In St. Jude 1:3, we read, "Dearly beloved, taking all care to write unto you concerning your common salvation, I was under a necessity to write unto you: to beseech you to contend earnestly for the faith once delivered to the saints." [Emphasis mine]. Contending For The Faith is a series of posts dedicated to apologetics (i.e., the intellectual defense of the truth of the Traditional Catholic Faith) to be published the first Monday of each month. This is the next installment.
Sadly, in this time of Great Apostasy, the faith is under attack like never before, and many Traditionalists don't know their faith well enough to defend it. Remember the words of our first pope, "But in your hearts revere Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect..." (1Peter 3:16). There are five (5) categories of attacks that will be dealt with in these posts. Attacks against:
- The existence and attributes of God
- The truth of the One True Church established by Christ for the salvation of all
- The truth of a particular dogma or doctrine of the Church
- The truth of Catholic moral teaching
- The truth of the sedevacantist position as the only Catholic solution to what has happened since Vatican II
In addition, controversial topics touching on the Faith will sometimes be featured, so that the problem and possible solutions may be better understood. If anyone had suggestions for topics that would fall into any of these categories, you may post them in the comments. I cannot guarantee a post on each one, but each will be carefully considered.
Don't Be Fooled: The Duplicitous Malachi Martin
As there are many Traditionalists (even clergy) who respect the famous author and Jesuit Malachi Martin (d. 1999), this post will serve to expose this man as no friend of the truth. He tried to ingratiate himself with those who were around him at any given time, being (at various times) a sedevacantist, a recognize and resister, and a "conservative" Vatican II sect member. Next month will be a very special post and Martin will be prominent in it. This week, leading up to that post, I will simply let the facts speak for themselves.
Martin's Background
Malachi Brendan Martin was born July 23, 1921 in County Kerry, Ireland. He was one of ten children, five boys and five girls. Four of the five Martin boys became priests. In 1939 he became a novice of the Jesuit Order and was ordained to the priesthood on the Feast of Our Lady's Assumption in 1954. Fr. Martin was an academic, having gone to the Catholic University of Louvain in Belgium, where he took a doctorate in archaeology, oriental history and semitic languages.
Martin worked as personal secretary to the closet Modernist Cardinal Bea, and was close personal friends with arch-Modernist (and fellow Jesuit) Fr. John Courtney Murray, who was the guiding force behind the heretical Vatican II document Dignitatis Humanae, on so-called "religious liberty," which had been many times condemned by the True Church. Some theologians at the Council claim that Martin helped to fashion the heretical document Nostra Aetate which discusses the "relationship" of the Church to non-Christian religions. It also "absolves" the Jews of being the Deicide race, and it has been alleged that Martin had Jewish relatives, although there is no substantial proof of the claim.
In February of 1965, for reasons not altogether clear, Martin asked for what is known in canon law as qualified exclaustration, which authorizes a priest to live for a limited time as a layman without exercising priestly faculties and free from all clerical obligations other than celibacy. This favor is granted only when there is reasonable hope that the cleric will recover his priestly vocation, which makes it more of an enigma since Martin claims he never stopped being a priest. This dispensation was granted by Montini (Paul VI).
He came to the United States, working odd jobs until finally making it big as an author. His first best-seller was the novel Hostage to the Devil, published in 1975 and tells the story of five alleged demonic possessions. He was able to build on the sensation generated by William Peter Blatty's book and blockbuster movie The Exorcist (1973). According to Martin's book (which purports to relate facts), the former Jesuit participated in several exorcisms, yet in a 1996 radio interview he claimed to have assisted in several hundred exorcisms. He wrote four other best-sellers, and died in his NYC apartment four days after his 78th birthday in 1999, having suffered from a cerebral hemorrhage in the wake of falling in his apartment.
Was Martin Really Celibate?
The book Clerical Error? by Robert Blair Kaiser raises some serious questions about Martin. The author, Mr. Kaiser, was a former Jesuit who left the order to marry and claims that when he was a reporter at Vatican II, Malachi Martin had an affair with his wife Susan. Defenders of Martin will be quick to point out that Kaiser was a Modernist himself, and had a psychiatric disorder which made him paranoid. There are, however, two really damaging pieces of information that are not easily dismissed. Mr.John Grasmeier put together documentation of Martin's affair.
One piece of evidence is a letter to Robert B. Kaiser from heretic Fr. John Courtney Murray (a friend to both Martin and Kaiser) written July 10, 1964. According to Grasmeier, "The letter touches on a few items relevant to the Malachi Martin saga. One being that although Father John Murray stands fast in his (non-qualified) assessment of Kaiser’s pyscological state, he apologizes to Kaiser and admits that it has been made clear to him that Martin and Mrs. Kaiser were indeed having an affair. He talks about the now infamous love letters from Martin to Kaiser’s wife, 'Martin’s apostasy from the Society' and the fact that he doesn’t know where Martin and Kaiser’s wife are."
The second piece of evidence is a six-page letter from Fr. William Van Etten Casey dated November 1, 1965 to Archbishop H. E. Cardinale, the Vatican Apostolic Delegate to the United Kingdom. Its purpose was to advocate for an annulment of the Kaisers' marriage.
From the July 11, 1997 Art Bell show, he claims to believe in lycanthropy, i.e. werewolves (!):
Lance Foxx: "This is Lance, a fifth time caller from Park Hills, Missouri."
Art Bell: "All right." Father Malachi Martin: "Um-hum."
Lance Foxx: "I'd like to ask your quest- your guest a question."
Father Malachi Martin: "Sure."
Lance Foxx: "Is it possible for a person to be a lycanthrope and not be evil?" (long pause)
Father Malachi Martin: "Um..." (an even longer pause)
Father Malachi Martin: "Yes. It is possible. Within the framework of your question, I must say, yes. It is possible. It is possible."
Lance Foxx: "In other words, can lycanthropy be kind of a gift?"
Father Malachi Martin: "Yes. It can be. Like everything else, it can have a good purpose or an evil purpose."
One piece of evidence is a letter to Robert B. Kaiser from heretic Fr. John Courtney Murray (a friend to both Martin and Kaiser) written July 10, 1964. According to Grasmeier, "The letter touches on a few items relevant to the Malachi Martin saga. One being that although Father John Murray stands fast in his (non-qualified) assessment of Kaiser’s pyscological state, he apologizes to Kaiser and admits that it has been made clear to him that Martin and Mrs. Kaiser were indeed having an affair. He talks about the now infamous love letters from Martin to Kaiser’s wife, 'Martin’s apostasy from the Society' and the fact that he doesn’t know where Martin and Kaiser’s wife are."
The second piece of evidence is a six-page letter from Fr. William Van Etten Casey dated November 1, 1965 to Archbishop H. E. Cardinale, the Vatican Apostolic Delegate to the United Kingdom. Its purpose was to advocate for an annulment of the Kaisers' marriage.
Was Martin Really a Bishop?
Martin became friends with Dr. Rama Coomaraswamy (hereinafter "Dr. C") sometime in the late 1980s-early 1990s. Dr. C was a thoracic surgeon and psychiatrist who rejected the Vatican II sect from the beginning. He was a professor of Church History at the Society of St Pius X (SSPX) seminary located (at that time) in Connecticut which was where Dr. C and his wife lived. Sedevacantism was an idea advocated by Dr. C, and he influenced many of the seminarians. When the sedevacantist Society of St Pius V (SSPV), broke away from the SSPX in 1984, Dr. C joined them. In 1989, he left the SSPV over the issue of the validity of the Thuc consecrations (Dr. C believed --correctly--they were valid).
Dr. C wrote several excellent Traditionalist books and articles. [N.B. Despite his admirable writing, Coomaraswamy was himself involved in the occult. I will publish a post about him at a later date---Introibo]. In the late 1990s he wanted to become a priest himself. There was one problem; he was married. The SSPV and SSPX would not even consider him a candidate on that basis alone. However, he found a Thuc bishop, Bp. Jose Gaston-Lopez, willing to ordain him if he and his wife took public vows of celibacy. Dr. C's ordination was attacked by Fr. Anthony Cekada. Dr (Fr) C responded with an online article entitled, "In Defense of My Ordination." Apparently there was a dispute over whether or not Bp. Lopez imposed his hands on Dr C's head at the essential part of the rite. There are two pictures posted in the article by Dr/Fr C that clearly show Bp. Gaston-Lopez being assisted by Malachi Martin. The article makes the following disturbing statement, "One problem arose. One of the people present thought Bishop Lopez-Gaston didn’t actually touch my head during the critical part of the rite. I of course cannot bear witness to this as I was too much too involved in the process of ordination to check on such a detail. I however recently looked at the photographs which were taken and offer two as evidence to the contrary.However, my close friend and mentor, Bishop Malachi Martin, stated that he wished there to be absolutely no doubt about my ordination. He therefore proceeded to conditionally re-ordain me. Hence it is that I received the graces of Ordination from a double source." (Emphasis mine).
It seems that Martin claimed (with no known proof) that Pope Pius XII had consecrated him a bishop in pectore (i.e., secretly) to do work behind the Iron Curtain. As Martin was ordained a priest in 1954 (the year when the pope's health took a serious turn for the worse) it is even more dubious that he would be chosen, let alone consecrated by the ailing Pontiff. Not impossible, but dubious, given the circumstances and lack of any substantial evidence apart from Martin's ipse dixit. (See http://www.the-pope.com/validity.html)
This brings us to the next important question:
Was Martin a Sedevacantist?
