The basic problem today is not so much what is it that we must believe? The fundamental problem is whom are we to believe?
When someone lies to you, you can never be sure again when that person is telling you the truth or lying. That person loses `credibility.' His words _ even when objectively truthful _ can only be doubted.
Thus, even when the Devil tells the truth, he cannot be believed because he is the Father of lies. And lies have this peculiar quality: They appear to be the truth, but are not.
And because it is essential to our salvation that we believe objective revelation due to the fact that "faith comes from hearing" as St. Paul says, it is paramount that what we hear concerning the faith is truly coming from the legitimate teaching authority of the Church.
There are many who go about as living contradictions: on the one hand, claiming that they have no authority to teach, while on the other hand, doing precisely that which they say they cannot do: They teach!
These same individuals hypocritically claim that they have no authority to command; yet, their words and actions are an exercise of authority which they say they do not have.
Again, these very individuals go about pretending to sanctify their victims by claiming to administer Sacraments which can only be administered to a legitimate flock, which, of course, they necessarily must admit that they do not have.
Each gives his own `version' of Scripture; each gives his own interpretation of `authority.' And, as you will easily conclude, each makes his own will and circumstances the manifestation of God's will.
Consequently, it is next to impossible to reach the inner workings of such minds and wills. As the old saying goes: "A fool convinced against his will, is of the same opinion still."
We see the spirit of Satan most clearly in the case of illusions. For example, because the Roman Catholic Church is the Mystical Body of Jesus Christ, whatever is done by members of this Mystical Body is truly the work of divine grace only when it proceeds from the Head, which is Jesus Christ.
This is the reason why only those works of mercy, whether corporal or spiritual, have any supernatural merit for heaven that proceed from grace. A natural act does not produce a supernatural result. Natural acts can only produce natural results.
But, the Christian life is a life of grace; a supernatural life that exists and grows and matures by supernatural means, namely, divine grace. This is the reason why `humanitarianism' is not evil; nevertheless, it counts for nothing if it does not prepare a soul to receive supernatural grace. And, in the case of baptized Catholics, it serves no purpose at all towards an eternal reward.
Diabolical illusions abound in the strangest places and persons. I would venture to say that such diabolical illusions abound to an alarming degree among those who have left the Apostate Church (the Conciliar Church of Vatican II) and have wandered off into mini-sects led by ambitious laymen or renegade clergymen.
Bear in mind: Diabolical illusions are most often found in prayer, in the practice of virtue, and also in the struggle against vices.
St. Paul warns against these diabolical illusions by saying that "Satan transforms himself into an angel of light" (II Cor.14,4).
Now, it is obvious that Jesus Christ is no longer present to us as He was to His Apostles before and after the Resurrection. He has left us with visible representatives, whose empowerment and obligations come from Jesus Christ through the Holy Ghost.
These visible representatives are the Apostles and their legitimate successors. Now, the legitimate successors of the Apostles are not only the Popes. Just as it is a heresy (an obstinate error against revealed doctrine) to deny the primacy of a legitimate Pope, it is equally a heresy to deny the powers bestowed upon the Apostles and their successors the legitimate bishops.
Heresy generally over emphasizes one doctrine to the de-emphasizing of another. Orthodoxy, on the other hand, maintains the proper balance that exists among all doctrine. Thus, it is an error against the faith when the distinction between the "Ecclesia discens" and the "Ecclesia docens" was deliberately either erased or implicitly confused.
The Church is a society of unequals. This statement may be displeasing to some people, but even the slightest consideration will show that the entire concept of `democracy' is an absurdity which in actual life does not even exist. The international banker may wear blue jeans when flying in his Lear jet to his private vacation camp in Alaska, but he most probably would not sit in a fast food outlet with a plumber wearing blue jeans.
`Democracy' is an illusion that is soon shattered.
Now, in the Church we have the basic distinction between the `Church learning' and the `Church teaching.'
The Church learning consists of the members of the Church who are subjects.
Other members of the Church are by divine right the superiors. These are a legitimate Pope and Bishops. They have the divine authority of teaching, while the others are subjects and have the obligation of accepting the teaching of faith and morals imparted by legitimate shepherds. Priests and theologians are not, per se, the teaching authority of the Church. Priests and theologians are, by approval and delegation of legitimate Bishops, teachers in the Church.
