Saturday, June 21, 2014

Fake John XXIII prayer written by Malachi Martin surfaces again. Who is receiving the residuals from this prayer?

We are conscious today that many, many centuries of blindness have cloaked our eyes so that we can no longer see the beauty of Your Chosen People nor recognize in their faces the features of our privileged brethren.

We realize that the mark of Cain stands upon our foreheads. Across the centuries our brother Abel has lain in the blood we drew, or shed tears we caused by forgetting Your love.

Forgive us the curse we falsely attached to their name as Jews. Forgive us for crucifying You a second time in the flesh. For we know not what we did...
-F.E. Cartus (aka Malachi Martin)
Recently Francis canonized two of his predecessors, John XXIII & John Paul II.  In the anticipation to these canonizations taking place many rabbis wrote glowing articles on these two individuals concerning how great they were and how they transformed the catholic religion.  These rabbis further said that even though Jews don't believe in saints these two deserved sainthood.  One article by Jonathan Romain, Special Relations was brought to our attention by the website, Tradition In Action.  Under the entry, Why Jews commemorate the canonizations of John XXIII & John Paul II, the staff at Tradition In Action provide a brief commentary and the scanned pages of the article from The Tablet.  What stood out to us at Call Me Jorge... was the reference in the article to the above fake prayer.  For those who don't know, Malachi Martin wrote this prayer.  He was an agent of Talmudic Jewry who toiled his life away in the Vatican during the Council before switching roles like the chameleon to a 'traditional Catholic'Working as a change agent in all his roles, Martin was a master at sowing confusion and misdirecting.  Many well meaning traditional Catholics have been suckered into spiritual dead ends by this trickster.  This fraudulent prayer which Martin foisted onto the church  on behalf of the rabbis is still paying dividends for the Talmudic Jewry some 48 years later.  In it, Martin equates Jesus the Christ to the modern day followers of the Talmud.  Ringing any bells?  Francis anyone?  Or how about the White Crucifixion?  For a history of this prayer see Pius XII's Revisionism by Robert Faurisson or The "Johannine Prayer" that Never Really Was by Murray K. Watson.  The article by Rabbi Jonathan Romain is below.  As always underlines are ours and we put the fraudulent prayer in bold.  Some notes and commentary follow it.

Our generation has witnessed a religious revolution so extraordinary that it is sometimes hard to appreciate. We take interfaith dialogue for granted, assume that the Council of Christians and Jews has existed forever, and fail to blink when a rabbi and a priest hold a joint event. But go back a few decades and all three assumptions would have been laughable. This remarkable transformation is due in large part to Popes John XXIII and John Paul II – which is why they are not only Catholic saints, but Jewish heroes, too.

To appreciate the change that has occurred, we have to remind ourselves of the time that preceded them, although with some reluctance, as it was a dark period in terms of Jewish-Catholic relations. Jews were seen as perfidious and rebellious in both the gospels and the liturgy. They were labelled as Christ-killers. Of all the sins in the world, there could be nothing worse than the accusation of murdering the son of God. Whereas all other non-Christians may have lacked redemption, Jews were singled out for a malevolent role at the heart of the Christian narrative. Unfortunately, this negativity was not limited to the realm of theology, but spilled out into poisonous relations between ordinary Christians and Jews, especially when the Church reigned supreme in Western Europe. Thus the Middle Ages was a religious inferno of blood libels, book-burning, ghettos, Jew badges, crusader massacres, inquisitions, forced conversions and expulsions.

Centuries of hostility then culminated in the Holocaust, with six million Jews, every third Jew in the world, being killed. It may have been committed by the Nazis, but there is little doubt that it could not have occurred without the “Christian anti-Semitism” that created the mindset that made it possible.

How astonishing it was, therefore, when Pope John XXIII sought to turn away from such a past and establish a new relationship between the two faiths (along with many other reforms within the Church). In this respect, he ranks alongside Mikhail Gorbachev and F.W. de Klerk, who not only saw that their countries needed to change radically, but also had the courage to implement it.