As noted above, Martin was friends with one of the most famous Traditionalists, Dr/Fr C, and even participated in at least one sedevacantist conferral of a sacrament. There is no way Martin can claim ignorance as to the theological positions of either Dr/Fr C or Bp.Gaston-Lopez. However, there are other facts that show Martin clearly recognizing the so-called post-V2 "popes."
- Martin was a huge supporter of "Fr" Nicholas Gruner, the invalidly ordained publisher of the "Fatima Crusader." Martin also claimed to know the Third Secret of Fatima. In an article published in the US News and World Report, Martin claimed he agreed with "Fr" Gruner that the Consecration of Russia had not been performed correctly by the "pope" (JPII)
- Just two years before his death (1997) said that the Thuc consecrations were valid but illicit. This would only hold true if he accepted JPII as "pope" or was a "Home Aloner."
- On more than one occasion, claimed Cardinal Siri had been elected pope in 1958 and resigned under pressure, yet did not denounce Roncalli and Montini (John XXIII and Paul VI) as false popes--the logical corollary.
Malachi Martin: Liar or Lunatic?
Martin appeared more than once on the Art Bell radio show. Mr. Bell's show, Coast to Coast,is the on-air version of the National Enquirer. It focuses on the occult and the bizarre. In April of 1997, he appeared on the Art Bell Show and made a number of truly alarming statements--claims so strange you can (literally) doubt if he ever had the faith--or possibly even his sanity. No person with an ounce of integrity would want to go on Art Bell's show. It immediately destroys one's credibility. Fr. DePauw, or Abp. Lefebvre would never even have considered it. Here's just some of what Martin had to say from the transcript of the show:
On Separation of Church and State and Abortion (Bell is a libertarian):
"I also share this view[libertarianism]. I do not believe that human governments have anything to say to the inner decisions of a man or woman. Those decisions must be made in the light of their religious education and their religious tradition. But the last thing in the world that I want to interfere with, that is government. They should have nothing to do with it. For instance, one of the difficulties of the abortion discussion today in America is that its become politized (sic). Its become a political football."(Emphasis mine)
On Shamans (Pagan witch doctors): "I'll tell you Art what I think, now that you've asked a personal opinion of a very difficult subject, but my experience is the following and I'm not merely taking about Native Americans...I have seen such miracles of cure and restitution and de-possession worked by these people, including Native Americans--really shamans--you know, the old type. Because of my beliefs I must conclude that my Lord Jesus Christ in whom I believe and who is the source of all power, has used them in their innocence and their faith, to cure people outside the reach of a Catholic priest like me. I cannot deny that...There are people who have nothing to do with Catholicism or with some of them, Christianity. But it has worked and I've had that experience and I can't deny it." (Emphasis mine)
On his ability to see Satan and demons: "I was standing on a stool in my apartment, reaching for a book and I saw him. He was crouched on the floor looking at me. His body was like a muscular pit bull terrier, but the face was recognizably human. It was the Devil's face. I recognised the eyes. They were eyes of the coldest, deadliest hatred. When the Devil sprang at me, I fell from my stool and broke my shoulder, but I felt fortunate. I had seen Satan and I had lived." (This quote came from a another source--the next quote is directly from Art Bell's show) "Yes, I do that. I, I do that. I've got second vision. When the demon is there, when the demon is in possession, yes I do"
From the July 11, 1997 Art Bell show, he claims to believe in lycanthropy, i.e. werewolves (!):
Lance Foxx: "This is Lance, a fifth time caller from Park Hills, Missouri."
Art Bell: "All right." Father Malachi Martin: "Um-hum."
Lance Foxx: "I'd like to ask your quest- your guest a question."
Father Malachi Martin: "Sure."
Lance Foxx: "Is it possible for a person to be a lycanthrope and not be evil?" (long pause)
Father Malachi Martin: "Um..." (an even longer pause)
Father Malachi Martin: "Yes. It is possible. Within the framework of your question, I must say, yes. It is possible. It is possible."
Lance Foxx: "In other words, can lycanthropy be kind of a gift?"
Father Malachi Martin: "Yes. It can be. Like everything else, it can have a good purpose or an evil purpose."
Good and bad werewolves? Sounds like a weird, occult Netflix series.
Conclusion
Malachi Martin was the ultimate chameleon; a man who changes his beliefs to fit his audience and tell them what they want to hear. Does he even have any beliefs of his own? I can't believe the number of people who follow him and quote his novels like Scripture. Yes, he had many insights as to what went on in the Vatican, and I personally believe that a "Black Mass" took place before the start of Vatican II, led by some Cardinals. However, without other corroborating evidence, can you really believe anything he said?
At the time of his death, Martin was buried with Mrs Kakia Livanos, a Greek Orthodox widow of a millionaire. Some claim she was merely his housekeeper and landlady, but one can't help but wonder why he would be buried with her, and why wouldn't she be buried with her late husband? Even if he were buried in Greece, she had the money for burial there. Martin claimed that his fall, which precipitated his death was caused by "an invisible hand" that pushed him. (See http://www.unitypublishing.com/Newsletter/Malachi%20Martin.htm)
He called on Fr. Paul Wickens (whom I knew personally) to give him the Last Rites. Fr. Wickens was ordained in 1955 for the Archdiocese of Newark, New Jersey. He left the Vatican II sect, and set up his own chapel. For awhile, Fr. Wickens was a Feeneyite, but thankfully, saw the error and abjured it. He worked closely with the SSPX and was not sedevacantist. Martin was buried out of Fr. Wickens' St Anthony of Padua Chapel in New Jersey. If he believed Wojtyla was pope why not ask a FSSP priest for the Last Rites? If he doubted the validity of the new "sacraments" why did he accept "priests" in the new rite as valid, such as "Fr" Gruner? If he were sedevacantist, why not call a priest of the SSPV nearby?
There are more questions than answers to this man's life. I hope he made a sincere and humble confession to Fr. Wickens, and was saved. Nevertheless, I will never be quoting Martin as a reliable, stand-alone source on anything. Stay tuned for a historic post next week!
I can understand why somebody would think Fr. Malachi Martin was a shady person given some of the strange things he said and the way he acted with certain groups of people, but I think it's going a little too far to claim Dr. (Fr.) Coomaraswamy was involved with the occult.
ReplyDeleteHe was responsible for my conversion to the sedevacantist position and his books on the new Mass and destruction of Christian tradition are excellent tools to lead oneself out of the new Church into traditional Catholicism. I don't agree that he became a priest when he was already married but in his defense the Byzantine churches practice this and they are Catholic.
To be fair, if one is going to detract these two characters why not detract the SSPV and all the rest. They have plenty of problems. Opinionism anyone? In my "opinion" they all have problems with some groups worse than others. Only a pope can stop it. I'm just glad Fr. Martin had the fortune of receiving the Extreme Unction by a valid priest who was sincere enough to convert from Feeneyism.
@anon6:48
DeleteI agree with you that there are problems with all sede groups to one degree or another. It’s what to expect in the Great Apostasy.
I too was helped greatly by the magnificent writings of Dr. C. I was shocked when I learned he had some occult connection. Hopefully he repented, as did Malachi Martin.
God Bless,
—-Introibo
Bishop McKenna and Bishop Thomas Fouhy wrote the Forward and the Introduction endorsing his book Destruction of Christian Tradition. Even Bishop Kelly had some nice words to say in the back of the book giving his endorsement.
DeleteI wouldn't think it's fair to say that he was in the occult. Did he have occult friends? Did he say something stupid, which we all do at some point, favoring something in the occult? Maybe, but I wouldn't automatically brand him in the occult.
Kevin Davis, Taylor Marshall, and others on their past podcasts have played down how Anton Lavey saying I am glad that Christian parents let their children worship the devil at least one night out of the year, referring to Halloween. Does that mean they have occult connections? No but it's a stupid thing to play it down as if to say there is nothing wrong with Halloween which the world has turned into an occult holiday, wouldn't you agree?
@anon7:42
DeleteI agree with you. Dr. C was connected through his father to occultists and occult ideas. What I do is merely bring out the facts. I do not judge his culpability or level of involvement. Just like with Halloween, it’s best for the facts to be placed in the light for all to see.
In the case of Martin, the facts are overwhelming against him—even more so when I publish my post next week which is an amazing piece of Traditionalist history.
Dr. C had top-notch books and articles. A warning flag for me was his involvement with Martin, and declaring him a bishop with no proof. If Martin was made a bishop in secret, he has a duty to prove it with the required documents. He never did, nor does Dr. C claim he ever saw such.
I will always put the facts out there and let others draw their own conclusions even as I draw mine.
God Bless,
—-Introibo
The SSPV had a married Priest in the 1980's,one Fr Roy Randolph.
DeleteHis marriage doesn't invalidate his valid Ordination,same with Fr C.
God bless,
Amdrew
Andrew,
DeleteMarriage makes Holy Orders irregular in the Latin Rite, not invalid. I don't know the details with Fr. Randolph. I doubt Dr. C's ordination. He was uncertain if the correct matter was used, and Malachi Martin offered no proof for his alleged episcopal orders.
God Bless,
---Introibo
I know this is off the topic but can you give me your views on the book The Phantom Church In Rome by Teresa Benns . Do you have it ?
ReplyDeleteThank you Introibo
I would avoid Theresa, she’s a home aloner, and engaged in the David Bawden “conclave”
DeleteBut she does have some good material (like on cum ex apostolatus officio), so you would have to make sure it doesn’t have any crazy ordinary jurisdiction denying stuff in it before you read.