Therefore, it should be clearly understood by everyone concerned that even priests belong to the Church learning.
The true teacher in the Church is the Bishop. A legitimate Bishop is a teacher by virtue of his function. The priests are only teachers by participation and delegation.
Bishops united with the Pope in their teachings enjoy active infallibility (infallibility in teaching). The faithful, to the extent that they are recipients of this teaching and assimilate the doctrines without error, enjoy passive infallibility.
Therefore, those priests and laymen who take it upon themselves to by-pass the only teaching authority in the Church create confusion in matters of faith and discipline among well-meaning, but misinformed Catholics.
Many Catholics have had their faith stolen from them by unscrupulous scoundrels wearing clerical collars as well as business suits. They have been led astray by wolves in sheep's clothing and false prophets. The wolves are not the false prophets; the wolves are from among the laity who hide their true ambitions by appearing as genuine Catholics. They are `wolves in sheep's clothing' because they make themselves appear as Catholics in order to get close enough to the unsuspecting believer for the purpose of carrying off that believer to some sect where the victim is spiritually `devoured.'
The superficial Catholic is more interested in gossip than in personal sanctification which is, after all, the most important part of being a Roman Catholic. And this is where the `false prophets' find their victims.
We continue examining one among many false prophets posing as an authority in the Roman Catholic Church: Malachi Martin. This ex-Jesuit goes around dressed in a business suit and tells his `staff' that he does not wear clerical garb "because he does not belong to any diocese." In a brief e-mail conversation with Malachi Martin's `office,' the following transpired on April 17, 1998:
In your presentation of Fr. Malachi Martin's curriculum vitae, you state that he has some kind of unheard of permission to be his own man, roaming around saying `masses' for whomsoever he may desire. You further state that because he is not attached to any diocese, Fr. Martin does not wear any clerical garb. Is this part of the fiction surrounding "Fr. Malachi Martin" or is there some solid foundation in reality?
The response follows:
"Dear Fr. Karl,
Fr. Martin's statement is that his superior is in Rome and under the diocese he lives in New York he cannot be addressed as Father nor can he wear a roman collar.
Thank you for your interest.
Sincerely Fr. Martin's assistant"
To this answer the following e-mail was sent to Malachi Martin's address:
Thank you for your speedy reply. Is his superior the Pope? I know that a Pope has universal jurisdiction. Does this mean that Fr. Martin has been delegated universal jurisdiction? Also, would you be so kind as to unconfuse me: Why would Fr. Martin not be able to wear a Roman collar nor be addressed in the New York diocese? If he may not be addressed as "Father" in New York nor wear the Roman collar, is he permitted to do so in any other diocese? Is the internet his own personal "diocese"?
Thank you for your time and clarification.
The following was kindly presented:
Dear Fr. Karl,
I work on Father's e-mail in the morning and fax it to him ashe is having a problem with his computer. He reads all his e-mail. I understand that it is under a "universal jurisdiction" that he is able to say mass outside of Manhattan. The word they use is that he is not "incardinated" in the diocese he lives in. Sorry, I don't know the meaning. He does say mass (don't know where) but celebrates private mass (latin rite) in his home every day.
On a personal note, my own spiritual director, Fr. Tom Carleton is unable to say mass in the Archdiocese of Boston (where I live) because he was arrested and jailed for protesting in front of an abortion clinic. So Cardinal Bernard Law placed him under (?) Apparently, there are many priests like my priest in Boston and Fr. Martin in Manhattan. There were two others in the pro-life movement in which I am active in that
same circumstance. Sorry, I don't understand it. Maybe with your knowledge of theology you could explain it to me.
However, I wish you the best in your ministry, and hope God hears all your prayers!!
The person who was so kind as to answer the questions is certainly unaware of Canon Law and other consequences following upon a priest's separation from his Religious community. A validly ordained priest remains a priest for all eternity _ even in Hell, as well as in Heaven. It has come to my attention that very recently, Malachi Martin now claims that he has a bishop. Is it a diocesan bishop, or is it the Bishop of Rome? It is not clear.