It was he who instructed the adjective “perfidious” to be removed in the Good Friday prayer for Jews. He also led the way personally, meeting with Jewish leaders and greeting them with the words from Genesis that also echoed his own baptismal name: “I am Joseph your brother.” That simple sentence contained a world of change: no longer your rival or your enemy, but your brother.

Above all, he initiated the Second Vatican Council that led to the publication of Nostra Aetate and the ground-breaking declarations it made: that Jews as a whole were absolved of the guilt of deicide, that Judaism was not a relic of the past but had a continuing validity, that Jews today were equally beloved of God, that all forms of anti-Semitism are to be condemned. Co-existence replaced animosity. It was epitomised by a moving prayer about the Jews that John XXIII composed shortly before his death: “We acknowledge that for many centuries, blindness has covered our eyes, so that we no longer saw the beauty of Thy chosen people. … Forgive us that we crucified Thee in the flesh for a second time. For we knew not what we did.”

While some Catholics welcomed these changes as long overdue, others found themselves confused by the religious volte-face. Within Jewish circles, some were overjoyed at the rapprochement, whereas others suspected it was merely a switch of tactics and an attempt to achieve conversion through a warm embrace.

Time was needed on each side to adapt to the new religious reality. It also needed another Pope to show that the new era would not die with John XXIII, but would be a permanent feature of the Church. This was personified by John Paul II who furthered Jewish-Christian relations in three distinctive ways.

He became the first Pope to visit a synagogue, going to the one in Rome in 1986. This was a powerful signal to Catholics around the world that their duty was to be personally involved in friendship between the faiths. It had a lasting effect on John Paul, too, for out of that visit he forged a friendship with the Chief Rabbi of Rome, Elio Toaff, to such an extent that in his last will and testament, John Paul II mentioned only two people by name among the thousands with whom he had encounters: his personal secretary and Rabbi Toaff.

The second notable event came in 1993 when the Vatican signed a formal agreement with the State of Israel. The absence of such a document had been a source of division since Israel’s establishment 45 years earlier, and it had always puzzled – and hurt – Jews.

The official reasons for the lack of recognition were partly the Palestinian problem (but that largely erupted in 1967, whereas the State was formed in 1948) and because the borders were not yet settled and in dispute (but that applied to many other countries, too). It was suspected that the real objection was theological. The Jews had rejected Jesus and in turn had been rejected by God, with their punishment being that they were exiled and doomed to wander the earth until they saw the error of their ways.

Accepting the rebirth of Israel would mean letting go of that teaching. However, John Paul II was prepared to do so and accept the political reality that Israel existed and that it was an important focus of identity for Jews around the world.

This paved the way for another defining moment of his papacy seven years later, when he went to Jerusalem and prayed by the Western Wall. It is the last remnant of the Temple that was destroyed in the year 70 by the Romans and, ever since, has been a symbol of Jewish destruction and Jewish resurgence.

The image of the by then frail man, clothed in white standing before that massive wall signified the final part of the reconciliation between Judaism and Christianity. It was accompanied by a prayer that, as is traditional for those praying there, he inserted in the cracks between the great stones. It was as much a message to Jews as to the Deity: “God of our fathers, You chose Abraham and his descendants [today’s Jews] to bring Your name to the nations [thus recognising their ongoing role and divine task]. We are deeply saddened by those who, in the course of history, have caused those children of Yours to suffer [acknowledging past mistakes of the Church] and, asking Your forgiveness, we wish to commit ourselves to genuine brotherhood with the people of the covenant [asserting the religious integrity of Judaism].”

It meant that when he died on 2 April 2005, there was as much sadness among Jews as there was among his own flock. There were, of course, other areas of religious life in which we differed strongly from Catholic teaching, but we still appreciated his towering contribution to interfaith harmony.

