The interview is entitled "Crossing the Desert" and was conducted in 1996 between Malachi Martin and Bernard Janzen, a Canadian journalist and publisher. Malachi Martin says (and I quote): "...crucifixion is a terrible thing - to hang naked like that for six hours and die, spitting your guts out - that what - Jesus - having scourged him, spat at him and sodomized him and beaten him up in prison." Our Blessed Lord was born of a Virgin because He was PURITY itself. Thus to say such a vile and blasphemous thing is beyond sickening. And to suggest it could be true is just as equally horrific. Only someone who secretly hated Christ would utter such a made-up, fabricated profanity against God. In a later interview (1998) with Art Bell (Art Bell's Radio Show) Malachi Martin states: " (Jesus) was a big man, and he was crucified and bled like a pig...". Wake up! This is Talmudic language. It is the serpent tail of this dangerous "angel of light". Malachi's entire adult life was a lie. He worked as a double agent for his Jewish puppeteers and continued with his pathological lying to make a lot of money off confused Catholics and reinforce, as a secret agitator, their growing distrust of the Papacy. He was for separation of Church and State, and evolution. He stated that pagan shamens could perform real miracles, and he encouraged Catholics to listen to the protestant fundamentalist Hal Lindsay. ALL these statements were made publically after his so-called "conversion".

This so called "holy" priest was defrocked for having an affair with a journalist's wife, lied about being an exorcist, made a packet as a spy for his Jewish publishers during Vatican II, and claimed in an interview - long after he had written his best-sellers - that Our Blessed and most pure Savior was sodomized. I have a copy of this audio-tape. Mr. Martin did not change interiorly - he changed tact; fled to New York to re-invent himself.

Frawley, that sounds like every other country right now. If this young man feels he can protect his children better on a farm in Russia, then who are we to criticise. At the very least Putin seems to be against gender ideology so his sons will have a fighting chance of turning out as men. We know of traditional Catholics whose children have declared being gay; it shouldn't be Russia we are all so afraid of, it's our own countries who are trying to steal our children's souls. The war is at our very doorsteps.

While the pseudo Jewish religion does indeed work against Christianity (it is an entirely different religion to Old Testament Jews), there is also an unseen enemy working quietly among all religions reinforcing distrust and division. As Miles- Christi - English states, His Lordship "gets the underlying diagnosis right" but my concern is, to what purpose? It is a subject he offers in broad strokes and on a regular basis. And while it contains elements of truth, our focus it always drawn to fixate on "the big bad Jewish caricature" leaving, to my mind, an even deadier enemy to freely mingle among us. As a city gal, I get the distinct impression of having my line of sight curtailed.

His Grace wanted (and hoped against hope) for Rome to approach him with a deal he could work with. A deal where he could work protected from the modernist blindness while still maintaining a sense of unity; a fine line but the only course of action given the times. This cannot be classed as erratic; it was responsible. It was maintaing a "spirit of obedience" despite the treachery going on around him. As Susan Bromley correctly points out, His Lordship Bishop Fellay is trying to do the same, for once you lose that 'spirit of obedience' you are no longer a loyal subject of the realm; its a slippery slope into the early stages of protestism.

Mr. Johnson, you have side-stepped the issue by attempting to mock the messenger. That is not an argument; only a sign you have been backed into a corner you do not like. I share your waryiness with regards to His Lordship Bishop Fellay - I too think he proved a little too eager to trust the powers in Rome - however - it is always easy for the minions to criticise when they do not have the huge responsibilty of the cruiser. From where I stood, he was attempting to steer the boat back toward the habour away from the 'sede vacantist' rocks that a subversive riptide had snared her towards. I call this riptide "The Williamson". This brings me to Luke 817: the key point was 'hyprocisy' - attacking what you, or the person you are championing, are doing themselves. His Lordship Bishop Williamson publically - and at times viciously - attacked Bishop Fellay for attempting to work with bishops who are directly, or indirectly, destroying the Church. Yet he himself is working against the wellbeing of the Catholic Church in much the same manner as the modernists, for all his talk of "tradition".

"The Resistance" (ask yourself - resistance to what exactly? And I shall come back to this) was spawned from a spirit of "non serviam"; of putting one's own will above the authority of the Church. For the sake of holding the Catholic family together, it was Bishop Fellay's duty to at least TRY to work with his Church; to show that 'spiritually' the SSPX is still in union with the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church even if they are unable to trust the human element in charge. Bishop Williamson, on the other hand, wants to set up his own church; one without a Pope; one where there is no leadership and everyone can make up their own mind (the "Golden Rule"). Mr. Johnson, I have a letter in my possession in which His Lordship Bishop Williamson defends his discision to send a disgraced priest (previously under house arrest) to minister to a family of young boys. That is the very definition of hypocrisy. And it also show where this "resistance" to lawful authority leads one: sending priests who are not fit for office into the sheepfold - just like the very consilliar bishops he is condemning. The SSPX is not perfect - and I am not blind to its failings - but its the best, steadiest and most balanced out there.

