Today, veteran Catholic blog commenter Justina in the Catholic Monitor comment section said she thought that Dr. Taylor Marshall is "as much a cafeteria Catholic as any Humane Vitae denier":
"Taylor Marshall 'knows' what he wants to know. He knows that staying away from the issue of Bergoglian legitimacy makes it safe--or perhaps, just safe enough--for him to go on riffing about everything else. What does that tell you about the situation in the Church today? Much like the stance of Michael Voris, I believe."
"In a recent TnT video, Marshall mentions that Bishop Schneider is his current favorite. That fits, since Bishop Schneider has made himself the poster boy for the "do not diss Jorge himself, at all costs" approach which Marshall follows. Where was Bishop Schneider, for example, when the Dubia stood in need of additional signers?"
"The problem here is that all truth is true. It's a package deal. If you don't want to investigate or accept the reality of Bergoglian invalidity, you are just as much a cafeteria Catholic as any Humane Vitae denier, no matter how anti-Modernist you claim to be. The fact that Marshall says he HAS investigated and subsequently rejected the Benevacantist position [and Francis conclave validity question] only goes to show he hasn't shed his latent Protestant subjectivism just yet, because a Catholic with respect for UD Gregis, among other things, would acknowledge at the outset that this isn't his call to make."
"When people state that Benedict may still be the Pope, in other words, they are shouted down. "You can't say that! You're only a layman! You have no authority here!" But no one ever points out the exact same thing to people claiming to know for themselves that the "true Pope" is Bergoglio."
"Yes, Dr. Marshall. That means you."
[http://catholicmonitor.blogspot.com/2019/09/why-doesnt-taylor-marshall-know-about.html?m=1]
Why does Marshall ignore the fact that Cardinal Raymond Burke told Patrick Coffin there are "grounds... for calling into question the [Francis] election"?
(Patrick Coffin show, Dubia Cardinal Goes on Record - Raymond Cardinal Burke," 19:55 to 21:46)
Why does Marshall ignore the historical precedent of St. Bernard of Clairvaux investigating the validity of the supposed "Pope" Anacletus II conclave and finding his pontificate was not valid because he had violated the conclave constitution and thus was a antipope.
Why does Marshall ignore paragraph 5 of Universi Dominici Gregis (UDG)?
Paragraph 5 of Universi Dominici Gregis states a contrary position to Marshall's apparent view and what conservative canon lawyer Edward Peters has said about UDG when he suggested canon lawyers have a role in interpreting the John Paul II UDG Constitution. The document states:
"Should doubts arise concerning the prescriptions contained in this Constitution, or concerning the manner of putting them into effect. I [Pope John Paul II] Decree that all power of issuing a judgment of this in this regard to the College of Cardinals, to which I grant the faculty of interpreting doubtful or controverted points."
(Universi Dominici Gregis, paragraph 5)
Later in the paragraph it says "except the act of the election," which can be interpreted in a number of ways.
The point is, as Bishop Rene Gracida says and Universi Dominici Gregis says, only the cardinals can interpret its meaning, not Marshall, not canon lawyers or anyone else.
Bishop Gracida is saying what the document says: only the cardinals can interpret it.
He, also, says put pressure on the cardinals to investigate and interpret it which both Marshall and Peters appear to prefer to ignore.
Why is Marshall afraid of a cardinal investigation?
Is he afraid of the truth if it goes against his "subjective" opinion being found to be wrong?
As Justina said:
"The problem here is that all truth is true. It's a package deal. If you don't want to investigate or accept the reality of Bergoglian invalidity, you are just as much a cafeteria Catholic as any Humane Vitae denier, no matter how anti-Modernist you claim to be. The fact that Marshall says he HAS investigated and subsequently rejected the Benevacantist position [and the Francis conclave validity question] only goes to show he hasn't shed his latent Protestant subjectivism just yet, because a Catholic with respect for UD Gregis, among other things, would acknowledge at the outset that this isn't his call to make."
Pray an Our Father now for the restoration of the Church.
"Taylor Marshall 'knows' what he wants to know. He knows that staying away from the issue of Bergoglian legitimacy makes it safe--or perhaps, just safe enough--for him to go on riffing about everything else. What does that tell you about the situation in the Church today? Much like the stance of Michael Voris, I believe."