God bless
@anon9:46
DeleteI have read parts of the book and it is laced with her Home Aloner errors in various ways. While anon12:29 is accurate in his comment, I don't draw the same conclusion. Benns, like Fred and Bobby Dimond, has some good material, but everything gets infected by their errors. Unless strong in the faith, beware, lest you listake error for truth.
God Bless,
---Introibo
Intriobo,
ReplyDeleteOff topic, but do you have an article or information about if a Sede married a NO, how should we consider this marriage? Valid and worthy of the sacrament or disparity of worship? Or something else?
Also the sede is getting married by the NO priest in the NO church.
DeleteStephen,
DeleteA sedevacantist should realize that the Novus Ordo entity is non-Catholic. Therefore, he attempts to be married by a non-Catholic minister.
Here's an excerpt from a 1960 pamphlet by Fr. John F. Macdonald:
"The question is sometimes asked, by the non-Catholic partner to a mixed marriage which has taken place in the Catholic church, whether the Catholic may accompany the non-Catholic partner to the non-Catholic church for the purpose of going through a similar religious ceremony there. This is gravely forbidden and the Catholic who would presume to do this would incur the penalty of excommunication mentioned in Canon 2319 §1.10 of the Code of Canon Law.2 The law of the Church is clear on this point. It states that even when a dispensation from the impediment of mixed religion has been given by the Church, the parties cannot, either before or after their marriage before the Church, go, whether in person or by proxy, to a non-Catholic minister acting as such, for the purpose of giving or renewing their matrimonial consent. The Catholic would be giving at least external approval to a purely non-Catholic religious rite as well as taking an active part in it. Such an action would be the cause of grave scandal to others. Catholics themselves, and this includes even the nearest relatives who may be strongly tempted to go, would not be allowed to attend the ceremony, even as spectators in a merely passive sense, because of the scandal that would result as well as the appearance of religious indifference that would be given. Their presence would also be taken as an apparent approval of such an action on the part of a fellow Catholic.
(...) all that has been said above applies to any form of marriage which a Catholic may go through in a non-Catholic church."
[the quote is taken from this site: https://fsspx.uk/en/matters-arising-marriages-outside-church-35678;
I couldn't find the original pamphlet on the Internet]
Does the sedevacantist in question (I assume it's a man) attends any sede chapel? Has he told his priest about his prospective marriage? The priest has a duty to warn him about the dire consequence of his action if he proceeds to marry the Novus Ordo girl in the Novus Ordo setting.
The sedevacantist could marry his Novus Ordo fiancee but only in a Catholic ceremony by the sedevacantist priest and only if she would agree to sign pre-marital promises to have their prospective children educated in the Catholic faith etc.
Even then, a mixed marriage like that is only tolerated by the Church and Catholics have always been dissuaded from entering a valid and licit mixed marriage simply because these are usually unhappy marriages in the long run.
If he really loves that girl, he should find out whether she's open to converting to Traditional Catholicism BEFORE marrying her IN THE CATHOLIC SETTING. (Caps lock just for emphasis, I'm not screaming at anyone here.)
If not, I would advise him strongly to look for a wife who is already a Traditional Catholic or sincerely willing to be one.
Stephen,
DeleteI agree with anon2:50. It should be treated as a mixed marriage in practice for the sake of the children (at least). This is a topic for a post I should write in 2025.
God Bless,
---Introibo
Anonymous and Introibo,
DeleteThank you for the information. Let's say the person is a female, raised sede, has sede family but getting married in NO church. The purpose of the question was how should sede family members treat this marriage. As a non catholic and invalid wedding, thus refusing to go, or is passive attendance allowed by the sede family.
And while on topic, could a sede passively attend a brothers NO marriage where the brother and bride are both NO? Would this be considered a catholic marriage, when both the bride and groom believe to be in the true church. How should we handle this knowing that the sacrament is administered to eachother?
Thank you
Stephen,
DeleteAs the sede woman knows the Faith and is committing an act of apostasy, you must not give witness to it by attendance. It would be scandalous. As to validity, that question has not been decided by the Church (obviously), but I would hold it as invalid.
As to your second query, if the brother was never Traditionalist but always V2 sect, you could attend passively. It would be a valid sacramental marriage between two baptized heretics, like two Greek Orthodox.
If the Greek Orthodox couple convert, they do not need to receive Holy Matrimony or Baptism.
God Bless,
---Introibo
Intriobo,
DeleteHow would you think this would work for a Sede marrying an SSPX in the SSPX mass by an SSPX priest? Would we treat this as an act of apostacy?
How about an SSPX who marries in the Indult who continues to go to the indult after the marriage? But the indult priest is valid because he was ordained in the SSPX but left the SSPX for the indult.
Crazy, but real scenarios.
Stephen,
DeleteThis one is much harder to assess, but my view is as follows:
As SSPX considers themselves under Bergoglio, even while rejecting his errors (and those of V2), there is danger of going over to the V2 sect and perversion of the children with false doctrine.
Without the promises signed (as in a mixed marriage) it should be treated as an act of apostasy and not be attended in the practical order. I am undecided if the marriage is actually invalid or not.
SSPX marries in the Indult V2 sect, treat as invalid and stay away in the practical order. The validity of the priest doesn't matter--a priest is not needed for Holy Matrimony to be valid. That particular priest is an absolute apostate and on that basis alone, I would stay away.
God Bless,
---Introibo
An interesting question Stephen
ReplyDeleteDoes the principle of epikeia apply to this canon (Canon 199:5)
ReplyDelete“§ 5. Nulla subdelegata potestas potest iterum subdelegari, nisi id expresse concessum fuerit”
“§ 5. No subdelegated power can be subdelegated again, unless this was expressly granted”
If this is subject to epikeia that would answer any objections that we do not know whether Abp. Thuc gave Bishops Des Lauriers and Carmona power to subdelegate themselves (if they didn’t it would mean that (using the des Lauriers line as an example) Bp McKenna and the bishops consecrated by him for example wouldn’t have delegated ordinary jurisdiction because des Lauriers wouldn’t have had the power of subdelegation. I onk6 see one solution
Canon 199.5 ceases to bind as it would harm the church (the church can never lose formal apostolicity, which requires ordinary jurisdiction) and the power of sub-delegation can tacitly be given, and tacitly granted
@anon12:38
DeleteThere is no easy answer, and it would take a whole post to even do it justice. Maybe I will write a post.
God Bless,
---Introibo
I agree with what you presented about Malachi Martin, however, the woman that he was living with Kakia Livanos was living with him at the time of his death. She didn't die until May 12. 2002. You can verify that with this link to Find a Grave:
ReplyDeletehttps://www.findagrave.com/memorial/48375206/malachi-brendan-martin
@anon1:18
DeleteThank you for the information!
God Bless,
---Introibo
Here is a link to Kakia Livanos Find a Grave page:
ReplyDeletehttps://www.findagrave.com/memorial/196819208/kakia-livanos
Also information about her from the same source:
She moved to the United States in 1940 and became a citizen in 1953. She had attended Oxford with honors in Art, History and Botany She was the companion of Malachi Martin and is buried with him. Previously she had been married to George Livanos 1939-1964, with who she had 3 children. George died in 1964.
LIVANOS-Kakia, on May 12, 2002. Born Kakia Vernicos on June 23, 1919 in Crete, Greece. Matriculated, Oxford School Certificate, London, England, 1935, with honors in art, history and botany. Married, June 1939 to George Livanos (deceased 1964), and moved to U.S.A. in 1940, becoming a citizen in 1953. Loving mother of Maria Livanos Cattaui, born 1941, now residing in Trelex, Switzerland and currently Secretary-General of International Chamber of Commerce, Eugenie Livanos Fuhrmann, born 1945, residing in New York City, currently teacher of the art of the painted finish, Isabel O'Neill Studio and Michael Basil Livanos, born 1950, residing in NYC, currently President of Scio Shipping. Friends may call at the Greek Orthodox Church of the Holy Trinity, 319 E. 74 St., Tuesday, May 14, 10-11 AM, with service, 11 AM.
LIVANOS-Kakia. The Board of Trustees of the Isabel O'Neil Foundation for the Art of the Painted Finish and Studio Members greatly mourn the passing of Kakia Livanos. Mrs. Livanos was a great friend and patron of the foundation. Her presense on the Board will be deeply missed. We extend our sincerest condolences to her family. Anthony C. Manning Acting President
A version of this article appears in print on May 14, 2002, Section C, Page 18 of the National edition with the headline: Paid Notice: Deaths LIVANOS, KAKIA.
Also at Kakia's Find a Grave page is a Certificate of Divorce that was granted to her from the state of Idaho in 1957, contradicting the Obit at the top of this comment, that says she was married to George Livanos until 1964 (the year he died).
In conclusion, it clearly states at her Find a Grave page, that she was divorced in 1957, and the companion of "Malachi Martin." (No mention of "Fr. Martin")
@anon4:21
DeleteMany thanks for this information! I learn much from my readers.
God Bless,
---Introibo
@anon4:21
DeleteMy source either was in complete error, or was she buried with him in 2002? If so, was it at her request or in his will? Do you know?
God Bless,
---Introibo
If you look at the picture of the grave, it says "Father" on it.
DeleteWait, we aren’t contesting his ordination right? Wasnt he a pre Vatican ii Jesuit?
DeleteI am the anonymous commenter @ 1:18 & 4:21. The other anonymous commenters are other people. To answer your question: Kakia Livanos was buried with Malachi Martin in 2002. Her paid obituary in the New York Times, was I presume, placed by her family (3 children) who state she was his companion. She seems to have been in charge of his affairs, and I could not find any record of a will. She seems to be the most likely person to have arranged his funeral & burial, and her own with him. I am continuing to research to see what else I can find. Thanks for responding to my comments.