Nevertheless, Malachi Martin plays the role of the false prophet in a most fundamental and striking way: He dazzles his followers with the bright lure of an "expert on the Catholic Church."
Let us examine more closely with the light of sound reason some of the assertions made by our "expert."
In his newsletter (something born of the anarchy conceived at Vatican II) of April 14, 1998, Malachi Martin writes:
"The health of His Holiness, Pope John Paul II, has become a pre-occupation for all sectors of Roman Catholicism, "
In other places and public statements, Martin speaks of `apostasy.' He talks of nameless Cardinals, Bishops, etc. But, he is always very careful to insist that the "Holy Father" is not among them.
I don't know about you, but I certainly would like to know what "all sectors of Roman Catholicism" might be. We are left in the dark as to who, precisely, make up that seemingly all-embracing sector of Roman Catholicism. I suspect that those alleged "sectors of Roman Catholicism" consist mainly of apostates, heretics and schismatics. None of whom, of course, constitute any sector of Roman Catholicism.
The reason for saying this is based on the doctrinal Encyclical of a legitimate successor of St. Peter, Pope Pius XII, when he taught the entire Mystical Body that only those are members who are not excommunicated, heretics or schismatics.
Of course, the heretic is never the heretic; it's the simple believer who is the `heretic.' It is never the schismatic who is the schismatic; and, to be sure, the one excommunicated is never the one excommunicated. So, I would suppose, based on this Modernist criteria of who is a Roman Catholic, Malachi Martin's concept of "all sectors of Roman Catholicism" most probably include everyone who is an apostate, heretic, schismatic and excommunicated. While, consequently, the small number of genuine believers would be conveniently ignored.
As far as we Roman Catholics are concerned, the health of this heresiarch ("super heretic") and precursor of the Antichrist is not our pre-occupation at all. Our preoccupation is the defense of the Roman Catholic Church as the only means of salvation for mankind.
The next paragraph speaks of a paramount concern in the Vatican these days: Although the body of Karl Wojtyla has not given up the ghost, this is of small concern in view of the imminent election of a successor.
Malachi Martin suggests that Wojtyla is undergoing a special kind of `agony.'
I would just like to hear from the lips of Karl Wojtyla just exactly what kind of `agony' he is undergoing. Is it as Malachi Martin would have the world believe on his word alone, that the cause of Wojtyla's `agony' is that "He is contending with the encircling personages who are vitally affected by the passing of his papacy."
Although there will always be questions and problems for everyone that a lifetime could not answer or resolve, the imminent crossing of the threshold of death would focus any man's attention on that final aspect of earthly existence. Malachi Martin's penchant for the melodramatic may sell his books, but it does not give us an honest picture of reality. And, after all, we ought to be interested in reality and not some kind of subjective, contrived, imaginative sensationalism.
Malachi further states:
"And in this Rome of the Popes, during the summer and autumn of 1998, the one subject on everybody's mind is the papal Conclave, the meeting of 120 Cardinals summoned at John Paul's death in order to elect a new pope."
It would be interesting to know how 120 illegitimate `Cardinals' can gather to elect a successor to an antipope.
Of course, I am quite aware of the distressing knee-jerks of the uninformed, the badly informed and just plain lazy `Catholic' at the very mention of such an observation. How many Apostate Catholics, material or formal, know that the last real Cardinal of the Roman Catholic Church, his Eminence Emile Cardinal Leger, died a few years ago? Consequently, there is not a single living Cardinal who has been legitimately named to that position by a legitimate Pope.
Hypothetically speaking, therefore, if Roncalli (John XXIII _ the Rosicrucian Pope), Montini (Paul VI), John Paul I, and Wojtyla (John Paul II) were not legitimate Popes, then all that they have done is illegitimate and, where applicable, invalid.
However, we need not speak hypothetically because there is more than sufficient evidence to show that since Pope Pius XII the Roman Catholic Church has been without a legitimate Pope.
Pious prattle is no substitute for sound theology.
Malachi Martin says of Karl Wojtyla: "He has not done away with the so-called Tridentine Mass, although everybody knows he personally dislikes that rite."
What is there to `dislike' in the Mass that was decreed for all time by Pope St. Pius V as a bulwark against future heresy? If Karl Wojtyla dislikes the Sacrifice of the Mass of the Roman Catholic Church it can only be because he is not a Roman Catholic.