"In a recent TnT video, Marshall mentions that Bishop Schneider is his current favorite. That fits, since Bishop Schneider has made himself the poster boy for the "do not diss Jorge himself, at all costs" approach which Marshall follows. Where was Bishop Schneider, for example, when the Dubia stood in need of additional signers?"
"The problem here is that all truth is true. It's a package deal. If you don't want to investigate or accept the reality of Bergoglian invalidity, you are just as much a cafeteria Catholic as any Humane Vitae denier, no matter how anti-Modernist you claim to be. The fact that Marshall says he HAS investigated and subsequently rejected the Benevacantist position [and Francis conclave validity question] only goes to show he hasn't shed his latent Protestant subjectivism just yet, because a Catholic with respect for UD Gregis, among other things, would acknowledge at the outset that this isn't his call to make."
"When people state that Benedict may still be the Pope, in other words, they are shouted down. "You can't say that! You're only a layman! You have no authority here!" But no one ever points out the exact same thing to people claiming to know for themselves that the "true Pope" is Bergoglio."
"Yes, Dr. Marshall. That means you."
[http://catholicmonitor.blogspot.com/2019/09/why-doesnt-taylor-marshall-know-about.html?m=1]
Why does Marshall ignore the fact that Cardinal Raymond Burke told Patrick Coffin there are "grounds... for calling into question the [Francis] election"?
(Patrick Coffin show, Dubia Cardinal Goes on Record - Raymond Cardinal Burke," 19:55 to 21:46)
Why does Marshall ignore the historical precedent of St. Bernard of Clairvaux investigating the validity of the supposed "Pope" Anacletus II conclave and finding his pontificate was not valid because he had violated the conclave constitution and thus was a antipope.
Why does Marshall ignore paragraph 5 of Universi Dominici Gregis (UDG)?
Paragraph 5 of Universi Dominici Gregis states a contrary position to Marshall's apparent view and what conservative canon lawyer Edward Peters has said about UDG when he suggested canon lawyers have a role in interpreting the John Paul II UDG Constitution. The document states:
"Should doubts arise concerning the prescriptions contained in this Constitution, or concerning the manner of putting them into effect. I [Pope John Paul II] Decree that all power of issuing a judgment of this in this regard to the College of Cardinals, to which I grant the faculty of interpreting doubtful or controverted points."
(Universi Dominici Gregis, paragraph 5)
Later in the paragraph it says "except the act of the election," which can be interpreted in a number of ways.
The point is, as Bishop Rene Gracida says and Universi Dominici Gregis says, only the cardinals can interpret its meaning, not Marshall, not canon lawyers or anyone else.
Bishop Gracida is saying what the document says: only the cardinals can interpret it.
He, also, says put pressure on the cardinals to investigate and interpret it which both Marshall and Peters appear to prefer to ignore.
Why is Marshall afraid of a cardinal investigation?
Is he afraid of the truth if it goes against his "subjective" opinion being found to be wrong?
As Justina said:
"The problem here is that all truth is true. It's a package deal. If you don't want to investigate or accept the reality of Bergoglian invalidity, you are just as much a cafeteria Catholic as any Humane Vitae denier, no matter how anti-Modernist you claim to be. The fact that Marshall says he HAS investigated and subsequently rejected the Benevacantist position [and the Francis conclave validity question] only goes to show he hasn't shed his latent Protestant subjectivism just yet, because a Catholic with respect for UD Gregis, among other things, would acknowledge at the outset that this isn't his call to make."
Pray an Our Father now for the restoration of the Church.
Comments
Also
• The invalid resignation of Benedict XVI due to pressures on him has both prophetic and material evidence to indicate it happened.
• The Latin text of Benedict's resignation speech made no grammatical sense.
• Benedict's understanding that he the Pope contemplative shares the papacy with the Pope active (Bergoglio) is flawed … to the extent that if that was his understanding of the nature of his act of resignation, the act was invalid because it is not possible to have two Popes at the one time.
• And the continuous flow of heresies from Bergoglio from the Chair of Peter which goes against our very understanding of what a Pope is… makes him a heretic in a way which is manifest to the world (every word of his goes out to the world...on the various world media...and he knows it) I repeat his heresy is manifest...which makes him a manifest heretic to the world.
• The breaking of the Apostolic Constitution UDG by the St Gallen Mafia's Canvassing for votes.
THE ENTIRE PROCESS FROM BEGINNING TO END CANONICALLY FLAWED!!!!!
Lord thank you for warning us through your servant St Francis!!!