Warning Against Fr. John Martinez

©Richard Joseph Michael Ibranyi.

Richard Joseph Michael Ibranyi
Box 9
Chimayo, NM 87522-0009

J.M.J.

December 27, 1998
St. John the Evangelist - Ora pro nobis!


Dear Reader,

Warning!

Fr. John Martinez is an Old Catholic Schismatic and Heretic!


Charges Against Fr. John Martinez:
  1. Doubts the Dogma of Papal Infallibility.

  2. Doubts that Popes can infallibly proclaim Saints. He doubts that St. Thomas Aquinas is a Saint.

  3. Doubts the legitimacy of Popes Pius IX to Pius XII, including Pope St. Pius X, whom he said he doubts that he is a saint.

  4. Doubts the Veracity of Holy Scripture (the Latin Vulgate) because he believes that the Jews have tampered with the Hebrew Scriptures.

  5. Criticized the Epistles of St. Paul and said St. Paul should have been more clearly. Thus he is guilty of reading selected Scripture passages out of context as the Protestants do (2 Peter 3:16).

  6. Has said that our Lord Jesus Christ was tainted with human respect. This is to blaspheme to infer that our Lord, God Himself, had any defect. God does not have too much or too little of anything that would indicate a defect of virtue. God is perfect in all things and in all ways. Again, Fr. Martinez is guilty of taking the words and actions of our Lord out of context in selected passages and events.

Brief Explanation of the Inquisition:

I had known from Fr. Martinez�s writings that he had exhibited a lack of charity, but did not detect outright heresy, but did detect disrespect toward St. Thomas of Aquinas and Pope St. Pius X, among other things. I do not like to make rash judgements on appearances alone and attributed his lack of charity in his writings to a bitterness he may have developed in this lonely war that many true Catholics experience from constant persecution and rejection and an exaggerated reaction that can affect a Catholic because of the errors of the saints that are strenuously defended by Catholics as if they were De Fide pronouncements. This overreaction against saints who have taught error and have been deified by certain Catholics is not the fault of the saints but the people. The deification of St. Thomas is a crime that many Catholics are guilty of, but this is not the fault of the great Angelic Doctor, Saint Thomas. Fr. Martinez admitted that 80% of St. Thomas� writings are excellent.

Fr. Martinez seemed to me to be failing in the virtues of long-suffering and patience. So this is what I thought may have been his problem. But upon future investigation I found the problem to be deeper and much more serious than what I had originally thought.

I had interrogated Fr. John Martinez concerning his beliefs that were unclear in his writings on December 26, 1998, in the presence of one witness, a Felix Martinez. The main concern was his venomous attacks on St. Thomas, whom he never referred to as a Saint and the legitimate Popes from Pope Pius IX to Pope Pius II whom he never referred to as popes in his writings, leaving a big question mark.

The day before I interrogated Fr. Martinez, he gave me some writings from an Old Catholic, J.B. Edwards of Canada, who denies Papal Infallibility and the Immaculate Conception. Father had praised the man who wrote these articles and has been in constant contact with him. Although, Father did say he did not believe in everything in his writings. I briefly reviewed these writings and they were abominable. The man, J.B. Edwards, hates the Papacy and lied about historical events in the Church regarding the Papacy, going out of his way to fabricate evidence to discredit popes thus exhibiting an outright hatred for the Papacy.

From my interrogation of Fr. Martinez the below facts were uncovered: I had first said to Fr. Martinez: "Do you know that J.B. Edwards is an Old Catholic schismatic and heretic." Father said: "He is Catholic. " I said: "He may call himself a Catholic but he is not Catholic. He is a schismatic and a heretic who hates the Papacy. " The conversation then centered on Fr. Martinez� writings. After many attempts of evasion the following facts were revealed.

Fr. Martinez said he was not sure if St. Thomas Aquinas is a Saint. He said he has a doubt and he was not sure that Popes can infallibly declare saints. I immediately told him that he is a schismatic and outside the Church for denying the infallible capacity of a Pope to declare saints. I pointed out to him we cannot even doubt that a Saint is not a Saint. We must wholeheartedly embrace all the Saints that the popes have declared and give them the honor and respect that is due to them or we are schismatics and outside the Church and we also would be heretics for denying Papal Infallibility.

I had told Father that he does not have to like all of St. Thomas� teachings. He can prefer another Saint�s writings over that of St. Thomas, such as St. Augustine, that is his right as a Catholic. We do not need the Summa to be justified and saved. A Catholic can prefer one Saint�s writings over that of another. But to deny that a Saint, declared so by a Pope, is not a Saint is schismatic and disrespectful of the Saint.