Delete@anon10:28
DeleteMartin is an unquestionably properly trained and validly ordained priest having received his priestly ordination on August 15, 1954. What is being questioned is his claim to have been a validly consecrated bishop in secret.
God Bless,
---Introibo
@anon3:31
DeleteThank you for your reply! Very interesting, indeed. I will always reply to questions and comments.
God Bless,
---Introibo
Introibo:
ReplyDelete1. What does "Father M. E. Morrison" of Traditio look like? I have never seen a picture of him.
2. Do you think that "Fr. Morrison" was ordained by Bishop Robert McKenna? The Traditio site says that Morrison was ordained by a traditional Dominion Bishop. Morrison apparently refuses to say the name of who ordained him.
@anon7:12
Delete1 and 2 combined answer:
I spoke with "Fr" Morrison over 20 years ago. At the time, if memory serves me correctly, he was average build, dark hair and glasses. He was very affable and intelligent. He would NOT tell me the name of his ordaining bishop, other than to say he was "very traditional."
That's a red flag. Bp. McKenna would have no reason to keep such an ordination secret. Any "priest" who will not name his ordaining bishop has something to hide and must be treated as a layman in practice--no matter how nice he is to people.
God Bless,
---Introibo
Sorry, that should say "Dominican" bishop.
ReplyDeleteIntroibo
ReplyDeleteDo you have all the writings of Archbishop Lefebvre? Which do you think was his best book?
@anon10:01
DeleteYes--I like "The Mass of All Time" which has some excellent insights into the Most Holy Sacrifice.
God Bless,
---Introibo
how does the roman catechism not contradict the council of vienne. on delayed ensoulment
ReplyDeleteit is very confusing because it says according to the order of nature, then mentions a lapse of time
can we interpret it as not meaning the order of time but merely the order of nature (it happens after, but not in time) and not meaning a lapse of time when it says a lapse of time? i was reading greiners thomistic philosohy, written in the early 1900s (written some time before 1946 so under the last true pope) and he defends delayed ensoulment on the grounds that the imperfect must precede the perfect
wouldnt delayed ensoulment in the order of nature but not time give a sufficient solution to this (which is an argument from fittingness anyway, so it doesn't definitively prove anything) while also answering the feeneyites (they would have no argument since in the order of time it is immediate ensoulment so the protocols of the CIC would make complete sense) and the murderous abortionists (why these idiots even exist baffels me, all anyone has to do is show them Effraenatam. people will doanything to engage on moloch worship)
God bless
@anon10:27
DeleteThis requires an entire post to answer, and is not even remotely related to this post. While I don't mind answering off topic questions in the least, all I ask is that they do not require an extremely long and complex reply.
God Bless,
---Introibo
Have you listened to Bp. Dolan's 2013 interview about Malachi Martin ? He has many critical facts about him, that are no longer available on the internet, but were then. (at this link:)
ReplyDeletehttps://truerestoration.org/season-2-flagship-show-episode-29-malachi-martin/
No, I haven't! Thank you so much for this information!
DeleteGod Bless,
---Introibo
How much of an emergency does it need to be for the traditional priest to come, and will he bring Communion?
ReplyDelete@anon4:59
DeleteIt has to be serious enough where death is a real possibility. I answered this in the comments to a prior post with citation to theologian Halligan. Will he bring Holy Viaticum? The priest most certainly should.
God Bless,
---Introibo
A link to proof that Malachi Martin was a double agent:
ReplyDeletehttps://archive.ph/DIA1g
@anon6:22
DeleteWow! I had heard from several sources that Martin was at least partially responsible for Nostra Aetate. This is amazing. Thank you for the information!
God Bless,
---Introibo
Introibo I am the guy from your previous post made by Dominic caggeso, who commented abou5 una cum. You didn’t post my reply
ReplyDelete@anon1:38
DeleteWhile I publish virtually all comments that don't contain vulgar, obscene language or blasphemy, I must add two qualifiers: one is common sense, the other is new since I have two wonderful guest posters.
1. Common sense. After dealing with the arguments of a Feeneyite and Hitler Fanboy on that post, he has seen fit to send comments that add nothing to the discussion of any post, but simply to call me (and other Traditionalists) names, and accuse me of doing the work of Satan. With my busy schedule, I have neither the time nor the patience to deal with ad hominem claptrap.
2. My guest posters (Mr. John Gregory and Mr. Dominic Caggeso) do a great service to this blog and all who read their writings. They answer all questions/comments during the week their post is published. It is unfair to expect them to keep checking back to answer such comments and questions after the week is over.
Also, the comment must be respectful. You need not agree with them and can politely express any disagreements. I will not tolerate unnecessary, combative and disrespectful comments against either of them. They do enough already than have to put up with that.
If you want to ask something of Dominic, I suggest you do so the next time his post gets published (later this month) and be respectful when doing so.
These are not hard or unreasonable rules to follow.
God Bless,
---Introibo
My comment was the reply to you, not to Dominic, I replied to your response to my uns cum statement. If I was too rude I’m sorry, I was just wondering if my comment even made it to you or if I didn’t properly press publish or something. Was it because i called the feeneyite a heretic?
Delete@anon2:11
DeleteI must have looked quickly. Please understand that I don't have unlimited time for deep theological writing in the comments section. Questions and comments are no problem, unless they require enough research and verbiage to make another post.
Feeneyites are heretics. No problem calling them what they are.
God Bless,
---Introibo
Ok,
DeleteGod bless
This article by Triumph Communications:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.triumphcommunications.net/9indefenseofmalachimartin.html
Seems to be the source of the information stating that Kakia Livanos was Malachi Martin's "housekeeper." Since Mr. Bernard Janzen recorded 22 hours of interviews with Malachi Martin, it is logical to presume, that the source of this information, was Malachi Martin himself. Here is what Mr. Janzen says in his defense of Malachi Martin:
"The media sometimes reported that Fr. Martin was living with a female companion. This “female companion” was Kakia Livanos, an elderly Greek woman who was his housekeeper. She prepared his meals and did the tasks that housekeepers normally do. It is very common for Catholic priests to have a housekeeper, so there is nothing unusual about this situation. When Fr. Martin moved to New York, a cardinal advised him to find lodging with a family. Fr. Martin followed this advice and moved in with the Livanos family. At the time he moved in with them, they were what is called a nuclear family, consisting of mother, father, and children living at home. As the decades passed, the number of people living in the household dwindled until only Kakia Livanos remained. "
1) Elderly Greek woman: she was exactly 2 yrs older than he.
She would have been 45 yrs old when he was reported to have moved to NYC in 1964.
2) His "housekeeper":
Kakia Livanos was a millionairess. She was brought up in a priviledged, ultra rich family. She married one of the richest men in the world, and did not need to work a menial job as a housekeeper. She could have chosen to do it, but the facts of her financial status, are not being stated here.
3) There is nothing unusual about this situation:
Most priests do not have housekeepers who are a millionairess. That is most unusual.
4) When Malachi Martin moved to NYC, he was advised by a Cardinal to find lodging with a family, & he moved in with the Livanos family. A nuclear family, they consisted of a mother, father, and children living at home:
Kakia Livanos was divorced from her husband in 1957. He died in Greece in 1964, the year Malachi Martin moved to NYC. It is curious, that instead of the traditional wording of father, mother, and children, it states mother, father, & children. In 1964, her 3 children would have been aged: Maria 23, Eugenie 19, and Michael 14. The only "father" in the house would have been Malachi Martin. It most likely would not have taken "decades" to pass, for her adult children to live on their own, especially since they were independently wealthy.
Grace,
DeleteThat is a wealth of information, and I thank you profoundly! It certainly doesn't help Martin's case at all!
Thank you for commenting, and I hope you continue to comment on other posts.
God Bless,
---Introibo
Grace, I listened to Bishop Dolan's (RIP) talk on restoration radio and I've read what you've written above and while it's certainly presumable that Fr. Malachi Martin was leading a scandalous life it's all based off presumption of the facts.
DeleteI remember there were people claiming at one time that Bishop Dolan and Father Cekada were gay "based on" air line tickets where they were accused of going on vacation, how they were being blackmailed by a prominent lay person at the church, and many other things including abuse of school children by certain teachers. It was so bad that much of the congregation left and became what is now a CMRI chapel, a Bishop (at that time Father) Ramolla chapel, and a Father Hall chapel. In other words, many were scandalized but the real question was any of it true and if not why did so many who were involved with the church believe it was and leave?
I bring this up because if we are going to go after Fr. Malachi Martin for being shady why not question the very bishop whom you linked who spoke about Fr. Martin. The real question is who are you going to believe? Lay people's presumptions? A clergyman over another clergyman? I don't doubt Fr. Malachi Martin had some problems but I also do not doubt Bishop Dolan had some problems or else there wouldn't be a hodge podge amount of chapels in the Cincy area because of it.
Fr. Martin's books and talks may not be good or bad or even approved by the Church but they have helped people convert in becoming traditional Catholics and I am one of them.
Grace,
DeleteI second Introibo's comment. We deserve to know the truth about a man considered a Traditionalist hero by many. Malachi Martin made himself into an internationally-acclaimed spokesman for Tradition chiefly through his writing.
You don't need to believe anyone's presumptions about Martin. Suffice to say he speaks for himself in his own books.
In 1981 Malachi Martin authored "The Decline and Fall of the Roman Church" (sic!). The title itself should raise a red flag for a Traditionalist.
