The legacy of Fr. Malichi Martin

[Desert Walker]

[quote name='ironmonk' date='Mar 7 2006, 05:42 PM']I find the whole "secretly consecrated" thing extremely hard to believe. In fact, I do not think it's possible... a whole secret thing, there would be no reason... it's not like he lived where it would cost him his life for doing so. From everything I've read, his writings are worthless. According to him the third secret was "ghastly".

God Bless,
ironmonk
[right][snapback]905776[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

And you think that the third secret WASN'T ghastly?!

[Era Might]

John Paul gets shot.

Sad, but not really "ghastly".

[Desert Walker]

It really depends on how badly the mind has been convinced by cinema that shootings are commonplace "wuddeva" moments...

[Era Might]

Good point, but I think the Third Secret conjures up images of hellish imps swinging from Church chandaliers and the apocalypse, hehe. Compared to that, the Pope getting shot isn't so bad.

Edited March 8, 2006 by Era Might

[Desert Walker]

[quote name='Era Might' date='Mar 8 2006, 07:30 AM']Interestingly, Father Benedict Groeschel has questioned Martin's claims about exorcism:
[right][snapback]906391[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Keep in mind Groeschel's expertise in psychology makes him more likely to assert a psychological explanation for apparent demonic activity. Martin comes from a purely theological and traditional standpoint and would thus be more inclined to put a supernatural explanation on everything. The question is "Which is the better preference?" Either one can lead to an inauthentic assessment of a given situation.

[Era Might]

The article suggests that Fr. Groeschel's objections were not so much about exorcism itself, but about what exactly went on in the '70s. Apparantly, Fr. Groeschel was among those consulted by the Church in cases of exorcism back then, and he has no recollection of the kind of activity suggested by Martin. I think he would have at least caught wind of it, as a "go-to" guy for the Church.

Edited March 8, 2006 by Era Might

[Desert Walker]

I haven't read Martin's claims about this, so I'm not in a position to judge 'yes or 'no' on their 'over-the-topness.' But I have a conviction that the 20th century was given to the powers of darkness to test the strength of Christ's Church. Thus it wouldn't surprise me if the hierarchy itself was having difficulty believing in, and thus taking effective, direct measures against, the influence of Satan in the world and the Church. It is possible also, from that, to wonder whether certain clergy have intentionally covered up demonic activity so that wiser heads would have no knowledge of the problem and thus no impetus to attack it.

[Era Might]

I'm not given to conspiracy theories.

If Malachi Martin was a more credible person, maybe I could give his claims more credence. But the controversy surrounding him alone would make me skeptical. Then you add Fr. Groeschel's opinion.

I don't know. I think we have to be careful of sensationalism.

[Era Might]

John Paul II supposedly grabbed a Rosary while speaking in Fulda some years ago, and said:

[quote]Many wish to know simply from curiosity and a taste for the sensational, but they forget that knowledge also implies responsibility. They only seek the satisfaction of their curiosity, and that is dangerous if at the same time they are not disposed to do something, and if they are convinced that it is impossible to do anything against evil. Here is the remedy against this evil. Pray, pray, and ask for nothing more. Leave everything else to the Mother of God.[/quote]

Edited March 8, 2006 by Era Might

[Desert Walker]

Yeah, it's tempting to sensationalize the problems. I'd just like to attribute the problems we have to a reason that can be defined. And I think it's naive to just assume that our shepherds are just "doing the best they can." Yeah we should pray for them, but what about challenging them to actually give us the faith?

I don't really feel like I'm trying to sensationalize the problems in the Church, but I can't stand it when we make concessions to the demands of worldly culture that clearly have no benefit to the faithful already in the Church. And there's also a lot of disagreement about what is and is not beneficial.

The bottom line is that I can't shake this feeling of oppression and 'cloudedness' that I feel in the Church these days. And I know where it's coming from: we are giving in to an immoral world. Not the Pope, he never does, but at the local level. It's easy to not listen to the pope, it's a lot harder when your parish priest starts challenging the so-called 'mainstream' conventions. It's not happening on a wide enough scale, and I'm just wondering why the heck not. And Malichi Martin's writings are helping me to gain a clearer view of why, which is opposed to the idea that those who have trouble with our doctrines just need to be 'understood more.' If we're not careful we can 'understand' our way straight into apostasy. I almost did myself.