Monday, December 2, 2024

Contending For The Faith---Part 34

 

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. 

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!

26 comments:

  1. 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.

    He 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.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. @anon6:48
      I 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

      Delete
    2. 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.

      I 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?

      Delete
    3. @anon7:42
      I 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

      Delete
  2. 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 ?

    Thank you Introibo

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I would avoid Theresa, she’s a home aloner, and engaged in the David Bawden “conclave”

      But 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

      Delete
    2. @anon9:46
      I 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

      Delete
  3. Intriobo,
    Off 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?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Also the sede is getting married by the NO priest in the NO church.

      Delete
    2. Stephen,
      A 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.

      Delete
    3. Stephen,
      I 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

      Delete
    4. Anonymous and Introibo,
      Thank 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

      Delete
    5. Stephen,
      As 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

      Delete
  4. An interesting question Stephen

    ReplyDelete
  5. Does the principle of epikeia apply to this canon (Canon 199:5)

    “§ 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

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. @anon12:38
      There 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

      Delete
  6. 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:
    https://www.findagrave.com/memorial/48375206/malachi-brendan-martin

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. @anon1:18

      Thank you for the information!

      God Bless,

      ---Introibo

      Delete
  7. Here is a link to Kakia Livanos Find a Grave page:
    https://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")

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. @anon4:21
      Many thanks for this information! I learn much from my readers.

      God Bless,

      ---Introibo

      Delete
    2. @anon4:21

      My 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

      Delete
    3. If you look at the picture of the grave, it says "Father" on it.

      Delete
  8. Introibo:

    1. 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.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. @anon7:12
      1 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

      Delete
  9. Sorry, that should say "Dominican" bishop.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Introibo

    Do you have all the writings of Archbishop Lefebvre? Which do you think was his best book?

    ReplyDelete