In this book Martin shows himself as a supporter of the heretical separation of Church and state, claiming that for the first 250 years of the Church's existence, the power of the Church was purely spiritual. He poses the question:
"Should any religious institution, whether the Roman Church or Islam, wield any secular power at all?"
And he answers swiftly: "This had never been the case in the early Christian church."
Martin goes on:
"This decline, although apparent only in the last twenty years, has been a very long time in the making. In hindsight, we today can say that one could have predicted it some four hundred years ago. For by then, the Roman institution had tried a thousand-year long experiment. And the experiment had finally failed because the institution was found wanting. It had attempted total invasion of the political and social as well as the cultural fields of human endeavor. And, in the doing, it had abandoned specifically Roman Catholic as well as general Christian principles. It had accepted purely secular categories."
Malachi claims that "The Roman Institution" that is the hierarchy of the Church with the Pope as Her Supreme and Visible Head has been corrupted roughly around the post-Trent/Counter-Reformation times. Am I reading Luther or Hans Kung?
This is just the first few pages of his "Decline and Fall".
If this is the stuff Traditionalists are converted by, I shudder to think what ideas some of them may mistake for Traditional Catholicism.
Introibo,
I'd like your opinion on this please. Maybe I'm reading too much into this quote I posted above.
God Bless You,
Joanna
Joanna, I appreciate your comments quoting from Fr. Malachi Martin's books. I wasn't aware of some of his claims that you raise. I'm not saying he was necessarily good because I acknowledge what everybody's concerns are with his awkward ways of writing which sound bad. He was an R&R priest so it wouldn't surprise me if he says something bizarre. Fr. or the so called "bishop" Pfieffer said St. Peter was a heretic when he denied Our Lord three times. Such an absurd claim (more like heretical) but he is R&R so what is one to expect? When I was in the process of converting I was more or less listening to Fr. Martin on the radio rather than reading his books. I've only ready some of what was in his books. Most of what I listened to and read were not all the things you all are bringing up. It's sad to hear for sure.
DeleteI will not let up on my point with regard to trashing other traditionalists if we are going to trash Fr. Martin. Do you all really think it's good for newcomers to hear about scandals from traditionalists including Fr. Martin? I don't think so, but it's too late now.
Joanna,
DeleteAs per usual, you are spot on. Martin did indeed believe in heretical separation of Church and State --although he would affirm and deny such belief according to whom he was speaking at the time.
All of this, coupled with the information provided by Grace, points to a double agent subversive in the Church.
I had always heard such rumors. This was without the citations to his books, you so kindly provided! I never even got into THAT part of his life!
God Bless,
---Introibo
@anon11:19
DeleteI understand your position, and it must be hurtful to read all this about a man whose radio talks led you to the One True Church.
You ask: " Do you all really think it's good for newcomers to hear about scandals from traditionalists including Fr. Martin?"
Let me make clear: I'm not here to "trash" anyone; especially Traditionalist clergy. I refer to Fr. Malachi Martin without the title "Fr." NOT because he's an invalid priest--he's unquestionably valid---but because exclaustration (which he requested from the Modernist Montini) removes from the priest the right to that title. I never heard him correct or insist that anyone call him "Father." He has been called "Dr." as the rightful holder of doctorates, "Mr." and just plain Malachi or Martin.
We must not be afraid to call out anyone in this time of Great Apostasy if they were (are) an enemy of the Faith.
The question raised here is: "Was Malachi Martin a Traditionalist priest or a Modernist in sheep's clothing?"
The manifest weight of the credible evidence shows him to be the latter. Ask yourself: "Would a Traditionalist priest:
* claim to be sedevacantist and R&R depending upon whom he was with?
* claim to be a bishop consecrated in secret, have NO PROOF of such consecration, and proceed to conditionally ordain a married sedevacantist medical doctor of the Latin Rite?
*never clear up serious accusations of an affair with a married woman?
* Publicly spoke in favor of separation of Church and State?
* declared his belief in "good and bad werewolves" on radio?
This is now only the tip of the proverbial iceberg.
I defended Bp. Dolan and Fr. Cekada on several of my posts from a disgruntled man claiming Bp. Dolan's ordination by Archbishop Lefebvre was "dubious" because it was (supposedly) performed with one hand.
This person was wrong both theologically and factually--there was not one named witness he could produce that one hand was used when I pressed him on the issue.
I disagree with SSPV on "Thuc Bishops" and the use of the pre-Pian Holy Week.
I disagree with Fr. Cekada on the "Una Cum" and making a sin when he has no authority to do such.
I had disagreements with Fr. DePauw, but he was open to discussion on things not decided by the Church.
My point being that we must be vigilant. If someone reads Martin's books they can fall for heresy and be led OUT of the Church. There is good reason to believe he helped the Modernists to destroy the Church at Vatican II.
Traditionalists must allow scrutiny, and allow this to happen so that others see we aren't going to cover things up, like in the Vatican II sect. What was said about Fr. Cekada and Bishop Dolan was proven to be nonsense as to the Bishop's ordination and an alleged unnatural vice.
What was said about Martin, is being shown as accurate.
I hope he repented and confessed well to Fr. Wickens on his death bed.
God Bless,
---Introibo
I understand you give little credence to the Siri 'Red Pope' theory, though I very recently read (though doubt I could find the source) that Fr. Martin* claimed to have translated a menacing message for Cdl. Siri during one of the conclaves, the origin of which was external. If memory serves, he may have claimed it came from the B'nai B'rith; he translated it and slipped it into an envelope to be given Siri.
ReplyDelete* Thou art a priest for ever ...
@anon3:20
DeleteI have not heard of this, but if you can find a source, please bring it forward! I'm always willing to go where the evidence leads.
You are correct that Holy Orders (along with Baptism and Confirmation) confers an indelible character on the soul that lasts for all eternity. Once a priest always a priest.
However, I'm not denying the title "Fr" to Martin because he was invalid or to show contempt. As I wrote in a comment above:
"I refer to Fr. Malachi Martin without the title "Fr." NOT because he's an invalid priest--he's unquestionably valid---but because exclaustration (which he requested from the Modernist Montini) removes from the priest the right to that title. I never heard him correct or insist that anyone call him "Father." He has been called "Dr." as the rightful holder of doctorates, "Mr." and just plain Malachi or Martin."
God Bless,
---Introibo
What does Introibo think of the documentary "Hostage of the Devil" (2016) about Malachi Martin?
ReplyDelete@anon11:34
DeleteI think it was truth mixed with half-truths, and painted a rather sanitized picture of Martin.
God Bless,
---Introibo
Introibo:
ReplyDeleteDo you have any suggestions about how to get the priest to come to the person who needs sacraments? Or even to ask the priest to let the person make a journey to the priest to get sacraments?
The person, as mentioned above, is well behaved. They ARE NOT a notorious public sinner(for example, an abortionist).
@anon1:41
DeleteTell the priest the woman is very upset and wants to be a good Traditionalist Catholic. It would mean the world to her and "the salvation of souls is the supreme law" and having access to the sacraments--even once, would go a long way to strengthening her faith.
Any priest worth the title "priest" will respond to that.
God Bless,
---Introibo
https://archive.ph/DIA1g
ReplyDeleteIt seems that most of the evidence regarding Malachi Martin has been taken off the web. So I'm going to make a copy of this and post it here. It is long, so I can't publish it all in one piece. I will post it in parts.
Malachi Martin’s Double Agent Status Documented
By John Grasmeier
Angelqueen.org
June, 2007
Angelqueen.org has obtained numerous documents providing documentary evidence Malachi Martin was indeed the infamous Vatican II “double agent,” described by LOOK magazine’s Joe Roddy.
Background
During the Second Vatican Council, Martin acted as an assistant and translator to Cardinal Augustin Bea, head of the Secretariat for the Promotion of Christian Unity (SPCU). At the time, a major focus of the SPCU was the Jewish declaration portion of Nostra Aetate, the Vatican II document that addressed the Church’s relations with other religions. Cardinal Bea would later be referred to by Archbishop Lefebvre as an “instrument of betrayal.”
In January of 1966, Look Magazine ran an article entitled “How the Jews Changed Catholic Thinking,” a lengthy, in-depth look at the influence various Jewish lobbying groups had over the final draft of Nostra Aetate. In the article, Senior Editor Joseph Roddy tells of an unnamed Jesuit priest who held a key position in Rome during the time the Second Vatican Council was in session. The priest, described as a “double agent who “could never turn down work” and a “savior in the diaspora,” would use his position to gather and disseminate inside information to the secular press and the Jewish lobbying groups, who would in turn use that information in their efforts to influence the Council fathers – particularly the progressive American bishops. Although the priest’s actual name is withheld, several pseudonyms he used for his various activities are revealed.
As “Michael Serafian,” he wrote “The Pilgrim” (Ferrar, Straus & Giroux, 1964), a tell-all book on the politics, key figures and inner dealings of the council. As “F.E. Cartus,” he penned two timely articles, one for Harper’s Magazine and one for the American Jewish Committee’s influential intellectual periodical “Commentary.” As “Pushkin,” he would feed “inside tips and tactical leaks,” often in the form of notes slipped under doors, to journalists of major media organizations.
This all took place many years before Malachi Martin became a cult figure and public author who wrote books under his own name. Although word began to get around in certain circles that Martin and the pen-names were one in the same, it wasn’t until 5 years after he left Rome, when he wrote “The Encounter” (Ferrar, Straus & Giroux), that the first solid nexus was made between Martin and the double-agent priest. On the back cover of The Encounter, it states clearly that Malachi Martin did indeed write “The Pilgrim” under the pseudonym Michael Serafian.
