obsessive about what a dead priest may have done in the 1960s. May God rest his eternal soul, regardless!
Attacks? How is this so, since you haven't even read Serv's piece? He's exposing the ugly facts about Malachi Martin in the 1960s. Exactly because he is still the posterchild for many traditional Catholics. _________________ Tear away the mask of Freemasonry... - Pope Leo XIII
AQ: In January of 1965, an article written by pseudonym F.E. Cartus appeared in the publication of the American Jewish Committee periodical “Commentary.” In the piece, Cartus claims that 3 months before his death, Pope John XXIII prepared a statement of reparation that was to be read in all Roman Catholic Churches. The Statement reads as follows:
"We are conscious today that many many centuries of blindness have cloaked our eyes so that we can no longer either see the beauty of Thy Chosen People nor recognize in their faces the features of our privileged brethren. We realize that the mark of Cain stands upon our foreheads. Across the centuries our brother Abel has lain in the blood which we drew or shed the tears we caused by forgetting Thy Love. Forgive us for the curse we falsely attached to their name as Jews. Forgive us for crucifying Thee a second time in their flesh. For we knew not what we did...”
Did this statement originate from John XXIII or any other pope?
Dr. Fisher: No, it did not.
AQ: Is it your contention that this statement was fabricated?
Dr. Fisher: Yes, definitely. The first papal statement of repentance for Christian mistreatment of Jews over the centuries was that of Pope John Paul II.
AQ: Who fabricated this statement?
Dr. Fisher: Malachi Martin, writing under the pseudonym, “F. E. Cartus,” in the article, “Vatican II and the Jews,” in Commentary magazine, January, 1965, p. 21.
AQ: When, where and from whom did you learn that this statement is fabricated?
Dr Fisher: From Msgr. George G. Higgins, who was at the Council as was Malachi Martin and knew Martin well.
What we don't (yet) know is whether Dr. Fisher disapproves the underlying intention of the fabrication as a matter of principle. Given Dr. Fisher's current role within the Catholic Church, the Martin affair and its aftermath seems very much a relevant issue.
What I meant was that after having read servitam's post I learned only that servitam and Mr. or Fr. Fisher believe that Fr. Martin was a hostile plant.
Just a point of clarity, I myself have never (nor has Dr. Fisher as far as I know) contended that Martin is a "plant."
Is it possible that he was some type of "Manchurian Candidate," I suppose it is.
It's also possible that he was just an opportunist and believed that what he was doing was right.
Given Dr. Fisher's current role within the Catholic Church, the Martin affair and its aftermath seems very much a relevant issue.
Fisher told someone else who worked with me on this that "it's a nice prayer."
Given the content of the prayer, his formation and his position as ecumaniac in cheif, it would seem that would make him all the more credible on this particular issue.
If all this is true about Martin, what would be his motivation in later posing as a traditionalist, attacking the Jesuits, exposing the corruption in the Church..........Why would he later promote Traditional and Conservative Catholicism in his books and attack liberalism in the church unless he was sincerely repentant?
So that, as the change agent he was, he could influence the thinking of traditional Catholics, the only ones who could potentially be a significant resistance to the changes in the Church he was working to bring about. And no one can deny that Martin had influence over the thinking of many traditional Catholics. He was very successful in his endeavor.
Think about what the intended effect of such suggestive statements as, "we can never go back" have upon the listener if they believe they come from a person with authority. Martin made this statement regularly in interviews. This is not something that a person who genuinely desires the restoration of tradition would make a mantra of.
I recall Martin on the New Age, UFO Art Bell program gleefully exclaiming that, "we can never go back," "we're entering a new era," "we're stones in this new temple!"
This is the thinking of a pious, traditional Catholic? Give me a break.
What a shame it is that the only group of people who could potentially be a resistance to the changes were misled and neutralized to such a large degree by a huckster. And what I said earlier about "traditional Catholic" journalists who promote extreme individual piety to the detriment of Catholic militancy applies most of all to the crypto-Judaic, Malachi Martin whom many "traditional Catholic" journalists obviously take their cue from.
God bless servitium for following up the research of Michael Hoffman and taking the initiative that so-called "traditional Catholic" journalists should have taken decades ago. They're a mockery.
I got these two questions via email, that I thought I'd answer here:
#1 - Where are all of his defenders? A year ago, I'd say at least 75% of the people who posted on this topic were sympathetic to Martin. Don't these people now want to defend their guy, or are they simply unable to?
I've been asking - nearly to the point of begging - for anyone to bring exculpatory evidence in regard to Martin, as long as it is rational and reasonably presented. The problem is that almost to a person, the Martinoids can't resist attacking the messenger, whether the messenger be a first hand account or me for posting the article.
The poster above who didn't bother to read the article, yet threw the "smear campaign" charge out is not untypical. I used to ban them outright, but I'm somewhat used to them now. When someone viewed as a hero turns out to be a scallywag, it's a hard pill to swallow. Remember the throngs of people with the "We love you O.J." banners hanging from overpasses? Right now, some of them are in the "We love you Malachi" stage.
I'm convinced that almost all of the Martin people, if objective, will give this a second look and think about what they've read.
One thing they're going to have to come to terms with is that while my "observations" certainly can be taken issue with (and I have been wrong on a few) the documented facts cannot be, because they're all... uh... documented. IOW I can provide a document or citation for every iota of the timeline posted above, as well as all of the timelines I've posted in all of the articles.