Moreover, the nature of Jewish-Christian dialogue has changed and deepened over the years. At first, it was the simple act of meeting, and concentrating on what the two faiths have in common. Then it became a chance to also look at difficult areas and where the faiths diverged. Then there was the move from accepting that each faith was valid for those who followed it, to understanding that the essence of God was in each faith and that each had sanctity in God’s eyes, too. A further dimension was recognising how the faiths have influenced each other in certain ways and their interdependence. This ranges from the Jewish Passover meal being the basis of the Last Supper, to the effect of Christmas on the way many Jews today celebrate the festival of Hanukkah with present-giving. We trust each other enough to share and learn together.

Jews do not have saints, but we can fully understand why these two Popes should be given such status, having overturned almost two millennia of Jewish-Christian strife in few decades. Perhaps even more remarkable is the fact that this was just one of their many achievements in several other fields. But for us, it is sufficiently saintly in its own right.

As Malachi Martin was working for Cardinal Bea during the Second Vatican Council , he was at the ground zero for the modern inter-faith relations with the Talmudic Jews.  His fraudulent prayer which he tried to pawn off as coming from John XXIII benefited no one except for the followers of the Talmud.  And it only benefits them in this earthly world which they are hell bent on ruling.  It does nothing positive for their souls in the next life as it encourages them to wallow in their spiritual wasteland in the pursuit of mammon.   Would a Catholic, since he is concerned with saving souls, write such a prayer?

Michael Hoffman of Revisionist Review has done some groundbreaking research on Martin and the following quote from, The Jesuit Operative Malachi "Maimonides" Martin Reconsidered, sums up Martin rather well,
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?
Many traditional Catholics will scream Malachi Martin was a good man, he helped the traditional movement in more ways than you know and because of this his enemies slandered him.  Is this why Martin never came clean concerning his past and the role he had at the Second Vatican Council?  Instead, Martin bragged in a very Francis-like manner of some of the work he performed, 
"...some of it involved shaking long-closeted skeletons in the faces of cardinals who didn’t quite want to do what Cardinal Bea and the pope wanted at the Vatican council.“I saw cardinals sweating in front of me.” Martin recalled with mixed emotions. It was heady having that power, “and I began to enjoy it.” 
We ask again, is this the behavior of a Catholic?  Our Lord said, in the best sermon of all time the Sermon on the Mount, "Wherefore by their fruits you shall know them."  What were some of the fruits of Malachi Martin?  The fake John XXIII prayer, confusion among traditional Catholics, Nostra Aetate, holocaust guilt, the John Paul II meme (he is a traditionalist surrounded by modernist bishops), a string of heart broken women, and a bunch of tall tales with no evidence to support them.

In the video below one can hear Malachi Martin utter blasphemies about Our Lord's Crucifixion which sound to our ears as if they came from the Toledot Yeshu.  It isn't stretch of the imagination, if Martin were alive today, to conceive of Malachi Martin and Francis regaling each other with blasphemous jokes about Our Lord's Crucifixion while admiring Chagall's White Crucifixion.

Malachi Martin Catholic or Enemy of Christ?

for more information on Malachi Martin see Maurice Pinay's entries:

for more information about Francis' blasphemous jokes:

for more entries on articles bragging rabbis wrote about the canonizations:
Notes :
(Commentary January 1965 with article by F.E. Cartus aka Malachi Martin.)

(The fake and blasphemous prayer Malachi Martin wrote in the article.)

(Pope Pius XII's Revisionism by Robert Faurisson.)

(The book has a section about the history of this fake prayer.)


  1. Thank you for calling attention to Malachi Martin's treachery and the rotten fruit he continues to produce even from the grave. He never did admit to his traditionalist audience or make restitution of the incalculable harm he did to the Church. Very near the end of his miserable life he proudly proclaimed on the New Age radio show of the freemason, Art Bell, "No one has done more for Catholic 'Jewish' relations than I have."