Despite the indisputable self-admission that Michael Serafian was Martin’s pen name, many of his devoted fans would claim that there was no evidence that he was the mole priest identified in the Look article who wrote for the American Jewish Committee and used his position in Rome to pass sensitive information to the press. What follows, will indisputably show not only that Martin was the double-agent priest in the Look article, but that the “warm friendship with the AJC” described by Joe Roddy was far warmer than anyone, including Roddy, had suspected.
The documents referenced below were made available to AQ by the Manuscripts Department of the New York Public Library. They are part of the Ferrar, Straus & Giroux collection, which contains correspondence and documentation on the publishing company’s dealings with many of its authors. They are available to any and all. None have been altered in any way shape or form.
archive.ph/DIA1g
ReplyDeleteTHE DOCUMENTS
Exhibit A: Setting up the Swiss bank account – This memo, dated March 19, 1964 was written by FSG treasurer Robert Wohlforth (RW) and sent to Robert Straus (RWS). Roger Straus was the president of Ferrar, Straus and Giroux and the sole heir to the Guggenheim fortune. The memo describes a discussion the two had regarding “The Pilgrim contract” and what steps needed to be taken to set up a Swiss bank account.
Exhibit B: Zachariah Shuster receives royalty payments from Martin’s book, “The Pilgrim” – A Ferrar, Straus and Giroux royalty statement listing payouts and deductions for The Pilgrim. Instead of the payee being the author of the book, Malachi Martin (aka Michael Serafian), the payee is Zachariah Shuster of the American Jewish Committee.
Exhibit C: Zachariah Shuster wonders where the check is – Zachariah Shuster of the American Jewish Committee writes a letter to FS&G treasurer wondering why a check that was destined for a Swiss bank account hasn’t yet arrived. He follows up with a confirmation then receives a response from Ferrar, Straus and Giroux treasurer Robert Wohlforth. Of interest are several hand-written notations showing the letters are in reference to Serafian. As the ledger linked at exhibit H shows, the amount of the check is $1,000.
Exhibit D: Martin’s services are requested by the AJC – Here we have Marc Tanenbaum, Director of Interreligious Affairs for the AJC, accepting a gracious offer from Roger Straus to use Malachi Martin as he sees fit. Tanenbaum thinks the idea is a good one, stating that “Serafian (Martin) could provide a genuine service if he were to deal with the crucial issue of the deicide problem…” Although the hoped for late summer deadline would not be met, in the January 1965 issue of the AJC publication, Commentary, Martin, as F.E. Cartus, writes an article entitled “Vatican II and the Jews,” At the beginning of the third paragraph, it reads in part as follows:
“Roman Catholic believers drew a whole range of practical conclusions from these premises. The Jews as a people-not only the Jews of Christ’s time but Jews of all time-were guilty of having killed Christ, the God-man: theologically speaking, they were deicides.”
Martin writes the article as requested and even fabricates a statement on the Jews that he attributes to Pope John XXIII, claiming it was written shortly before his death and was to be read on a set date in all Catholic Churches worldwide. That story HERE.
ReplyDeletearchive.ph/DIA1g
Also of note is Tanenbaum referring to three “secret memoranda” submitted by the AJC to Cardinal Bea.
Exhibit E: Robert Straus receives Martin’s assignment from the AJC – Robert Straus acknowledges receiving Tanenbaum’s letter and notes that he simultaneously had received the assignment for “The Pilgrim” to write the article for the AJC publication.
Exhibit F: Roger Straus wants to discuss Martin with Podhorez – Roger Straus wishes to discuss a letter from Michael Serafian (Malachi Martin) with Norman Podhorez, the editor of Commentary – the publication where the article was to appear. It’s unclear what is meant when Straus states they should discuss the matter as a “possible post mortem.” Perhaps he was referring to the fact that the hoped for timeframe of late summer couldn’t be met.
Exhibit G: Straus makes undeniable connection between Martin and F.E. Cartus – Roger Straus writes to a British publisher telling him to look for an article by pseudonym Michael Serafian (Martin) that will appear in the September 1965 issue of Harper’s Magazine. As promised, an article by F.E. Cartus entitled “The Vatican Council Ends – Reform on borrowed time?” by F.E. Cartus appears in the September edition of Harpers.
https://archive.ph/DIA1g
ReplyDeleteExhibit H: An ledger with interesting transactions – A ledger that was created to show “actual payments to or in (sic) behalf of Michael Serafian,” offers some interesting insights. On line 1, it shows the check sent to Zachariah Shuster on June 25, 1964 (see Exhibit C). On line 3, it shows the net royalty payment that is shown on line 29 of the document at Exhibit B. On line 2, it shows another payment to Zachariah Shuster that does not have any corresponding documentation in the FS&G collection. On line 5, it shows a payment of $500 to Abe Karlikow. Abe Karlikow was the director of the American Jewish Committee’s European office, based in Paris, France. On line 9, it shows Martin’s last payment as being on June 7, 1965. Just a few weeks later, on June 24, 1965, Martin would receive a $7,350 (around $48,000 in 2007 dollars) fellowship grant from the Harry F. Guggenheim foundation. The founder of that foundation, Harry Frank Guggenheim, just so happens to be Roger Straus’ uncle on his mother’s side.
https://archive.ph/DIA1g
ReplyDeleteIn Summary
There is no doubt whatsoever that the double agent described in the Look article by Joseph Roddy was in fact Malachi Martin. The document at exhibit G undeniably ties Michael Serafian – who is undeniably Malachi Martin – to the F.E Cartus pseudonym.
Zachariah Shuster and Abe Kalikow were receiving payments on Martin’s behalf that were laundered through a Swiss bank account set up specifically for that purpose. Marc Tanenbaum requested custom propaganda for the AJC periodical “Commentary,” which Martin happily provided. Shuster and Kalikow were attached to the European office of the AJC in Paris, France, which just so happens to be where Martin fled to after he left Rome.
Martin was paid well for his services. According to the Straus ledger (exhibit H), during the latter half of 1964, he received a total of $3,651.03. According to the Federal Reserve consumer price index calculator, that would equal $24,202.80 in 2007 dollars. In the first half of 1965, he received $4,282.85, which works out to $27,940.50 in 2007 dollars. Immediately after receiving his last payment from Straus in June of ’65, Martin receives a grant from Straus’ uncle’s foundation for $7,350 or $47,950 adjusted to 2007. In fairness to Martin, it must be noted that he took that grant in monthly payments over 15 months following the time it was awarded to him. The fact remains however, in the year’s time that spanned from June of ’64 and June of ’65, Martin was paid, granted, or received on his behalf at least $100,000 adjusted for inflation. This sum only includes what has been documented by AQ as being paid from Guggenheim and FS&G from in that one year span. It does not include other payments, if any, from Guggenheim and FS&G that AQ doesn’t have a record of. It does not include any payments Martin would have received for writing the articles for Commentary and Harpers. It does not include any other possible income sources. In the summer of 1963, Robert Kaiser claims that Martin “always had a wallet was stuffed with hundred dollar bills,” that he believed was provided by the AJC. In any case, he most certainly didn’t do the AJC’s bidding for free. It’s more than safe to assume that Martin had income aside from that which AQ has been able to document 40 years after the fact.
Introibo:
ReplyDeleteWhat did you disagree on with Fr. DePauw? What mistakes do you think he made?
@anon5:20
DeleteI thought he should work with the SSPV or other Traditionalist clergy to make provisions for the Chapel. He had an incredible hard line against even pre-V2 priests who were his friends. He wouldn't allow any pre-V2 priest who used the Novus Bogus even one time to offer the True Mass at the Chapel.
As a result, only two clerics could ever pass the test and offer Mass there: his older brother, the Franciscan priest, Fr. Adhemar, and Bishop Blaise Kurz.
When I suggested certain priests to him, he would either shake his head "no" or shoot me a look that said, "You must be joking."
Ultimately, the Chapel came under control of laymen. Hugh mistake, and I'm broken-hearted. Out of Christian charity, I'll say nothing more on that.
God Bless,
---Introibo
Even traditionalist groups are willing to admit priests who have previously offered the Novus Ordo!
Delete@anon6:05
DeleteHence, my disagreement.
God Bless,
---Introibo
I think too I would agree with Fr DePauw...
DeleteIntroibo...have you written re Invincible Ignorance and the NOers? Or have a source I can read/listen? I have heard priests say our ignorance is sinful, as Pius X exclaims, many are lost. Why do some Traditional priests believe many in NO will be saved due to invincible ignorance? So confused.
“THERE is nothing more effective than catechetical instruction to spread the glory of God and to secure the salvation of souls” (Pope Benedict XIV, Apostolic Constitution, Etsi minime). Saint Pius X said, that the great loss of souls is due to ignorance of divine things (cf. Encyclical Acerbo nimis).
Blessings!
https://www.mail-archive.com/ctrl@listserv.aol.com/msg15613.html
ReplyDeleteIn 1971, Malachi Martin visited Cincinnati, Ohio, and he was interviewed by the Cincinnati Enquirer's Jewish reporter Ben Kaufman. He says he was named after one of his relatives --
a banker fleeing Spain under Queen Isabella. Malachi is the Jewish spelling (the Christian is Malachy). Malachi also said as a young priest he used to shake skeletons in old Cardinal's faces (during Vat II) to get compliance. He said the "power"
become intoxicating.
Speaking of Cincy Ohio, there are 6 sede churches within a 40 mile radius. Why is that? Out of the 6 one of the priest there lives or used to live with a woman at one of the chapel locations. Would he be equivalent to Malachi Martin who also lived with a woman?
