Skip to main content

Why doesn't Taylor Marshall know about Antipope Anacletus II & his Pseudocardinals?

Dr. Taylor Marshall in his book "Infiltration" made up a pseudo problem against investigating the validity of the Francis conclave despite 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)

In page 239 of his book he presents his non-problem by saying if Francis's election was invalid then "those Francis cardinals are invalid cardinals. A [future] conclave including invalid cardinals would itself be invalid."

Which leads to the question:

Why doesn't Marshall know about Antipope Anacletus II and his pseudocardinals?

Briefly, here is a little background on the antipope. St. Bernard of Clairvaux investigated the validity of the Anacletus conclave and found his pontificate was not valid because he had violated the conclave constitution.

It so happened that Anacletus made eight "cardinals" who are in the Catholic history books called pseudocardinals which according to Marshall's reasoning meant the next conclave in the time of Bernard would be invalid.
(Wikipedia, "Pseudocardinals")

The non-problem would be solved the same way today as it was solved in the time of St. Bernard:

The pseudocardinals are not allowed to vote in the next real conclave.

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






Comments

Justina said…
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 Humanae 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 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.
Sam Sham said…
He’s a pretty good convert, but one who thinks he knows more about the Church than he actually does. I like his YouTubes but there’s always something he gets wrong. Not allowing for the possibility of an invalid conclave is a BIG one.
Neofito said…
Sam:
dont "double-speak" ... dont play that game with yourself...
he does NOT "mistake something or gets wrong" ... he made a DISTORTION OF THE (PRINCIPLES) OF THE FAITH...
In other words, he COMMITS AN HERESY. period.
"bread, bread, winie, wine"
Unknown said…
I like Taylor Marshall and I can understand his position. He's not omniscient but he does follow the truth where it leads him and he will over time change his position when presented with new evidence. Whenever I've disagreed with him, it's either me who has been wrong, or where he is wrong or unsure, he'll modify his stance accordingly. I see no malice in the man.

Popular posts from this blog

Taylor Marshall finally admitted that "Francis teaches HERESY," now, the question is will he do a Skojec & a Schneider Cop Out

    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, and the Church MUST either deprive him , or, as some say, declare him deprived, of his Apostolic See." (The Catholic Controversy, by St. Francis de Sales, Pages 305-306) Taylor Marshall finally admitted that "Pope Francis teaches HERESY: Pope Pius XII condemned the heresy of Francis": Pope Francis on Feb 2 2022, taught, "that in Christ no one can ever truly separate us from those we love because the bond is an existential bond, a strong bond that is in our very nature...who have denied the faith, who are apostates." Pope Pius XII taught the exact opposite when he wrote of those: "who have not been so unfortunate as to separate themselves from the unity of the Body, or b

Wernz-Vidal: "One cannot consider as Schismatics those who Refuse to Obey the Roman Pontiff because they would hold his person Suspect or, because of Widespread Rumors, Doubtfully Elected"

    Pope Francis is tottering on the precipice of Hell. None of this means he isn't the pope, and such talk among the laity is scandalous in its own right. Not a single cardinal in that 2013 conclave has come out and said the election was rigged and Bergoglio isn't the pope, that he is in fact an anti-pope . If he is, a future pope can declare that, when Jorge Bergoglio will no longer be a pope. But if the very men gathered in conclave haven't made that public accusation,  anyone who is suggesting that better take into account that they too will have to give an account of themselves to Almighty God when they die . Such talk adds to the scandal of the "little ones," the simple, even potential converts, who, when they hear big-mouth Catholics on social media saying he's not really the pope, draw back from approaching the Church. Do any of us desire to stand in front Our Blessed Lord as the Supreme Judge and explain why, in our desire for more c

The Nuremberg Trial-like Excuse which Cardinal Burke has so Staggeringly, so Stereotypically Proffered on the Promised “Formal Correction”

Does Cardinal Burke think Francis is an antipope? On at least five occasions, Cardinal Burke has rejected the magisterial nature of official papal teaching (in one case, pre-emptively dismissing a hypothetical official teaching of the Magisterium): Cardinal Burke has rejected the official teaching of Pope Francis in the new Apostolic Constitution Episcopalis Communio concerning the possibility that a pope can raise the final synodal document to the level of ordinary magisterium, if the pope chooses. (We covered the Episcopalis Communio here .) The whole apostolic constitution on the Synod is problematic. … This idea that either the Pope on his own or the Synod together with the Pope can create some new Magisterium [i.e. a new teaching of the ordinary Magisterium], is simply false. The Synod is a consultative body, to help the Pope to see how best to present the Church’s teaching in time. It’s not able to create ordinary Magisterium. As a canon lawyer, Cardinal Burk