It is easy to point out the errors of many Saints, and this only proves that they are not God, but men as the rest of us and subject to error. The deification of Saints can lead to the total rejection of them if errors are detected in their writings or speeches. It is dishonest to accuse Saints of heresy when they were only errors that have not yet been solemnly defined by a Pope in their time. Many Catholics fall into error and heresy because of an improper understanding of Papal Infallibility and the Solemn Magisterium and how it differs from the Ordinary Magisterium and the differences between a Solemn Declaration and the Common and Unanimous Consent of the Fathers and Doctors.

Fr. Martinez brought up a true point that the erroneous teaching of St. Thomas regarding the Immaculate Conception, that is now heretical, should have been noted in the Summa as an erroneous teaching of St. Thomas that is now heretical as of 1854 when the Immaculate Conception was infallibly defined by Pope Pius IX. No Pope, since 1854, has ordered a revision of the Summa to warn the readers of St. Thomas� errors that are now heretical. Therefore, even these popes have deified St. Thomas, but, this is not heresy, but a lack of vigilance on the part of these popes. Again it is not St. Thomas� fault that he has been deified. He would be the first one to admonish those who have deified him and those who have taken his writings out of context.

While questioning Fr. Martinez I discovered that it is not just these issues that led him to his false conclusions and schismatical position. He has either a rebellious attitude toward the Papacy or a misunderstanding of Papal Infallibility. Fr. Martinez had asked me this question: "If a legitimate Pope has infallibly declared that explicit desire to be baptized and blood martyrdom are legitimate substitutes for the Sacrament of Baptism and can justify and save, would I accept it? " I said: "Yes, if he is a legitimate Pope I have to accept it or I would be in schism and be a heretic. " But I said: "If this is false, as I believe it to be, then the next Pope will infallibly define that one must absolutely receive the Sacrament of Baptism to be justified and have a hope for salvation, and the Pope would Solemnly condemn the erroneous opinions of Baptism of Desire and Blood. "

To show hom Fr. Martinez� question was a devious attack against the Papacy and Papal Infallibility, I asked him the following question: "If a legitimate Pope had infallibly declared that Jesus is not God, would you accept this decision? " Well this is a trick question, a false question that should not be asked by anyone who understands properly the charism of infallibility, but, I wanted to hear Fr. Martinez� response to prove a point; he gladly said: "Of course not. I would not believe this Pope" believing that his point was defended in this line of reasoning. I replied: "This was an illogical question because the Holy Ghost would never allow a legitimate Pontiff to infallibly proclaim a lie. It is an impossibility for a legitimate Pontiff to infallibly proclaim a lie. Even if he had wanted to, the Holy Ghost would not allow it. " This line of understanding indicated his lack of understanding of Papal Infallibility. This lack of understanding could stem from a true rebellious attitude towards authority or his lack of understanding of Papal Infallibility, the result is the same, he is in schism and is a heretic. Due to Fr. Martinez� close and friendly association with the Old Catholic, R.B. Edwards, whose writings clearly exhibit a hatred for the Papacy, I believe this may indicate the same attitude exists in Fr. Martinez, or else he could not be so friendly with such a wicked man.

Evasive Tactics of Schismatics and Heretics

A well known tactic of heretics and schismatics, when they are subjected to an inquisition, is to evade a direct answer and constantly change the topic. This was clearly exhibited by Fr. Martinez. First I pointed out to him that he never referred to St. Thomas as a Saint in his writings and I asked him if he denies that St. Thomas is a Saint. He said: "Did I ever say that he was not a saint in my writings? " He challenged me to find in his writings a denial that St. Thomas is a Saint. I said: "Your lack of respect for St. Thomas and the fact that you never mention him as a Saint makes you suspect and this is what many people believe who read your writings. " Felix then asked him: "Do you believe St. Thomas is a Saint? " The truth then came out. Father said: "I am not sure and that is a big question mark as to whether he is a saint. " I asked him: "Do you believe that popes infallibly declare Saints? " Father said: "I am not sure if Popes can infallibly declare Saints. " Ah, so now we get to the root of the problem. I then said to Father, "You are a schismatic and outside the Church. You must believe that St. Thomas is a Saint, you must honor him as a saint, you cannot even doubt that he is not a Saint or else you are a schismatic outside the Church." I pointed out that if popes cannot infallibly declare saints then every saint can be questioned and doubted by anyone according to their personal preferences and thus the whole communion of saints is thrown out and we become a protestant Church.