DeleteHe is said to have reverted to traditional Catholicism in his last 10 yrs or so. We have no authority as Sedes to condemn his R+R belief.
DeleteHe received Confession Extreme Unction & Requiem Mass from a valid Prirst Ord in 1958,one Fr Wickens.
Why would this occur of he was nor Catholic and )ewish?
God bless,
Andrew
Why can we not condemn a Gallican when we see one. R&R is a condemned heresy
DeleteNow this is interesting (from Grace's archive link):
Delete"See Keys of This Blood by Martin, Pages 590 to 610 in the hard back edition where he talks about the election of Siri in 1963. He states clearly that Siri was the Church's candidate and that his taking
power would have meant the end of the anti-Church. He also states that Paul
VI (Montini) was the candidate of the anti-Church. (Paul VI assumed the thrown [sic; throne], although many of us believe Siri was deliberately elected and
dethroned in 58 and 63 for reasons to long to go into here. That would still
make Siri the True Pope in Exile. Montini an anti-pope. . ."
I don't think that Fr. Roy Randolph was married, but he did have an adopted son.
ReplyDeletehttps://www.wcbohio.com/articles/not-an-ordinary-hero-not-an-ordinary-man-rev-roy-beverley-randolph-o-b-e
He was married,ask Fr Jenkins via email.
DeleteGod bless,
Andrew
Joanna,
ReplyDeleteYour comment on the book "Decline and Fall of the Roman Church," was excellent. On further search, I found this quote by Maurice Pinay on his blog (now defunct) at Archive.org.:
https://archive.org/stream/TheFinalNailInMalachiMartin/The%20Final%20Nail%20in%20Malachi%20Martin_djvu.txt
"Doesn't it seem inconsistent with traditionalism and anti-
modernism to harp on the (false) notion that "we can't go back"? This theme, that the Church is collapsing and there's no going back underlies nearly everything Martin wrote and every interview he gave until the year he died."
We can't go back doesn't mean that the Church is finished or that he no longer believes in the Catholic Church. We can't go back could mean the wound has been so serious since Vatican II that the good ole Catholic days are over. What's wrong with that? I believe it. Am I not Catholic now? Some of you all remind me of black pilled people.
Deletehttps://archive.org/stream/TheFinalNailInMalachiMartin/The%20Final%20Nail%20in%20Malachi%20Martin_djvu.txt
ReplyDelete"His mantra was that "the Church is collapsing" and "there's no going back." Yet, he personally, fanatically exploited every means imaginable to ensure that Nostra Aetate was promulgated and its errors were spread afterwards. He was instrumental in precipitating the collapse, but then as a 'convert' he told his large conservative audience, 'there's nothing we can do about it' except go underground and pray. This is precisely the 'resistance' that the rabbis want.
What a difference the 'converted' Malachi Martin could have made if he demonstrated even half the zeal for Christ as he had for the rabbis, AJC and Guggenheim Foundation, during and after Vatican II! "
https://fitzinfo.net/forum/topic/the-malachi-martin-dossier
ReplyDeletehttps://educate-yourself.org/cn/Malachi-Martin-The-Judas-Goat-Deceptionist-Who-Worked-for-Talmudic-Rabbis-to-Subvert-Vatican-II-16oct12.shtml
ReplyDeleteOctober 16, 2012 at 11:46 PM
Maurice Pinay said...
"I have always said to his traditionalist fans that the test of Malachi Martin’s sincerity was whether he would ever reveal the inside story of Cardnal Bea and Nostra Aetate, since he was Bea’s peritus. Of course he never did."
Even in an interview given the year he died, he exculpated himself by claiming he thought that Nostra Aetate went too far and that was why he left Rome. The truth is that he was pushing far beyond Nostra Aetate for years, after he left Rome, and getting paid for it.
Here is Malachi Martin in 1999:
"I started off as an advisor on Judaism," he continues. "I was trained in Semitic languages and I spent a year and a half studying the Talmud... Then my superiors in Rome also found that I understood Judaism very well. They wanted someone to explain it, since they were studying the whole question of Jewish-Christian relations. So I was drafted into helping with that."
And the outcome?
"They produced a document in which they sort of absolved the Jewish people of the death of Christ."
Based on his research?
"No, not on my research," argues Martin. "I was only a cog in the wheel. I didn't agree with the final document either. It went too far. And then there were conclusions about the need for Catholics to study Judaism and get to know them better."
So this was the ecumenicalization of the Church that was going on?
"That's it in one word," concurs Martin. "And I couldn't agree with the total effect of all that because I thought they went too far."
----Compare that with Malachi Martin's opinion of 1970 in his book The Encounter, 5 years after he had left Rome:
"In New York's Roman Catholic Parochial Schools a new course in Judaism and on the Jew in literature was planned for the autumn of 1968. The Sisters of Notra Dame de Sion and the Union of American Hebrew Congregations plan to sponsor jointly a series of two-week institutes on Judaism for Catholic educators. On January 21, 1968, sermons were preached in all 225 Roman Catholic parish churches in Brooklyn and Queens on the theme of 'better understanding and charity towards our Jewish neighbors.' Catholic Universities have inaugurated courses in Judaism given by resident or visiting rabbis. As a means to stem, influence, and destroy Roman Catholic Hebraeophobia, these measures are both necessary and good.
Archbishop Thuc went along with Vatican II in the 60's and recognized the Vatican II Church in the 70's. It wasn't until 1980 that he came out publicly and renounced it as a new Church based on 5 reasons. This doesn't mean he was a liar. People change their positions. Fr. Martin changed. I've changed from 20 years ago in drastic ways. Isn't that a good thing? Keep on black pilling Grace.
Delete@anon8:45
DeleteIf it was matter of "changing his mind" on an issue, I'd agree with you. When you consider his unsubstantiated claim to be a bishop and "ordaining" a married man, his back and forth with R&R and sedevacantism, the serious allegations of having an affair with a married woman, claiming to have "second sight," declaring belief in werewolves, and his more than suspect relationship with his "housekeeper," it paints a very bad picture (to say the least) of Martin.
Nearly 20 years ago, a close friend of mine emailed Fr. Cekada (RIP) asking his opinion of Martin (whom Fr. Cekada had met).
Fr. Cekada said that both times het met Martin, he caught the ex-Jesuit in a direct lie. He called him a "scam artist and liar" who "fooled many people."
On this point, I think Fr. Cekada got it right.
God Bless,
---Introibo
Martin never said he was a bishop. Dr. Coomeraswamy claimed it. It is strange that Martin never denied it, I agree.
DeleteWas Fr. De Pauw a sedevacantist? No, so if you are going to criticize Martin for being R&R you would have to criticize Fr. De Pauw for holding to the same thing and if he was a theologian why couldn't he figure that out?
Priests are accused of all kinds of immoral things based on appearance. It's certainly scandalous when a priest does things he appears doing wrong but it can be slanderous to accuse them of something that isn't substantiated. I've heard Martin say on the radio that he wanted to keep his vow of celibacy but be dispensed from his vows of poverty and obedience which were granted to him.
Fr. De Pauw I'm sure had wild rumors spread about him just as there is with Martin.
Werewolves in themselves are not real but is it wrong to believe that they can appear as demonic manifestations? When you read the life of St. Antony of the Desert by St. Athanasius he describes how demons used to appear in the form of all kinds of wild beasts and phantoms to St. Antony so as to attack him when they couldn't succeed in tempting him.
Fr. Cekada wasn't always honest either. He certainly wasn't being truthful in his article about the Pian changes. He has fooled many people on an important matter which involves the laws of the Church.
@anon10:49
DeleteYou write: "Was Fr. De Pauw a sedevacantist? No, so if you are going to criticize Martin for being R&R you would have to criticize Fr. De Pauw for holding to the same thing and if he was a theologian why couldn't he figure that out?"
Reply: Because Fr was hoping he was wrong and the Church would "correct" Herself.
You write: "It's certainly scandalous when a priest does things he appears doing wrong but it can be slanderous to accuse them of something that isn't substantiated."
Reply: I agree. However, can you honestly say the above isn't substantiated? Martin endorsed religious liberty (heresy) and considered abortion "politicized"(!) That alone is enough to keep any good Traditionalist Catholic away.
You write: "Fr. De Pauw I'm sure had wild rumors spread about him just as there is with Martin."
Reply: Fr always vigorously defended himself, was consistent, and the weight of the evidence was definitely on his side. I wish I could say the same for Martin.
You write: "Werewolves in themselves are not real but is it wrong to believe that they can appear as demonic manifestations?"
Reply: There's a huge problem with the "demonic" defense; Martin claimed on Art Bell, "Yes. It [being a werewolf] can be. Like everything else, it can have a good purpose or an evil purpose."
Please explain how demonic infestation can be a "gift" that can "have a good purpose' OR an "evil purpose."
You write: "Fr. Cekada wasn't always honest either. He certainly wasn't being truthful in his article about the Pian changes. He has fooled many people on an important matter which involves the laws of the Church."
reply: True, but it is NOT just Fr. Cekada who has caught him in stark contradictions, unproven assertions, and even heresy.
God Bless,
---Introibo
Maybe Father Roy Randolph was married and widowed, and he and his wife adopted their son.
ReplyDelete@anon8:09
DeletePerhaps! If any of my readers know about Fr. Randolph, please comment here.
