Skip to main content

Did Taylor Marshall says Cdl. Muller is Promoting "Sedevacantis[m]"?

Dr. Taylor Marshall the co-host on the YouTube "TnT" show said:

"[Cardinal Gerhard Muller said] No pope alone if he spoke ex cathedra could make possible the ordination of women... It seems to be if the pope came out and said ex cathedra 'Women are to be ordained to the sacred order of the deaconate...'"

"You have only two options at that point. One, it's true. That is Divine Revelation that God revealed. I can't see how it works. Or second, the pope ain't the pope. Sedevacantist."
 (YouTube, TnT, Dr. Taylor Marshall, "What about Married Deacons, Minor Orders, and So-Called Women Deacons?,"  Time 18:15 to 19:02)

It appears that Marshall is accusing Cardinal Muller of promoting Sedevacantism

The YouTube co-host seemingly has painted himself into a corner in his apparent beliefs that it is 100 percent impossible that Francis can be a antipope or a heretical pope who can be by the Church "declare[d] deprived of his Apostolic See" which he and his collaborator Bishop Athanasius Schneider who wrote the foreword to Marshall's book "Infiltration" both appear to believe.

It is unfortunate for Schneider's and the YouTube co-host's beliefs that Doctor of the Church St. Francis de Sales totally confirmed beyond any doubt the possibility of a heretical pope and what must be done by the Church in such a situation:

"[T]he Pope... When he is explicitly a heretic he falls ipso facto from his dignity and out of the Church, or as some say, declare him deprived of his Apostolic See."
(The Catholic Controversy, by St. Francis de Sales, Page 305-305)

Also, renowned Catholic historian Warren Carroll contradicted their beliefs when he explained how a seeming pope even supported by the majority of the cardinals may be a antipope:

"But each Pope, having unlimited sovereign power as head of the Church, can prescribe any method for the election of his successor(s) that he chooses... A papal claimant not following these methods is also an Antipope."
(EWTN.com/library... Antipope,txt)

Bishop Rene Gracida has given convincing evidence that Pope John Paul II's conclave constitution "Universi Dominici Gregis" which "prescribe[d]... [the] method for the election of his successor(s)" was violated and must be investigated by the cardinals.

Why are Marshall and Bishop Schneider afraid to engage Doctor of the Church St. Francis de Sales and historian Carroll as well as Bishop Gracida?

Why are they apparently afraid of an investigation by the cardinals into the Francis conclave?

Why are they afraid of the renowned Open Letter scholar Fr. Adrian Nichols' called for the "world bishops [to]... admonish the Pope and [make sure he] must publicly reject heresy or face losing the papacy"?
( EdwardPentin.co.uk, "Father Adrian Nichols Signs Open Letter Charging Pope Francis with Heresy," May 1, 2019)

Moreover, if Francis were to say ex cathedra "there are now four Persons in God: Father, Son, Holy Spirit and Francis" would Marshall still say:

"[The] two options [are]... it's true... Or... Sedevacantis[m]."

Or, if Francis were to declare ex cathedra that he is the 4th person of the holy quadrity, would Marshall still say:

"[T]he two options [are]... it's true... Or... Sedevacantis[m]."

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










Comments

Aqua said…
I’ll take a Doctor of the Church over a Doctor Of Philosophy from U of Dallas.

One is an essential element of Sacred Tradition. The other is not.

Besides, St. Francis de Sales just makes intuitive spiritual sense, as you would expect. We are hard wired for Truth in all its permutations, as long as our conscience is not seared and clouded over rendering us unable to see as we ought. Spiritually healthy souls are drawn to Truth like moths to a light.

Taylor does not make sense. His advice leaves you with fundamental problems and an uncomfortable feeling that all is not well, somehow.
Therese said…
Thanks, Aqua. For the past fifty years (at least) we have suffered an especially successful attack upon the Church, and because there were few external signs of struggle, many of us missed it--we're all casualties (zombie apocalypse, anyone?). Given the extreme situation, I am the last person able to judge my own condition--I could easily be dead and not know it. I need the Church, Her priests and saints, to tell me the truth. The darkness isn't just outside, in the world: IT'S IN ME.
Mark Docherty said…
Trad Inc. will never go there. It's as if an antipope is an impossibility, yet they will entertain a line of reasoning which goes against logic, evidence, doctrine, and even common sense. Papolatry is a disease and these are its symptoms.
PGMGN said…
Taylor is still learning. His red pill has been cut into portions and eaten in stages, although with every bite he seems to believe he's now consumed the whole thing. Such a sad time.
Debbie said…
What Aqua said.

All I know is it feels right and just to pray for the true Pope. No more angst and anger when trying to pray for an anti-pope.
Fr. VF said…
SedevacantISM is not the belief that the papacy CAN BE sometimes vacant as a consequence of something other than the obvious case of the pope's death. In modern times, SedevacantISM can be said to be the belief that there has been no pope since the death of Pius XII. But too many people throw around "sedevacantist" as a mere squelcher (as brain-dead as "conspiracy theory"), to silence those who have a serious case to make that Bergoglio was not validly elected, that Benedict's resignation was invalid, or that Bergoglio lost the papacy as a consequence of heresy. All of these are serious issues, and very much open questions.
Unknown said…
St Thomas was not infallible with regard to the immaculate conception, and neither is St Frances de Sales infallible. Dr Marshall, Bp Schneider and Bp Gracida aren't infallible either.

Fr VF is right - these are open questions.

And Taylor Marshall perhaps used the wrong word and should have said "he is not the Pope" instead of sedevacantism, but his idea is that there are two options: Either Bergoglio's ex cathedra declarations are true, or he's not the Pope.