Positive action has always pleased God far more than negative revolution. Yet all we hear from Yoshimori and ilk - as they sit comfortably at their keyboards with a cup of coffee in hand - is "Tear it all down; force the Pope off the Throne; hunt his bishops outa town" as if we were all living some Die Hard video game. That, my friends, is the very definition of "hot air". First and foremost we are Catholics. That means taking action Christ's Way. In other words, rallying around the Bride of Christ as She has aways been; the traditional Church of old. That is what Michael Matt is talking about: joining together in our love for Holy Mother Church and holding firm to what has always been taught and practiced. We have many of the same weapons: the Rosary, the Scapular, the Holy Mass (when said properly). Let us use them together. This is a SPIRITUAL war against a common enemy.

Quite agree. His Lordship bishop Williamson is against any union with Rome, period. He likes being on the fringe as his own boss, not having to answer to any one, and allowing peadofiles into the seminary and back into the Mass circuits. I do not speak lightly. He is guilty of these actions. So, personally I would rather have a Fellay reaching out to Rome, than a Williamson who will do everything in his power to protect and maintain control of his own little anti-papal kingdom.

Son of the Church - So like His Lordship, you too are portraying modern Israel as a "saviour" figure, despite their own atroscities? Now that's delusional. Steack is right - your so called "doctor" started this war of terrorism and is no better that the muslim extremist who hit back. There was absolutely no need for the Israeli government to come in heavy on innocent women and children. To do so is to act just like Hilter and the Hamas you yourself condemn.

Orthocat - St. Paul was speaking of his fellow contempary kinsmen. Bishop williamson is speaking about modern Jews who have come out of goodness knows where, practice a completely different religion than the Jews of Abraham, and have claimed Israel for themselves. I totally condemn the violence against the Israeli people (as well as the Palestinians), however to imply that they are equivelent to the Jews of St. Paul's time is historically incorrect and misleading. To stress again: they are two completely different religions. Is Bishop williamson so ignorant of this historical fact? If so, he should retire from teaching.

His Grace Archbishop Lefevbve did not found a new church; he defended The Church. And while I understand the deep suffering His Holiness John Paul II felt, I also understand the deep suffering His Grace - and thousands of Catholics - felt being betrayed by their own hierachy. We must keep in mind that not even a Pope has the right or the authority to stop you practising fundamentals that have been part of the faith since the early days of the Church. The betrayal - even if not intentional - was on the Holy Father's side. And this brings us to the core of the argument - to commit a schismatic act, one must, in some shape or form, have revolted against a law of the Church. His Grace did not and has never done so. He merely consecrated four bishops (which the Holy Father had tentatively given permission for) without formal permission for the actual individuals involved. Yes, he ultimately disobeyed Rome but he did so in defence of Rome who were unwittingly working against themselves. And the fruits speak for themselves. This is no illusion - this is the very blood that feeds the body and keeps it alive. God raised up Archbishop Lefebrve, not to start a new church, but to throw himself at the feet of the Holy Father in order to stop him from stepping off the cliff edge as the liberals wanted.

petrus100452 - You have your thinking the wrong way round. Archbishop Lefevbre did not cause schism and fragmentation; the liberals of Vatican II did. His Grace merely held on to what had always been taught -and with a spirit of obedience to the Holy father as far as he could go without compromising the Eternal Faith. Ask yourself - what would you have done? As the liberals were waving their victory flags and the churches worldwide were tearing down their altars, what would you have done as a Bishop of Christ? Prayed with great faith for an intervention? Prayed that God would somehow send a divine solution?

You bring to mind that meme where the man is sitting trapped on his roof amist flood waters and each time someone offers to rescue him, he replies, 'no, I'm waiting for God to rescue me.'

God did send a divine solution, and that saintly man of Econe sparked a traditional movement that has kept the Church afloat despite the raging storm that threatens to destroy it. Just as Christ promised.

And yes, this is something that Archbishop Vigano himself has failed to grasp: the Church and the Papacy are one - and if God has promised that the gates of Hell will not prevail against the Church then we can be assured that they will not prevail against the Papacy either. Thus to speak of the Pope not being the Pope is mere Panic talking. God IS helping us - in that we must trust.