Fr. Gruner has the videos up.
#21
If you guys are worried about me and being off topic, I say go for it. Boy oh boy I need new glasses I just saw what I typed. Whew am I bad!!!

I feel it necessary to defend Fr. Malachi Martin, he was part of the process for me in returning to the Church. I never cared for the "changes" and I didn't know at first that he had been Cardinal Bea's assistant, but he appeared to me to be a type of good priest I remembered from a better time.

Here's a very interesting one from a Dominican about Mary Mediatrix of Grace and Co-Redemptrix. I like his reasoning and I intuit this is part of the Third secret.

http://www.fatimachallenge.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=section&layout=blog&id=14&Itemid=15

tim
Reply
#22
(05-03-2010, 10:48 PM)Zakhur Wrote:   I would not read Hostage.  I started to.  I'm serious.  Malachi Martin had at least ONE major fault or consistent sin:  indiscretion.  Hostage is extremely disturbing stuff.  It's just HIGHLY negative and not worth the read.  That book made me start wondering whether Martin had all his marbles.  He began to strike me as a kind of really kooky smart person, if that makes sense.


Exorcists like the late Fr. Labar of the New York diocese fully endorsed "Hostage" as doctrinally sound and accurate.  It also doesn't contradict any of the other books by reknowned exorcists like Fr. Amorth and "Interview with an Exorcist" (can't remember the name of the Spanish priest  at the moment.)

Hostage has generally a faith-affirming message, it encourages total dependence on Christ and humbles the human who thinks he can go toe-to-toe with demons without Divine help. 
Reply
#23
(05-04-2010, 09:22 AM)timoose Wrote: I feel it necessary to defend Fr. Malachi Martin, he was part of the process for me in returning to the Church. I never cared for the "changes" and I didn't know at first that he had been Cardinal Bea's assistant, but he appeared to me to be a type of good priest I remembered from a better time.

Amazingly, I too had my conversion to returning back to the church going from a lukewarm NO to a Traditional Catholic after learning about MM and his works... I also believe the Blue Army Shrine in Washington, NJ played a major role as well into my returning to the faith, it is just a darn shame they don't offer the TLM there. :confused:
Reply
#24
(05-03-2010, 10:48 PM)Zakhur Wrote:
(05-03-2010, 05:06 PM)James02 Wrote: Fr. Gruner has full faculties and is incardinated with the Diocese of Hyberadad (spelling?) in India.  An attempt was made to suppress him, but he found a bishop to incardinate him.  He is a true Catholic hero.

Malachi Martin had a wicked and evil past.  He did much to destroy the Church, especially during Vat. II, as an agent for Jews.  Supposedly he "converted" and lived the remainder of his life as a Trad living in the USA.

I like Fr. Gruner.  I've had mixed feelings toward Fr. Martin, but this is the first I've heard of him being an anti-Catholic Jewish double-agent.

(05-03-2010, 05:59 PM)adpatrem Wrote: Malachi Martin an agent for evil?  That sounds pretty provocative.  I had no idea.  Somebody recommended that I read his book "Hostage to the Devil", that's why I ask.  I really don't know what to make of him.

I would not read Hostage.  I started to.  I'm serious.  Malachi Martin had at least ONE major fault or consistent sin:  indiscretion.  Hostage is extremely disturbing stuff.  It's just HIGHLY negative and not worth the read.  That book made me start wondering whether Martin had all his marbles.  He began to strike me as a kind of really kooky smart person, if that makes sense.

Well, if you're going to go reading about demons then isn't going to be all hearts and flowers, you know. What do you expect when reading about demons but icky, yucky, disgusting stuff?

I read it recently and can say it's worth the read--if you want to find out about the nature of these things. But certainly it's not for everyone.


Furthermore, don't insult Fr. Martin.  :shame: He was a great priest.
"Not only are we all in the same boat, but we are all seasick.” --G.K. Chesterton
Reply
#25
To get back on topic (forgive me) ;D

Today's conference at the Fatima Challenge for Tuesday is all about the Third Secret. The first video was an introduction to the Third Secret by Kevin Dias. He went over the history, contradictions, and questions raised about its full release and the debate over two texts.

Guiseppe DeCarli was the next speaker. He co-wrote the Last Seer of Fatima with Cardinal Bertone. He is there to present the  Vatican line and defend the idea that the Third Secret has been entirely revealed in 2000.