But, Malachi errs in this matter. Wojtyla has done away with the Tridentine Mass. According to Malachi Martin, the Pope knows everything that is going on in the Vatican; it is the result of the "spirit he has installed there for almost twenty years as Pope." He further states that "there has been a spirit of secularization going on in John Paul II's Vatican .." But secularism is a heresy diametrically opposed to the supernatural life of grace. The Sacrifice of the Mass is the `mystery of faith' which makes up an essential part of Roman Catholic doctrine.
Lest anyone be deceived, consider carefully that the so-called "indult Mass of 1962" is the beginning of the gradual destructive process of the true Mass.
The very term "Indult Mass" is another terminological monstrosity. What exactly is an "Indult Mass"? What genuine Catholic needs any kind of permission to either offer (if he is a priest) or attend (if it concerns the laity) the Sacrifice of the Mass commanded to be said in perpetuity?
No one needs special permission _ and that is the meaning of an `indult' _ to say or attend the Mass promulgated by Pope St. Pius V as one of the fruits of the Council of Trent.
The "Indult Mass" is properly termed a "valid sacrilege" in that the consecration has not been changed yet and it almost completely resembles the actual "Tridentine Mass" which it is deliberately made to do.
The simple insertion of the name of St. Joseph in the Canon of the Mass modifies the Tridentine Mass so that it can no longer be called the "Tridentine Mass". When "John XXIII" arbitrarily had the name of St. Joseph added to the Canon, he thereby deliberately wanted to show that there is really nothing sacred in the Roman Catholic Church, and that everything can be changed despite the strong affirmations and decrees of past Popes. In so doing, John XXIII began the march away from Catholic tradition which is the guarantor of orthodoxy.
Those who piously deceive themselves _ or impiously, as the case may be _ are obliged to deny their conscience and their faith just for the questionable "permission" to attend what is viewed by the Modernists as nothing more than an ancient Roman rite. Those who attend such sacrilegious Masses must recognize the validity of the New Order Mass and the validity of John Paul II.
Thus, these people march blindly into the camp of the Antichrist, deceiving themselves into believing that they are `good Catholics' who have had their way with the `hierarchy.'
Malachi Martin says:
"John Paul is leaving his Church in an "interim" state, the Church according to these critics has not been allowed to decide to enter fully into the modern age."
Karl Wojtyla has done more than any of his predecessors to lead the Mystical Body of Christ into the camp of the Antichrist. All his efforts reek with the smoke of Satan. Malachi Martin has failed to instruct those who hang on his every ambiguous word: A true Pope would lead the Mystical Body of Jesus Christ along the safe path of every legitimate successor of St. Peter. It is not for the "Church learning" (Ecclesia discens) to decide matters of faith and morals and their application to the times. This is the office of a legitimate Pope and those Bishops united with him.
Again, Malachi Martin says:
"There is, as of this date, no virtually dominant papal candidate as there was, for instance, in the conclave of 1939 and 1963."
In 1963, Roncalli was elected as an `interim' choice because the Cardinals were so divided amongst themselves. Therefore, Roncalli's election was due to the fact that there was no `dominant papal candidate.' Likewise, the fortuitous election of Pope St. Pius X came about when the Cardinals could not decide on a candidate and that the candidate which they had eventually picked was vetoed by the Emperor of Austria because that candidate was a Freemason!
Even in Wojtyla's case there is much veiled suspicion and intrigue. So much so that the smoke got mixed up and perhaps that was when the `smoke of Satan' really entered the Vatican.
Malachi Martin says:
"Seasoned Roman "hands" feel that this pre-Conclave situation could easily lead Church government into an interregnum when no unity could be found among the Electors, and when many vitally interested but purely secular quarters of our international community would prefer to see the Electors wait until new light is shed upon some old conundrums that has bedeviled man for sometime."
God protect us from "seasoned Roman `hands'! Speaking through the mouth of `seasoned Roman hands,' Malachi talks of an "interregnum" _ a period of time between two reigning Vicars of Christ.
