Skip to main content

Communion for Adulterers Mirus shrieks that Taylor Marshall isn't a "Sound" Catholic

It just makes you want to laugh when Dr. Jeff Mirus shrieks that Dr. Taylor Marshall's new book "Infiltration" and it's publisher Sophia Institute Press are not "sound" in their "Catholic editorial judgment."
(CatholicCulture.org, "Infiltration: An idiot's guide to the problems of the Church, May 31, 2019)

Mirus in his review of the book reviles Marshall and apparently the pre-Vatican II eleven Popes since 1738 for calling out "the secret machinations of the Masons" with his really funny attempt at trying to sound reasonable with his accusations in what appears to be a attempt to smear their reputations.

Here are some of his never ending name calling ravings which are so left-wing "crazy relative"-like you want to laugh:

- "idiot's"
- "absurdity of a crazy relative"
- "McCarthyism"
- "conspiratorial"
- "Catholic far-right"
- "Marian apparitions"
- "papal visions"
- "loss of sanity"
- "Satan's human tools"
- And on and on he goes in crazy left-wing relative-like shrieks...

Like all left-wing Catholic crazy relative-like persons, Mirus has a theory that it isn't heretical for adulterers to receive Communion.

He attempts to open Communion for adulterers by saying it isn't sacrilegious or heretical because it's only a "venial sin."

Even the often ambiguous Dr. Edward Peters who loves Mirus' writings said:

"[E]ven if Mirus' theory of venial sin for some divorce-and-remarried [adulterous couples] is correct, it does not answer the question about their being admitted to Holy Communion."
Canon Law Blog, "May I demur Mirus this once," 3 years ago)

Dubia Cardinal Walter Brandmuller is a little more straight forward on if Mirus' position is heretical:

"Whoever thinks that persistent adultery and reception of Holy Communion are compatible is a heretic and promotes schism."
(LifeSiteNews, "Dubia Cardinal: Anyone who opens Communion to a Heretic and Promotes Schism," December 23, 2016)

It appears that any Catholic who trusts Mirus' Catholic judgement on heresy has a problem.

His theories are not "sound" in their "Catholic editorial judgment."

Pray an Our Father now for the restoration of the Church.



Comments

Tancred said…
A pox on both their houses!
8:15 AM
Michael Dowd said…
I ordered Taylor's book to have what he says in one place and to help him out. Why so? Bcause we already know everything he is saying has been said before and is true.
4:01 AM
CumExApostolatusOfficio said…
The author or authors known as "Maurice Pinay" wrote it all in 1962. Mirus' review could have been written by the intelligence services.
3:14 PM
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

If Francis is a Heretic, What should Canonically happen to him?

Did Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger (the future Pope Benedict XVI) say that Francis is a heretic ?   On June 3, 2003 the then Cardinal Ratzinge r (and future Pope Benedict) , head of the Congregation for the Faith, said that the endorsement of  " homosex civil unions" was against Catholic teaching, that is heterodoxy : "Those who would move from tolerance to the legitimatization of specific rights for cohabiting homosexual persons need to be reminded that the approval or legalization of evil is something far different from the toleration of evil... The Church teaches that respect for homosexual persons cannot lead in any way to approval of homosexual behavior or to legal recognition of homosexual unions ." (Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, "Considerations Regarding Proposals to give Legal Recognition to Unions between Homosexual Persons," June 3, 2003) Gloria.tv reported: " Francis made on October 21 his latest declaration in sup...
6 comments
Read more

Could Francis be an Antipope even though the Majority of Cardinals claim he is Pope?

Is it possible for someone to be an antipope even though the majority of cardinals claim he is pope? The case of Antipope Anacletus II proves that it is possible for a majority of cardinals to claim a man is pope while he, in reality, is an antipope. In 1130, a majority of cardinals voted for Cardinal Peter Pierleone to be pope. He called himself Anacletus II. He was proclaimed pope and ruled Rome for eight years by vote and consent of a absolute majority of the cardinals despite the fact he was a antipope. In 1130, just prior to the election of antipope Anacletus, a small minority of cardinals elected the real pope: Pope Innocent II. How is this possible? St. Bernard said "the 'sanior pars' (the wiser portion)... declared in favor of Innocent II. By this he probably meant a majority of the cardinal-bishops." (St. Bernard of Clairvaux by Leon Christiani, Page 72) Again, how is this possible when the absolute majority of cardinals voted for A...
3 comments
Read more

A Hour which will Live in Infamy: 10:01pm November 3, 2020

10:01pm November 3, 2020, a hour which will live in infamy, the United States of America presidential electoral integrity was suddenly and deliberately attacked by the forces of the Democrat Machine and some corrupt collaborators within the Republican Party. It will be recorded that "under the pretense of COVID, executive branch officials across a number of key battleground states violated election procedures passed by the legislative branches of those states in a number of ways that opened up the process to fraud on a massive scale, never before seen in the history of this country" which makes it obvious that the attack was deliberately planned many days or even weeks before. During the time before and after the attack the Democrat Machine and its corrupt collaborators in the Media have deliberately sought to deceive the United States by false statements and expressions of hope for continued peace.  The attack on United States has caused severe damage to the Ameri...
Post a Comment
Read more