Skip to main content

Taylor Marshall: "I am... Open to seeing Benedict was Coerced" to Resign

Today, Taylor Marshall on his YouTube podcast while claiming "I'm not making" the argument then made the argument anyway that "if you wanted to show Benedict is still the pope you would show coercion in resignation":

"If you wanted to show Benedict was still pope you would show coercion in resignation. That is a little hard to demonstrate... I am way more open to seeing Benedict was coerced."

"When you look at the ATM machines, the Vatican Bank, when you look at the cardinals in drag and all the this stuff, cocaine fueled orgy parties at the CDF and you look at all the things that were happening from Vigano up to the resignation and the butler. There is a argument if you wanted to make it, I'm not making it, but if you wanted to make it coercion seems to me to be where it is at."
(Dr.Taylor Marshall Show, "Cardinal Pell talks Vatican Bank Corruption," April 15, 2020, 56:27-57:29))

It makes me laugh, but Marshall who isn't making an argument, just made an argument despite his best efforts that Pope Benedict XVI's resignation was coerced and therefore is "still pope."

Of course, if I was making an argument, but I am not making an argument, if you wanted to make it (that Marshall was arguing that Benedict is still pope because of coercion) in the above Marshall argument, it seems to me to be where it is at.

I'm hoping that Marshall at some point, even though he wasn't making the argument, will agrue with his own
argument and show why from his argument he and others shouldn't have "doubt... for any reason," no matter how small, that Francis's "papal election is doubtful."

Theologian Fr. Elwood Sylvester Berry (1879-1956) who was a professor at Mount St. Mary's Seminary in Maryland wrote:

"Hence the saying of Bellarmine: a doubtful pope is no pope. 'Therefore,' continued the Cardinal, 'if a papal election is really doubtful for any reason, the elected should resign, so that a new election may be held. But if he refuses to resign, it becomes the duty of the bishops to adjust the matter, for although the bishops without the pope cannot define dogma not make law for the universal Church, they can and ought to decide, when occasion demands, who is the legitimate pope, and if the matter be doubtful, they should provide for the Church by having a legitimate and undoubted pastor elected. That is what the Council of Constance rightly did." 8
(The Church of Christ: An Apologetic and Dogmatic Treatise, Page 229, Note 8 Bellarmine, "De Concilio, ii, 19)

Pray an Our Father now for the restoration of the Mass and the Church as well as for the Triumph of the Kingdom of the Sacred Heart of Jesus and the Immaculate of Mary.

Comments

Justina said…
Well argued!
Alexis Bugnolo said…
It is easy to see the possiblity of coercion but hard to prove it.

It is easy to see the invalidity of a renunciation of munus, rather than ministerium, AND it is easy to prove it.

Why does Dr. Marshall look for the hard way. Is he an intellectual masochist?

Or he is cleverly trying to keep folks from taking the easy route back to sanity?

Justina said…
Or is he fighting that most intransigent of opponents--himself?
Aqua said…
I have never understood why more Catholics fail to see the necessity of a valid resignation down to the particulars for it to remove a Pope from his Office as Christ’s Vicar for life.

It has always reminded me of my evangelization of my Protestant friends and family using the John 6 discourse on eating the divine flesh of Christ; drinking his divine blood. They take the Bible “literally” (they always say) ..... except for that. Explanations and logic do not penetrate.

Christ states “eat and drink *indeed*” three times. The language of Christ’s meaning is clear.

Most of His disciples subsequently leave because of the seemingly great offense. The physical evidence of Christ’s meaning is clear.

But, like the partial and thus invalid Papal resignation, language and subsequent physical evidence matter not in matters fundamental to the Faith when a battle for souls between God and Satan is at stake. Framing the argument differently won’t change anything. Only prayer will win battles like these.
Fr. VF said…
The name of the pope is not a dogma. The Church does not "teach" the name of the pope. Sedevacantism is not a heresy--and neither is holding a minority opinion about who is pope. Since the identity of the pope is not dogma, there is no basis for the endlessly repeated slogan that "only a future pope can determine whether a present pope is pope."
Fred Martinez said…
On Sedevacantism's heretical teaching that there has been no pope being since Pope Pius XII, please read Vatican I's teaching on popes will reign perpetually.
Aqua said…
Fr VF, that is very helpful and in line with what my SSPX Priest counseled me, in all your particulars listed here.
Fred Martinez said…
If you don't think Vatican I is a infallible Council of the Catholic Church in terms of dogma there is no need to read:

Vatican I, Pastor Aeternus, chapter 1.

Aqua said…
@ Fred Martinez,

I submit to the Holy See and every valid Pope who ever occupied it. Equally. Under Christ. His single, chosen Vicar on earth.

There have been disagreements on *who* occupies it. And there have been antipopes accepted by future Saints over valid Popes.

There is now obvious error in the Holy See; departure from Christ, Sacred Tradition, union with prior occupants; a demonstrable rupture within the Holy See itself at the level of Munus and subsequent authority.

I submit to the Holy See in its God-given totality, and the authority of St. Peter, embodied in all the valid Popes who ever lived, together, in union with each other, in Christ and Sacred Tradition.

I believe that is the basic meaning of Pastor Aeternus.
The jury is out. The next few weeks will be interesting.

Popular posts from this blog

"Exorcist Fr. Ripperger is asking everyone to say this Prayer until the Election is Resolved"

A good friend of the Catholic Monitor got this from a group message. She said "exorcist Fr. Chad Ripperger is asking everyone to say this prayer until the election is resolved": Prayer of Command In His Name and by the power of His Cross and Blood, I ask Jesus to bind any evil spirits, forces and powers of the earth, air, fire, or water, of the netherworld and the satanic forces of nature.  By the power of the Holy Spirit and by His authority, I ask Jesus Christ to break any curses, hexes, or spells and send them back to where they came from, if it be His Holy Will.  I beseech Thee Lord Jesus to protect us by pouring Thy Precious Blood on us (my family, etc.), which Thou hast shed for us and I ask Thee to command that any departing spirits leave quietly, without disturbance, and go straight to Thy Cross to dispose of as Thou sees fit.  I ask Thee to bind any demonic interaction, interplay, or communications.  I place N. (Person, place or thing) under the protectio

If Kamala Harris' Father is part White & part Jamaican African and her Mother is Asian-Indian then is she really Black?

  Is Joe Biden's running mate really Black? If Kamala Harris' father is part white and part Jamaican African and her mother is Asian-Indian then is she really Black? Reason.com tries to figure it out: Kamala Harris, Joe Biden's pick to be the Democratic Party's vice-presidential nominee, is the daughter of an Indian immigrant mother and a Jamaican immigrant father. Her father, as I understand it, has ancestors of both European and African origin. [Welcome new Volokh readers. FYI, I've been working on a book on the American Law of Race, with this forthcoming article the first relevant output. My own opinion is that Ms. Harris should be deemed American, period, but there is no such box on government forms, and if you decline to state your race, someone will decide for you… First things first. There is no multiracial or mixed-race category in American law in any jurisdiction. Nor is there an Indian category. So Harris cannot be legally Indian, nor can she b

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