God Bless,
---Introibo
About the person who is trying to get the sacraments:
ReplyDeleteWhat if the person had somebody give them conditional Baptism(they can't think of ANYBODY to do that for them)and then went to a chapel where nobody had seen them before, and did a general confession, and went to Mass and received Communion?
https://www.cathinfo.com/general-discussion/detailed-angelqueen-article-about-malachi-martin-being-a-fraud/
ReplyDeleteMalachi Martin’s exorcism snake oil
by John Grasmeier
Angelqueen.org March, 2007
According to the Holy See, Martin was not clergy after 1965. He was dispensed from all obligations and privileges of the priesthood. This is docuмented, verifiable, completely unambiguous and has a reference number. [Congregation for Institutes of Consecrated Life and Societies of Apostolic Life, 25 June 1997, Prot. N. 04300/65].[48] LINK No second or third hand account from any priest, jesuit, layperson or ANYONE ON EARTH claiming that they know or think that they know otherwise can supersede the docuмent that sits at the earthly seat of the Catholic faith. In 1986 Martin himself is docuмented as saying that he’s not a “clergyman” and that he not under any bishop.
ReplyDeletehttps://peoplepill.com/i/malachi-martin
Martin himself is quoted as stating 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)".
https://groups.google.com/g/alt.recovery.catholicism/c/ofliaqmSufQ?pli=1
ReplyDelete(William H. Kennedy's: In Defense of Malachi Martin)
When Father Martin was later to move to New York he came into conflict with then Cardinal O'Connor who claimed Father Martin had no faculties [right] to act as a priest in the Archdiocese of New York. When Martin threatened to sue O'Connor over this issue the Cardinal backed down and
consequently conceded that Martin had the right to act as a priest under the dictates set forth by Pope Paul VI.
When Malachi Martin moved to New York City, Cardinal Spellman was the Archbishop.
ReplyDelete
ReplyDeletehttps://www.bennozuiddam.com/the-myth-of-malachi-martin/
One thing is clear, whatever his professional credentials, Martin lied about his education. In his books and interviews he always claims to have earned three doctorates in Leuven Belgium. Even posthumously published books of Martin’s continue to claim this on the cover, and Art Bell and others introduced him as such, or Martin helped them out in a friendly and humble fashion. He claimed to have earned doctorates (plural) in Semitic Languages, Archeology and Oriental History. This was a lie. He did not.
Two years ago, I decided to check this claim locally. I consulted my colleague, professor Dries Bosschaert at the Catholic University in Leuven. He kindly spent some time in the archives on my behalf. Every earned doctorate is registered in the yearbooks of the university. My suspicions were, unfortunately as I am concerned, confirmed. For Martin there is only one doctorate:
“Grade de Docteur en Philologie et Histoire Orientales. Graad van Doctor in de Oosterse Filologie en Geschiedenis. Behaald aan het Institut Orientaliste. Instituut voor Oriëntalisme. Voor het doctoraat: The Scribal Character of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Bibl. Du Muséon, 44-45 Louvain, Publ. Univ. 1958. Doctoraat in het academiejaar 1958-1959. En dit is te vinden op pagina 1173 in het jaarboek 1957-1959.”
Malachi Martin created an alternative reality about himself.
And why? This was probably a good doctorate and, after some post graduate fieldwork, he made a stellar career under one of the most liberal cardinals of the church at the time. Why did he distort the truth about his professorship? The hard evidence from Leuven shows that Martin started working for Cardinal Bea (1881-1968) straight after the completion of his doctorate in 1958, not after years of teaching as a “professor at the Pontifical Bible Institute” as Martin claimed.
https://www.bennozuiddam.com/the-myth-of-malachi-martin/
ReplyDelete"What we do know is that Martin resigned the Jesuit order. Problematic is his claim that he was allowed to exercise his priesthood without any supervision of a bishop. Late in life the myth grew and he even claimed to have been secretly ordained a bishop himself. Both claims are rather far fetched. Of course, priesthood is indelible, so in a sense, he always remained one. But only as time progressed, Martin’s claims to that effect became bolder. He was very careful in not claiming too much at the William Buckley programs. Socially intelligent as well, he realized that he was bound to be confronted in that setting. His later claims to be a modern-day Erasmus with the necessary dispensations from the pope himself were carefully phrased. But lacked the paperwork to prove it.
Heaven will tell. But one thing I know for sure, Martin lied or reinvented his reasons for leaving the Vatican only later in life.
Why this bold assessment? Malachi Martin claimed that he left the Jesuit order and his work in Rome because of the rapid changes in the time of Vatican II. In the words of one of his most able defenders in a previous generation, William H. Kennedy: “Martin’s stated reason for leaving the Jesuits and the institutional Church was that he felt that Roman Catholicism was changing too fast and the institution he had grown up with was becoming an alien form of religion for him.” (Collected writings, 2008:137)
That is not “the whole truth and nothing but the truth”. At all. This is proven by Martin’s book “Jesus now”, which was published in 1973. Malachi Martin was a theological liberal. And quite extreme in his views at that. Amongst other disturbing views, he stated that the second coming of Jesus belongs to the realms of myth and fairy-tale (preface xii):
From “Jesus now”, preface xii
Yes, Jesus is not going to return, because he never went away. That is Dr. Martin, anno Domini 1973. No doubt Malachi Martin reinvented himself as a traditionalist Catholic priest later, but I have not seen any evidence or listened to any interview in which he repented of his former modernism. Or reaffirmed a literal Second Coming, for that matter.
This is quite disturbing. From a traditional pastor one would have expected a publicly voiced interlude of repentance, penance and witness of experience of forgiveness for these grave sins of modernism. Publishing a heretical book is very grave public sin, mortal in all respects, and seducing others into grave sin. However: No word of repentance or excuses from Martin at all.
Martin merely reinvented himself as a traditionalist only many years later. This makes it likely that his initial reasons to leave the Jesuits and the regular priesthood were for other than his stated reasons. Whether these considerations were of a personal nature, professional or private, is anybody’s guess. We do know, however that at that stage Malachi Brendan Martin was a theological liberal and would remain one for many years to come. His later claim to have left the Jesuit order and Rome because Catholicism was changing unrecognizably, was more than a different take on truth. It was a blatant lie. Martin’s own book, nearly a decade after Vatican II is part of the modernist problem. His brand of Catholicism at that stage was heretical beyond recognition if compared with the traditional doctrines of the Church. As evidenced by his 1973 publication, Dr. Martin remained a modernist himself for many years after 1964.
Malachi Martin reinvented himself as a traditionalist. He never disclosed his reasons, but opted to tell a lie about the origins of his traditionalist stance. Hopefully he privately repented. What remains worrying though, is that, despite his no doubt genuine conversion to traditional Catholicism, he continued to distort the truth about himself. Yes, father Martin lied."
Thank you Anon @ 1:35 for the correction.
ReplyDeleteThose were Kennedy's words. Glad you caught his error.
The operator of the website https://www.bennozuiddam.com/the-myth-of-malachi-martin/ is a Dutch Reformed seminary professor. Check elsewhere on that website.
ReplyDeleteHe has a photocopy of the preface xii page of Malachi Martins book: "Jesus Now"
DeleteThis is the text:
"But the fragmentation is of Jesus figures and is directly the action of Jesus. For he intends that his love and his creation of happiness be accessible to all men without distinction of color, of region, of culture, of economic status, or of the moment in time when a man or woman is born and The figures are useless for this purpose. Most of them were chosen in view of a Second
Coming of Jesus: Jesus had "gone away" and was going to "come back" on some final day. This was and still is plain myth; and the Jesus figures—refined violations of the First Commandment forbidding false gods—turned out to be the idols of that myth. Jesus is not going to return, because he never went away. Besides, all the figures, however fine some were in their have ended up as mere distortions of Jesus' salvation which should..."
https://fitzinfo.net/forum/topic/the-malachi-martin-dossier/
ReplyDeleteAn excerpt from the book, Hothouse: The Art of Survival and the Survival of Art at America's Most Celebrated Publishing House, Farrar, Straus, and Giroux, concerning Malachi Martin. (Malachi Martin's publisher)
(Taken from archive.org from the Call me Jorge Bergoglio Blog:
Photocopy of four pages: 117, 118, 119, 120)
"Which deal with Martin's backstage machinations at the Second Vatican Council, his sympathy to the Talmudic Jewish religion, Martin is compared to the heretical Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, the Guggenheim connection, and how his love affair with Kakia Livanos began."
From the book:
"Malachi Martin was eventually laicized and persuaded to leave Rome. He spun Straus vague tales of mysterious plots against his life in order to explain his flight to the United States (omitting rumors of his seductions and double
dealings). To his later regret, Roger was enamored of the dashing archaeologist. He compared Martin to a dear friend Of the Strauses, the influential renegade priest-paleontologist Pierre Teilhard de Chardin.
Shortly after leaving Rome, Martin sought Straus's help in getting established in New York. Roger not only pleaded successfully with his uncle Harry Guggenheim for a study grant; he paid for Martin's airfare.
Shortly after Martin arrived in the States, Roger invited him to
a dinner party at East 70th Street. The "extra woman" at dinner was Kakia Livanos, the ex-wife of a shipping magnate. She and Martin got along very well. Martin had found a new advocate and benefactor. The following morning Livanos called Dorothea (wife of Roger Straus) to say that Martin had come home with her."
Do you know whether tertiaries may wear the habit of their order? Specifically conventual/chapter or priestly. (But not talking about private secular tertiaries)
ReplyDeleteIn the first Art Bell interview (1996) Martin also clearly said Lucifer and Satan were two different individuals who work together. If you find the Youtube video posted by Jeremiah Alphonsus for the 1st interview you can hear him say that if you start listening from the 4:30 mark until about 5:45. When you are so wrong about something so basic it's hard to trust anything after that.
ReplyDelete