The Campaign for Radical Truth in History
The Jesuit Malachi Martin was periti (theological expert) to Augustine Cardinal Bea, the Jewish-Catholic prelate who was instrumental in imposing the shattering change in Rome's teaching on the Jews at the Second Vatican Council (declaring them, in the document Nostra Aetate, not guilty of the charge of Deicide). Martin was at that time a priest (he has since been laicised), of the most liberal bent and lent his scholarly faculties to Cardinal Bea's calamitous exculpation of the Jews.
Like the Vatican Council II modernist Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, Bea's adviser Malachi Martin was a reborn conservative who has been widely embraced as a "prophet," a status he also--curiously--enjoys in the Establishment media.
While Martin had been upholding the notion that Satanic rites are being practiced in the Vatican, he had, since 1978, also been the chief support for the idea that the pope of Rome is personally orthodox and not himself an agent of Talmudism or Freemasonry. How can a Christian leader who tolerates Satanism be "orthodox"?
In the N.Y. newspapers in 1978, Malachi Martin decreed that John Paul II "held in more than contempt" the destructive mother lode of our contemporary modernist toxicity, the Enlightenment.
Yet, in practice John Paul II quite patently hews to Enlightenment doctrine--in his approval of Evolution and of the writing of Henri de Lubac, the disciple of Tielhard de Chardin, the priest who made a religion out of evolutionism and who may have played a part in the evolutionist hoax, "Piltdown Man."
Moreover as a phenomenologist and follower of Edmund Husserl, John Paul II's Enlightenment philosophy has inspired his "prayer meeting" with the Dalai Lama in Assisi and his benediction of African Voodoo, when the Pope of Rome informed the witchdoctors of Benin that their devilish tradition contained "seeds of the Word."
This is the pope who is portrayed by the establishment media as a staunch anti-feminist, yet who is responsible for the most powerful feminist symbol ever to enter the papist church--altar girls. This is phenomenology of the "Enlightenment" sort in its most protractedly diseased variant.
In the days of the pontificate of Paul VI, his tyrannical, neo-Bolshevik regime was explained away with the propaganda that Paul VI was a "prisoner" and that a "double" was performing the repression. This claim neatly acquitted the pope of all responsibility and kept his subjects endlessly confused about amorphous "Vatican forces."
In the same vein, Dr. Martin lays blame for the Vatican's subversion of Christianity not at the feet of John Paul II, but at the door of "Vatican satanists" and disobedient cardinals.
In an interview with "The Wanderer" newspaper, Martin was asked: "Will the Pope succeed over time, or is he in an ecclesiastical end-game?"
Martin: "...His Papacy has been successful in this basic sense: that nobody can ever doubt his consciousness of carrying the burden of Peter. He has carried the message of Christ all over the world, and given millions the richness of the Gospel."
This is nonsense. John Paul II has, in Christ's name, carried a message across the planet, of pagan syncretism and Pharisee-worship (the Biblical anti-Christs who were condemned in I John 2:22-23 , John-Paul has praised as "our elder brothers in the Faith") and of One Worldism (Benin and Assisi). The main prop for John Paul's supposed orthodoxy and credibility in traditional circles has been the Jesuit Malachi Martin.
Martin's novel, Windswept House is described by The Wanderer newspaper as one wherein "the Holy Father is cautiously temporizing as disloyal cardinals subvert his Papacy...to advance the New World Order...the Pope's unfaithful cardinals plot to isolate John Paul II."
Once again the same schema advanced during the pontificate of Paul VI is being advanced now, during the reign of John Paul II, implying that John Paul is paralyzed by the bad actions of disloyal underlings (many of whom he himself appointed to high Church office!).
Another puzzling exchange with The Wanderer:
Question: "You describe (in Windswept House ), a gruesome murder in Century City (Chicago) when introducing readers to your Cardinal Leonardine (Bernardin). There are a number of people who will be very disturbed when they see that murder described, because they know you are recording an event that actually took place. If you have the story on that ritual murder, why not tell it as fact, and not fiction?"
Martin: "Because I am writing a novel, and I am not blaming any body, living or dead, nor am I fixing any responsibility to anyone no more than any novelist does. Let those who write factual reports please write it. It is about time they fulfill their duties."
Am I the only one who finds something strange about Malachi Martin being aware of the circumstances of a ritual murder in Chicago and failing to name the guilty parties and assist in whatever manner to help to bring them to justice? Why is the bringing to justice of these alleged murderers only the duty of those "who write factual reports" ? And what precisely is Malachi Martin writing, by the way?
In an interview with the John Birch Society publication, New American (June 9, 1997, pp. 39-41), Malachi Martin alludes to his high degree of education and his insider status at the Vatican:
"...I was told I could expect to be made a cardinal, that I had Biblical knowledge, a facility with languages...a good memory, all of which made me a candidate for advancement" (p. 39).
Very curiously, at the end of the interview Martin compares himself to Moses Maimonides: "In the 12th century, the Jewish scholar Maimonides wrote a 'Guide for the Perplexed' for his people. I hope to write a book somewhat like his to help Catholics..." (p. 41).
Moses Maimonides was the foremost interpreter of the Jewish Talmud and one of the most implacable enemies of Christ in the annals of Judaism. Maimonides is on record, in his commentary on the Mishnah, calling for the execution of all Christians and hoping that the name of Jesus, the "name of the wicked, shall rot."
Since Martin is alleged to be a highly educated and "secretly informed" authority on the esoteric, he surely knows the public record of the notorious Maimonides, with whom he compares himself.
Maimonides, in his Mishnah Torah, (Moznaim Publishing Corporation, Brooklyn, New York, 1990, Chapter 10, English translation, p. 184), delcares: "It is a mitzvah [religious duty], however, to eradicate Jewish traitors, minnim, and apikorsim, and to cause them to descend to the pit of destruction, since they cause difficulty to the Jews and sway the people away from God, as did Jesus of Nazareth and his students, and Tzadok, Baithos, and their students. May the name of the wicked rot."
Given the facts concerning Maimonides, the question arises, was Malachi Martin sending a signal to masonic and Jewish Talmudic initiates that, as a follower---or at least a sympathizer---with the ferociously anti-Christian Maimonides, Martin is no genuine threat to these initiates, and is in fact in league with them?
Or, if we can exculpate the Jesuit on this count, based on his ignorance of Maimonides' published writings, what does this say about Martin's expertise in occult and similarly recondite matters, if he can't even get Maimonides right?
April 4--5, 1997, Malachi Martin was a guest on the Art Bell radio talk-show. Malachi Martin agreed with Art Bell that non-Christian American Indian "shamans" do in fact perform authentic exorcisms which drive Satan away, supposedly by the power of Christ.
This is New Age ideology in its essence; pure syncretism; completely contradictory to the Bible, for as Christ said, "Satan cannot cast out Satan."
June 25, 1999
Dear Mr. Hoffman,
My name is Holland O. Vandennieuwenhof, and you may or may not remember me from a couple of months ago when I took you to task for your treatment of Malachi Martin. I appreciated your input, especially in light of your work load. In the course of my own part-time research I have come to admit to myself that you are essentially correct in your assessment of Fr. Martin. The most damning fact about Martin, which you yourself reiterated to me, is his comparison of himself to Maimonides.
I simply cannot reconcile Maimonides' evil attacks on Jesus Christ with my former respect for Martin. It cannot be simply ignorance on Martin's part. I suppose that I relied too much upon his credentials as an excorcist. I thought that a person who had personally confronted demonic powers so many times would be beyond repute.