As of right now at the time of this posting, Christopher Ferrara's rebuttal and talk about "Is There a Missing Text of the Third Secret?" has not been released on video yet.

Reply
#26
(05-04-2010, 11:07 AM)Jacafamala Wrote: Furthermore, don't insult Fr. Martin. He was a great priest.

Indeed.  And when the real Third Secret becomes known, it will be Fr. Martin who was telling the truth.
Reply
#27
After Guiseppe DeCarli's talk, for about 45 minutes or so, there is a real back and forth debate and questioning by Christopher Ferrara, Fr. Gruner, and John Salza towards Guiseppe DeCarli, covering many of the disputes and contradictions.
Reply
#28
Concerning Hostage to the Devil, I couldn't read it all. I had to skip through parts, it frightened me. I don't mean in the horror movie Exorcist way, but more like the real face of evil. I didn't want those images in my head.

The Giuseppe DiCarli clip was dubbed over in English. He appeared not to take it seriously, but instead promoted the book like it was porta a porta on RAI. I suspect he was from Genoa like Cardinal Bertone and for that reason alone I'd have liked to hear him speak. I find it curious having known Genovese that he was duped by the circumstances. In Italy there is a proverb that it takes twelve Jews to get the better of one Genovese. Another is that a Genovese considers everything in negotiation they even weigh the smoke.Giuseppe DiCarli addressed nothing while he was there, just anecdotes.
tim
Reply
#29
I am quite impressed with the fatima.org (and associated) website.  They must have some serious backing for their apostolate.
Reply
#30
(05-03-2010, 04:45 PM)adpatrem Wrote: Personally, if Fr. Kramer is correct with regard to the two regrets Pope Benedict XVI had before ascending the Chair of Peter, I think something big could happen when the Pope travels to Fatima for the anniversary on May 13.

I've only skimmed the videos so far, but did catch a part where Fr. Gruner once again implied that Cardinal Ratzinger was reluctantly going along with Cardinal Sodano.  That position simply isn't supportable.  Cardinal Ratzinger was actually the first high ranking prelate to start openly lying about the content of the Third Secret in the 1990's. 

I earlier posted the following observations about published comments by Cardinal Ratzinger:

Take a look at the following to quotations attributed to him.  The first comes from an interview with Jesus Magazine in 1984.  The second is from 1996:

Please note the color coding below to note contradictions.  The green pairs with green, the red with red, etc.

In 1984, when asked by an interviewer why the Third Secret hasn't been revealed:
"Because, according to the judgement of the Popes, it adds nothing to what a Christian must know concerning what derives from Revelation: i.e., a radical call for conversion; the absolute importance of history; the dangers threatening the faith and the life of the Christian, and therefore of the world. And then the importance of the end times. If it is not made public - at least for the time being - it is in order to prevent religious prophecy from being mistaken for a quest for the sensational. But the things contained in this 'Third Secret' correspond to what has been announced in Scripture and has been said again and again in many other Marian apparitions, first of all that of Fatima in what is already known of what its message contains. Conversion and penitence are the essential conditions for 'salvation'."

In 1996, when asked by an interviewer why the Third Secret hasn't been revealed:

"I've had enough of speaking about that. The message transmitted by Sister Lucy, and not yet revealed, concerns neither the history of the world in general nor individual facts in particular. The Lady does not enter into details about the future. The Secret contains nothing new, it foretells no tragedy for humanity, nothing apocalyptic and nothing essential for the faith. The Lady simply opens a path, and this path leads to conversion and to faith. In a certain sense, the Second Vatican Council was the realization of the Virgin's message and, in summoning it, Pope John XXIII did the essential in answer to the Virgin's message."[taken from The Catholic Counter-Reformation in the XXth Century, #289, Oct. 1996]  see:  http://www.catholicism.org/downloads/suppressing.pdf . Also the book, FATIMA IN TWILIGHT, Mark Fellows, Marmion Publications, 2003).

So, what happened?  Cardinal Ratzinger told two different stories.  He didn't just tell two different stories.  His second story was the exact opposite of his first one!

According to EWTN, in the '90s Cardinal Ratzinger also stated the following. 

"To all those who are curious, I would say that they should be certain that the Virgin does not engage in sensationalism; she does not create fear. She does not present apocalyptic visions, but guides people to her Son. And in this we have the essential (of the secret)."   http://www.ewtn.com/library/ISSUES/ENDNEAR.TXT
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)