    I hope that readers will take the time to read Dr. Murray Watson's paper linked to above. I've endeavored to bring people to understanding the message it contains; in essence, 'yes, the John XXIII prayer for the Jews is the fraudulent work of Malachi Martin, but look how much good has come from it.'

    This is the message of the Novus Ordo now coming into full view, 'the pre-Vatican II Church and its followers were so hopelessly wicked and infused with Jew-hate that The Jews and their helpers had no choice but to infiltrate, blackmail, corrupt, etc., etc. it into goodness and light,' goodness and light being measured in terms of how subservient and useful it is to The Jews, of course.

    1. You're welcome, Maurice.

      One can hear Martin tell Art Bell, "No one has done more for Catholic 'Jewish' relations than I have" at 1 minute 5 seconds in the video (Malachi Martin Catholic or Enemy of Christ?).

      We are in total agreement with the last paragraph & this seems to be the message of Francis.

      Soon there will an entry with some new information on the White Crucifixion put up.

  2. I wondered why Fr Malachi Martin who was born in Ireland spelled his name ending with the letter i ,when in Ireland its spelled with a y as in St Malachy ,Malachi was the name of an Old Testament Prophet.I watched all his video's on You Tube and believed everything until i heard him make two statements ,that would be disgusting coming from the mouth of a layman ,never mind a consecrated Catholic priest , he actually stated that JESUS was raped by roman solders during the Passion ,to me that was Satanic.When i looked up his grave ,lo and behold his house keeper is buried with him,why is she not buried with her husband ,I think he was a wolf in sheep's clothing,he also claimed to be an exorcist ,wrote a book about it ,turns out he only ever assisted at exorcisms.

  3. According to Robert Blair Kaiser, who was no lover of traditionalism, but a modernist through and through, and who became, along with his wife, great friends with Martin, in his book Clerical Error, his wife became Martin's lover, Martin procured for her the birth control pills to keep her from getting pregnant (as I recall, though I may have this wrong since it has been many years since I read Kaiser's book, this revelation, along with the adultery, hurt Kaiser deeply since I think they had been trying to have a child in spite of his being such a modernist personally). Kaiser clearly alleges that the "housekeeper' was Martin's lover. Look to Fr. Fiore? also as an accomplice - wasn't he the one the claimed to all the Malachi lovers in traditionalist Catholic land that Malachi died with the brown scapular on? I have always believed in the scapular promise but one really doubts the veracity of that tale.

    I was a big 'fan' of Martin - wrote him once and had praised him for Windswept House after hearing him on Bell's Coast to Coast during the 1990s. He sent me a very traditional looking holy card of Our Lady of Fatima with the three shepherd children and a very nice typewritten note. You can see how good he was at taking people in. It was like the man had a split personality. Multiple personality disorder probably cannot be blamed though in his case, though he certainly seemed to manifest that. I remember him comparing pro lifers protesting in front of abortion clinics on Bell's show to the money changers in the Temple that Our Lord took the whip cord to. That was the first thing that opened my eyes to Malachi not being what he claimed to be.

    1. WOW! The quote you mentioned from Art Bell's show about the pro-lifers and the money changers, would you happen to know which episode Malachi said that?

    2. I'm sorry - I can't remember - I used to actually sit up and audio tape with cassette tape player those shows - I had them in my house somewhere but I have no clue where those tapes are. Maybe someone else remembers that comment. It shocked me pretty badly. He said something against Catholics being involved in politics or something along those lines and then compared pro lifers in front of abortion clinics to that. It was really awful. But from some of the other things I have read since then that came out of Malachi's mouth, not surprising. Maybe not equal to the Maimonides comment but on a par with that. Maybe Michael Hoffmann would remember that comment about the pro lifers?

    3. If you look at Hoffmann's comments on Martin's appearances here online, the one where he is criticizing Malachi's comments about abortion under "Malachi Martin: Liberal" - I think that may have been the episode where he made that comment was so many years ago, but that language Hoffmann quotes seems to be where he made that other comment in light of or in context of that line of talk with Bell.