I think that's wrong, but then again, I imagine Taylor Marshall does too. TnT is quite an informal discussion of current events, so I do not expect either of the hosts to weigh every single word lest they paint themselves into a corner.

And Doctor of the Church St Francis de Sales can't totally confirm anything beyond any doubt. He may be a saint, but he is not infallible.
Macarius said…
When I listened to the podcast, I thought he said "Or second, the pope ain't the pope. Sede vacante." Maybe I misheard.
MEwbank said…
'Unknown' above, in order to discredit persons referenced by others and avoid thinking through the reasons given by each, brings up the canard that Aquinas was 'infallible' concerning the Dogma of the Immaculate Conception.

Actually, contrary to a widely-held presumption, Pope Pius ix did not use Scotus' "proofs" (which were dialectical arguments concerning what infinite power could do) to establish the dogma of the Immaculate Conception.

The dogma had long been believed by faithful. The pope did not rely on anyone's 'proofs' to declare it.

However, Pius IX did use the very words of St. Thomas, as meticulous research shows.

If you look on Google it is possible you can find a pdf copy of the following essay by Rev. P. Lumbreras, "St. Thomas and the Immaculate Conception" from Homiletic and Pastoral Review 3 1924, pp. 253-263.

Lumbreras details to a degree the complexity of how the medievals reflected on this belief, but their reflections did not establish the dogma.

Lumbreras, as to be expected, cites the prior meticulous research of Norbert del Prado, a work of around 400 dense pages that appeared in 1919 in Fribourg entitled "Divus Thomas et la Bula Dogmatica 'Ineffabilis Deus.'
MEwbank said…
Apologies, but I meant to insert 'not' before the word 'infallible.'
Fred Martinez said…
When the Catholic Monitor get Unknowns in the comment section there is a great likelihood of sockpuckets. But, dear Unknown you hit the main points in your attempted red herring:

1. Sorry Unknown, but you don't want a open discussion with the Doctor of the Church, Bishop Gracida, historian Carroll or scholar Fr. Nichols, but to "silence" them by claiming they aren't "infallible" instead of giving counter arguments. As Fr. V said Marshall is trying to stop open discussion or "silence" open questions with the "brain dead" name-calling of "Sedevacantist" and in your case by imitating the Liberals and Modernist who are always claiming that is not "infallible."

2. Sorry Unknown, but Marshall didn't misspeak a "single word" or "wrong word," but said the exact opposite of what you said:

"Either Bergoglio's ex cathedra declaration are true, or he's not the Pope."

Finally, please be man enough to use your real name.
Islam_Is_Islam said…
How convenient to forget Pope Benedict, Dr. Marshall. There's no vacant chair with Benedict there. Everybody now....There's no vacant chair with Benedict there.

Popular posts from this blog

Bishops of Colorado gave an apparent Vaxx "Exemption" Letter & Stated: "Vaccination is Not Morally Obligatory and so Must Be Voluntary"

Today, the bishops of Colorado gave an apparent Vaxx " exemption" letter (21_8_Vaccine_Exemption_CCC_Fin...docx(20KB)) and stated that "Vaccination is Not Morally Obligatory and so Must Be Voluntary":  COLORADO CATHOLIC CONFERENCE 1535 Logan Street | Denver, CO 80203-1913 303-894-8808 | cocatholicconference.org   [Date]   To Whom It May Concern, [Name] is a baptized Catholic seeking a religious exemption from an immunization requirement. This letter explains how the Catholic Church’s teachings may lead individual Catholics, including [name], to decline certain vaccines. The Catholic Church teaches that a person may be required to refuse a medical intervention, including a vaccination, if his or her conscience comes to this judgment. While the Catholic Church does not prohibit the use of most vaccines, and generally encourages them to safeguard personal and public health, the following authoritative Church teachings demonstrate the principled religious

Does Francis's "Right-hand Man" Parra have a "Sexual Predation against Seminarians, Adultery, and even a Deadly Sex Game...[that] 'might even be a Scandal Surpassing that of McCarrick'"?

  Archbishop Edgar Peña Parra with Francis Today, the Call Me Jorge website asked "What could be so important that Francis interrupted his weekly adulation [Audience] session?": Pope gets a phone call during the Audience. Haven’t seen this before. Then he quickly leaves and says he will be back. pic.twitter.com/npCuPzdnxP — The Catholic Traveler (@MountainButorac) August 11, 2021 It was Abp. Mons. Edgar Robinson Peña Parra, Substitute for the Secretariat of State, who was involved in the recent scandal of mismanagement during the acquisition of a € 300 million building in London. Still no word on what the phone call was about . [http://callmejorgebergoglio.blogspot.com/2021/08/what-could-be-so-important-that-francis.html] Who is Archbishop Edgar Robinson Peña Parra ? Parra according to the Catholic Herald is Francis's "right-hand man"[https://catholicherald.co.uk/roman-curia-the-popes-new-right-hand-man/] In 2019, Life Site News reported that Parra alleged

Might it be Good for all of us & for Francis to Read about the "Gruesome Death of Arius"?

  I have read the letters of your piety , in which you have requested me to make known to you the events of my times relating to myself, and to give an account of that most impious heresy of the Arians , in consequence of which I have endured these sufferings, and also of the manner of the death of Arius . With two out of your three demands I have readily undertaken to comply, and have sent to your Godliness what I wrote to the Monks; from which you will be able to learn my own history as well as that of the heresy . But with respect to the other matter, I mean the death, I debated with myself for a long time, fearing lest any one should suppose that I was exulting in the death of that man. But yet, since a disputation which has taken place among you concerning the heresy , has issued in this question, whether Arius died after previously communicating with the Church ; I therefore was necessarily desirous of giving an account of his death, as thinking that the question woul