That simply cannot be gotten around by a rational mind.
#2 - The people I recall as being Martinoids were always proclaiming a Jewish/Masonic conspiracy behind every attack on the Church. How do they now deal with this ironic evidence you present regarding Martin's background, associations, and activities?
See, I become part of the great Jewish conspiracy though.
These folks will on one hand believe that Satan himself is enthroned in the Vatican on the testimony of a single man, Malachi Martin, without a single bit of corroborating data. Yet on the other hand you can document lie, after lie, after lie, and show how that same man was betraying us during his work on the council, and not only won't they believe you, but you then become the enemy.
Why do people wallow in conspiracies with no supporting data, yet ignore mounds of evidence in other instances? I'm not sure, I don't quite understand it. Poor thinking? Misplaced sentiments? I dunno. It's quite uncanny though.
BTW I should add, that nobody should blame "the Joos" for any of this. Sure much of it is distasteful, but they were just taking advantage of the opportunities presented to them. Roger Straus was a publisher who had a well-written "inside guy." The Guggenheims had an agenda they could further. The AJC is, well, the AJC.
See none of them would have gotten anywhere if weren't for the malingering of those who were supposed to be watching the henhouse, and if it weren't for people like Malachi Martin.
BTW I should add, that nobody should blame "the Joos" for any of this. Sure much of it is distasteful, but they were just taking advantage of the opportunities presented to them. Roger Straus was a publisher who had a well-written "inside guy." The Guggenheims had an agenda they could further. The AJC is, well, the AJC.
See none of them would have gotten anywhere if weren't for the malingering of those who were supposed to be watching the henhouse, and if it weren't for people like Malachi Martin.
Nevertheless ...
St. John the Apostle wrote:
Therefore did the Jews persecute Jesus, because he did these things on the sabbath. But Jesus answered them: My Father worketh until now; and I work. Hereupon therefore the Jews sought the more to kill him, because he did not only break the sabbath, but also said God was his Father, making himself equal to God. (Jn 5: 16-18)
It is these whom the Mr. Martins and Dr. Fishers and others in high places in the Catholic Church would invite to dictate unto us Catholics how we should worship our Lord Jesus Christ. It is beyond comprehension. If a Jewish person wants to tell me that I'm a blasphemer and that I should reject Jesus and return to the "true religion" of Judaism, I can kinda respect that. At least it's honest. But using tools like Mr. Martin and Dr. Fisher to pervert the meaning of Catholic worship? Gimme a break.
I look forward to reading the complete interview with Dr. Fisher. It should be most enlightening.
Serv, Is the MM "Martinoid" effect similar to what would be called a "left gatekeeper"? In other words, a brilliant player stationed at the end of lots of research by other smart people whose job it is to contain the dissent, and misdirect people? Or a fiendishly clever disinfo agent? I could imagine that being the case in times like these.
My main beef with MM has always been that if he knew the Third Secret, he should have published it.
BTW I should add, that nobody should blame "the Joos" for any of this. Sure much of it is distasteful, but they were just taking advantage of the opportunities presented to them. Roger Straus was a publisher who had a well-written "inside guy." The Guggenheims had an agenda they could further. The AJC is, well, the AJC.
I'm not clear on the logic here. They took advantage of the opportunity because it furthered their agenda which is clearly anti-Christian. These individuals and institutions certainly should be blamed to the degree that they were involved. And they should be held suspect until such a time as they stop working towards an anti-Christian agenda. I'm not holding my breath for that.
This is not a blanket condemnation of every person who calls himself a "Jew." But frankly, having to make that clarification ad nauseam is burdensome. If only people tread so lightly around the sensibilities of Christians and Arabs.
If a Jewish person wants to tell me that I'm a blasphemer and that I should reject Jesus and return to the "true religion" of Judaism, I can kinda respect that. At least it's honest. But using tools like Mr. Martin and Dr. Fisher to pervert the meaning of Catholic worship? Gimme a break.
This is a noteworthy opinion, I believe, with the caveat that there's no reason to call such a person "Jewish." They're not Jews.
But you have hit on an aspect of the racket of Judaism that few Christians seem to understand: that trickery, deceit, and the masquerade are woven into the Judaic tradition. Martin's work as a liberal change agent during the VII Council and subsequent reinvention of himself as a pious traditional Catholic is textbook Judaism. It's this aspect of Judaism that makes it so dangerous to Christians.
The rabbis don't come to you with guns and knives. They come with smiles, offering gifts. They wage war from the inside disguised as an ally or an "elder brother in the faith."
Serv, Is the MM "Martinoid" effect similar to what would be called a "left gatekeeper"? In other words, a brilliant player stationed at the end of lots of research by other smart people whose job it is to contain the dissent, and misdirect people? Or a fiendishly clever disinfo agent? I could imagine that being the case in times like these.
Good question. I'll try to answer it.
There are very powerful interests in diverse circles that loathe deeply to see stuff like this going around. See, if too many Catholics at all levels of life begin to realize what's been done to them, digest it with clarity then begin to rationally how to fix it, the paradigm shifts. Those who have an interest in or derive power from the paradigm staying where it is, don't want it to shift.
So to answer your question, I suppose there are all types of things they will try. There's little I'd put past them.
If I'm not mistaken, the poster is the same who was here at AQ, the self-same Gerard. _________________ Tear away the mask of Freemasonry... - Pope Leo XIII
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
