Then you are calling Fr. Fiore a liar who states publicly:
Malachi Martin never left the Catholic priesthood, but was personally dispensed from his vows of poverty and obedience by Paul VI on leaving the Jesuits in 1964. I have seen and authenticated his dispensation papers. He did not seek release from his vow of chastity. When he came to New York, Cardinal Cooke gave him priestly faculties, and advised him to find lodging with a family rather than live alone as he initially did.
as well as Fr Martin. Fr. Fiore gives his address, write him and take it up with him.
Perhaps it was because a clearly metaphorical reference to the limitlessness of Divine Authority was being misrepresented as what would be ...blah blah blah
There you go with that "clearly" again. Do you think because you preface everything you say with "clearly" that it transforms the convoluted equivocal statements into something clear? [that was rhetorical] That was one of the good things about Fr. Martin, although he was far superior in intellectual ability to the average schmo like myself, he could communicate complicated ideas in ways I could understand. He was never arrogant about his intelligence or scholarship either. And his complete and utter devotion to the faith showed in all of his words, whether spoken or written. Something I find suspiciously lacking in your explanations, but that's just the opinion of this schmo layperson.
I'm still waiting for your response on Garrigou-Lagrange.
Don't hold your breath, you're too deep for me. I'm far too intellectually inferior to be a suitable sparring partner. I guess that's just your cross to bear, having to suffer fools. And frankly, I used to find you mildly amusing, but lately you've become quite obnoxious.
You do realize that Fiore exactly agrees with what I quoted? Martin was dispensed from his vows, excepting chastity, and the obligations and privileges of the Catholic priesthood. That is called "laicization".
Martin's status was, I think, unclear. But Fr. Fiore's statements based upon his confidence in the representations of his friend can hardly constitute a proof sufficient to make it unreasonable to believe the Vatican and Jesuit statements on the subject.
On "Almighty God", "great thumb", etc. Here is the prayer:
Almighty God, the Great Thumb we cannot evade to tie any knot, the Roaring Thunder that splits mighty trees, the all-seeing Lord on high who sees even the foot prints of an antelope on a rock mass here on Earth, you are the one who does not hesitate to respond to our call. You are the cornerstone of peace.
Is it really your contention that "the Great Thumb we cannot evade to tie any knot" should not be understood metaphorically? Is there any other rational explanation? How could God be literaly both a "great thumb" and a "roaring thunder"? Again, why is the "great thumb" part, which doesn't even begin the prayer, referred to but not the "Almighty God", etc.? I am perfectly right in stating that this conveys a mistaken impression, which was certainly mine upon first seeing the stuff about praying to the "Great Thumb", that is, that the "great thumb" was to be understood of a literal thumb that was being worshiped. Now, I am not a big fan of the whole Assisi thing, but criticism has to be on-target to be effective.
As for the stuff about intellectually inferior, I have never stated such a thing, so where you get it from is beyond me. I would appreciate a reply, since you were the one who initiated that discussion anyway.