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.


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

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 |   [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. — 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 . [] Who is Archbishop Edgar Robinson Peña Parra ? Parra according to the Catholic Herald is Francis's "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