I then asked him about Papal Infallibility, which he already said he doubted in regards to making Saints. I asked him if he denied Papal Infallibility in proclaiming Dogma. He said: "I also doubt that a Pope is infallible in proclaiming dogma and I am allowed to because Pope Pius IX may not have been a Pope and thus his definition at the First Vatican Council of Papal Infallibility may be null and void. " I then pointed out to him that you cannot say Pope Pius IX is not the Pope on hearsay evidence that he was a mason, which idea he got from Mary Ball Martinez� book, Undermining of the Catholic Church. I said that Papal Infallibility was believed before the First Vatican Council that the Council had given a more extensive definition of Papal Infallibility - including only areas of Faith and Moral while excluding Papal decrees on other matters not dealing with Faith and Morals. But, previous to First Vatican Council all Catholics believed Popes to be infallible in Faith and Morals as they have always been aided by the decision and anathemas they handed down. The question answered at the First Vatican Council was the extent and limits of the Popes� Infallibility in regards to manmade laws of the Church (the Ecclesiastical Laws not touching on Faith and Morals and political decisions.)

I then logically pointed out to him the consequence of his denial of Papal Infallibility. I said: "If popes do not speak infallibly we have no certain way of knowing the truth. God has left us as orphans to the whims of the changing and contradicting opinions of men: we all stand on sandy ground and have no certain way of knowing the truth and have become Protestants. Father you position is not even common sense, but nonsense to any true Catholic. "

This following observation I did not have a chance to tell Father because he had left before I could bring up this point. Father could not claim to hold the sedevacantist position in regards to Antipope John Paul II, because if past popes cannot infallibly teach truth then how can we infallibly say that John Paul II is a heretic if we are not sure that the past teachings of the popes he contradicts are infallible. And so Father contradicts his own judgement against John Paul II and does not truly hold the sede-vacante position but the Old Catholic schismatic and heretical position that denies Papal Infallibility and attacks the Papacy.

Father had also mentioned to me the day before that Hebrew Scriptures were tampered with by the Jews and therefore he even questioned the infallibility of the Holy Scriptures (the Latin Vulgate). He did not study this information he probably got from an Old Catholic. The apostate Jews have tampered with the Hebrew Scriptures and introduced changes into their new interpretations of the Old Testament to suit their denial of Christ. This is what is known as the Masserotic Text, an apostate Jewish book that has nothing to do with the Catholic Church�s Bible, the Latin Vulgate. The Masserotic Text has nothing to do with the original translation of the untainted Hebrew Texts by St. Jerome when he interpreted them into Latin and became known as the Latin Vulgate. I said to Father that the Latin Vulgate has been declared infallible in Faith and in Morals by the Holy Catholic Church and you cannot even question the veracity of this official version of the Bible. Father�s willingness to accept this nonsense proves he also, as his Old Catholic friend, looking for any excuse to discredit the Church and the Papacy. This is what all Old Catholics are bound to do. Once they deny Papal Infallibility there is nothing to stop them from denying any certain source of truth.

Fr. Martinez, on my first visit with him about a month ago, had questioned the Epistles of St. Paul and though St. Paul was not clear enough on several topics and even said our Lord, Himself, had watered down His own message due to human respect. These above charges he had made to me orally and are not found in his writings. Knowing this I said: "Father can you not see how your denial of Papal Infallibility has led you to doubt the veracity of Holy Scriptures, St. Paul and Our Lord Jesus Christi Himself? "

After exposing Father�s view on St. Thomas and Papal Infallibility I then asked him: "Father, do you believe that Pope Saint Pius X is a Saint? " He said: "No, I doubt that he is a Saint. " I said: "Do you believe that he was a Pope? " He said after a silence: "No, I doubt that he was even a Pope. " I said: "Do you doubt the legitimacy of the Popes from Pius IX to Pius XII? " He said he doubted that they were popes and that there were probably many other popes of the past that were not legitimate popes. I then said: "Father you are an Old Catholic schismatic and a heretic. You are outside the Church and in damnation. " After my statement he said he would leave because he is not wanted and we said: "Go ahead because we do not want you to stay. " On the way out I told him that until he corrects his schismatic and heretical position that no true Catholic will ever listen to him and if he did correct himself that God could then make good use of him.

So, I continue to pray for Fr. John Martinez, but it is my duty to inform anyone whom I know that receives his writings of his true schismatic and heretical beliefs that he deceptively hides in his writings. And, I please ask the reader to pray for him through the intercession of St. Francis of Assisi.

Richard J.M. Ibranyi

To Jesus through Mary
Hosted by www.Geocities.ws

1