The Church is always in a state of "interregnum" when a legitimate Pope dies and before his successor is legitimately elected. The same is true on the level of a Diocese. A Diocese is in a period of "interregnum" when its Bishop dies and his successor has not yet been named.
What Malachi Martin seems to be hinting at is the possibility that there would not be a visible `Pope' for some time. Whatever other meaning he can give to his words, of course, depend upon the circumstances and his needs. We are just trying to understand his thinking by examining his words.
In this article, I will take one last statement made by Dr. Malachi Martin. He says:
"many unprejudiced observers describe as the palpable hate or profound dislike of Pope John Paul which they detect as a constant reaction to this man who apparently has pleased no one, has never injured anyone, who went out of his way to love everyone, and who from the beginning of his Pontificate in October 1978 has been regarded as an unwelcome stranger. He never acquired `romanitá', and he never understood its use."
Karl Wojtyla was the chosen tool of those who secretly run the Vatican. He is a Modernist imbued with the occult ideas of the founder of Anthroposophy, Dr. Rudolph Steiner.
"In the center of his thought," writes Fr. Mager in Theosophie und Christentum speaking of Steiner, "however, there stands, not God, but, in accordance with the anti-transcendental trend of the age, man: `Man is the summit and perfection of the universe. God is at best only a function of his development.'"
Fr. Mager makes the following observation regarding Steiner:
"It is my profound and well-founded conviction that Steiner's Anthroposophy cannot be characterized otherwise than as the systematizing of the hallucinations of a misguided spirit into a coherent world picture . Though Steiner may be continually speaking of the progress of thought towards self-consciousness, and of the contemplation of pure spirit, nevertheless his conceptions must be distinguished essentially from the Hegelian idea of the consciousness of the self, and from the contemplation of Plotinus or Buddha _ to say nothing of the contemplation of the Christian mystic."
As an accomplished actor, Karl Wojtyla plays his role well. He certainly was accepted by the Italian people, and one would suspect that Malachi Martin himself has never caught the flavor of `Romanità.'
It is only in recent years that the rumor was started to the effect that the Italian people refer to Karl Wojtyla as "Pope Wojtyla" _ the Polish Pope.
Nor ought we confuse the Polish people with one Polish actor. Many were proud of the fact that the Polish nation might boast of having had a Pope from their number. An `honor' that may prove to be less desired after the fact.
On the other hand, Wojtyla has managed to mesmerize the tiny nation of Lithuania by appealing to the questionable claim that he was "half Lithuanian.' We read in a book written by Carl Bernstein and Marco Politi, His Holiness _John Paul II and the Hidden History of Our Time, that Wojtyla's mother was "Emilia Kaczorowska, daughter of Feliks and Maria Szolc." The family is said to be "of Lithuanian origin, but she had been born in 1884 in Silesia, a German-speaking province of the Austro-Hungarian Empire."
Neither the name Kaczorowska nor Szolc is of Lithuanian origin. This was verified by a long distance call to Lithuania.
As for Wojtyla's `Romanità' there was no real reason for exaggerating this point. Roman Catholics accepted him at face value. And if Malachi Martin's comment is directed to the Vatican `insiders,' then that would make even less sense because Wojtyla faithfully promoted the ideals of Roncalli and Montini. He picked `cardinals' and `bishops' according to his spirit.
Was Karl Wojtyla `hated' as Martin says? This tactic is a common one of those who have hidden ambitions and have no other way to vent their own frustrations. By suggesting that Wojtyla is so hated that this hatred is actually `palpable' would rather give credence to some remarks as to Malachi Martin's real origin.
For anyone with internet capabilities, more precise information regarding Malachi Martin is readily available. This information can be found at: http://www.hoffman.info.com
Certainly, our interest in this man Malachi Martin is a legitimate one. He openly presents himself as an "eminent theologian" and an "expert on the Catholic Church."
As such, then, he deliberately takes upon himself the office of teaching not only anyone who would listen to him, but especially those listeners who claim to be Roman Catholics.
We will objectively examine Malachi Martin's theology and compare it to the theology of the Roman Catholic Church. It is essential that every Catholic be exposed to the true teachings of the Church.
Is Dr. Malachi Martin a true `savior' of the Church; or is he just another hoax among many?
Return to Contents
Return to Homepage.