Was St. Bernard a "De Facto Schismatic" in not attending Anacletus II Masses since the Majority of Cardinals claimed he was the "True Pope" according to Taylor Marshall?
Dr. Taylor Marshall in his book "Infiltration" on page 239 wrote:
"Catholics are obliged to attend only those Masses that commemorate the true pope... Any Mass that does not commemorate the true pope... is de facto schismatic."
However, St. Bernard of Clairvaux did not attend only those Masses that commemorat[ed] the true pope [according to the majority of the cardinals of the time]... [Moreover,] [a]ny Mass that does not commemorate the true pope [according to the majority of cardinals of the time]... is de facto schismatic" apparently according to the reasoning of Marshall and that appears to be a problem for him.
Does this mean that Doctor of the Church St. Bernard was "de facto" a "schismatic" according to Dr. Marshall?
Since it appears to be a 100% belief beyond doubt of Marshall, similar to his Twitter collaborator One Peter Five's Steve Skojec, that Francis's papacy is valid beyond question and if anyone doubts it they are therefore schismatics then does this mean Cardinal Raymond Burke is a "schismatic" because he said the Francis conclave could be invalid?
Cardinal 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)
Moreover, when Cardinal Gerhard Muller implied that the Francis papacy could be invalid, Marshall said:
"[Cardinal Muller said] [n]o pope alone if he spoke ex cathedra could make possible the ordination of women... You have only two options at that point. One, it's true. That is Divine Revelation that God revealed. I can't see how that works. Or second, the pope ain't the pope, Sedevacantist."
(YouTube, TnT, " What about Married Deacons, Minor Orders, and So-called Women Ordination?" 18:15 to 19:02)
It appears that for Marshall since it seems for him it is 100% infallible dogma that Francis is the "true pope" if Francis proclaimed ex cathedra that the ordination of women was "Divine Revelation" then Marshall would believe the heresy of ordination of women.
Pray an Our Father now for the restoration of the Church.
"Catholics are obliged to attend only those Masses that commemorate the true pope... Any Mass that does not commemorate the true pope... is de facto schismatic."
However, St. Bernard of Clairvaux did not attend only those Masses that commemorat[ed] the true pope [according to the majority of the cardinals of the time]... [Moreover,] [a]ny Mass that does not commemorate the true pope [according to the majority of cardinals of the time]... is de facto schismatic" apparently according to the reasoning of Marshall and that appears to be a problem for him.
Does this mean that Doctor of the Church St. Bernard was "de facto" a "schismatic" according to Dr. Marshall?
Since it appears to be a 100% belief beyond doubt of Marshall, similar to his Twitter collaborator One Peter Five's Steve Skojec, that Francis's papacy is valid beyond question and if anyone doubts it they are therefore schismatics then does this mean Cardinal Raymond Burke is a "schismatic" because he said the Francis conclave could be invalid?
Cardinal 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)
Moreover, when Cardinal Gerhard Muller implied that the Francis papacy could be invalid, Marshall said:
"[Cardinal Muller said] [n]o pope alone if he spoke ex cathedra could make possible the ordination of women... You have only two options at that point. One, it's true. That is Divine Revelation that God revealed. I can't see how that works. Or second, the pope ain't the pope, Sedevacantist."
(YouTube, TnT, " What about Married Deacons, Minor Orders, and So-called Women Ordination?" 18:15 to 19:02)
It appears that for Marshall since it seems for him it is 100% infallible dogma that Francis is the "true pope" if Francis proclaimed ex cathedra that the ordination of women was "Divine Revelation" then Marshall would believe the heresy of ordination of women.
Pray an Our Father now for the restoration of the Church.
Comments
I've never thought to ask anyone, but what happens when there is a true sedevacate? Who is commemorated? Didn't Benedict "resign" almost a month before Bergoglio's election?
"Dr. Taylor Marshall served my low Mass at my brother-in-law's mountain home. Then we had a long evening of eating and drinking with three great families, including his own."
(https://www.facebook.com/nixdave/posts/10158664574461978)
Now, Fr. Dave Nix believes that Benedict is still the true Pope, and has stated that this is something he and Taylor Marshall disagree on frequently, in charity. So, in seeing that Dr. Marshall served for Fr. Nix's Mass, and also recalling this tweet on February 14 by Dr. Marshall(https://twitter.com/TaylorRMarshall/status/1096240539979169792),
I thought to ask the following question:
"If Fr. Nix believes Benedict is still the true Pope, and assuming he commemorates Benedict, not Francis, in the Eucharistic Canon, does this mean that Dr. Marshall committed a "grave sin of schism" by serving at such a Mass? (question being asked per the tweet that Dr. Marshall put out on Feb. 14) I'm genuinely curious. Thank you."
Fr. Nix deleted my comment and unfriended me within minutes for asking this.
Sorry to read that Fr. Nix is just another Mark Shea when it comes to the "block" button.
I literally could not care any less.
I do not doubt there is ontological schism. And he has chosen his side very clearly and publicly.
The election of a pope is an administrative act, not a dogma, not an exercise of the Magisterium. Thus, holding a minority opinion about an election is not heresy. People--especially the Mottramists--are throwing around the terms "heresy" and "schism" with promiscuous abandon.