Fr. Nix: "Stealing the White House doesn't make you President any more than Stealing the Vatican." & Is Taylor Marshall still Afraid to Debate Fr. Nix?
Today, Fr. David Nix, on Twitter, said:
The statement reminded the Catholic Monitor that Taylor Marshall never responded to its 2019 request to debate
his "resignationalist" frequent quest co-host Fr. Nix on the validity of
Pope Benedict XVI's resignation. So, its seemed like a good time re-post the piece and request:
"Bishop Gracida of Texas is a great hero of mine for publicly questioning the valid resignation of Pope Benedict XVI. I know for a fact that at least one other Cardinal in the world is questioning this, too. But even if you do not buy our 'resignationalist' approach to the current crisis, then at least ask this: Where are all the bishops denouncing the weekly heresy that we are now hearing from the top down?.. Here is why: The end does not justify the means, whether those means be sins of commission or omission. Have you ever thought of the fact that sins of omission do not justify a good end?"
(PadrePeregrino.org, "Courage over Consequentialism in the Hierarchy," March, 3, 2019)
Magnanimously, Marshall, who is 100 % against the “resignationalist” questioning of the "valid resignation of Pope Benedict XVI," has allowed Fr. Nix to, at times, co-host with him on his show.
The anti-resignationalist Marshall in his new book said:
"My response to... Benedict resigned under duress or fear. He claims that he did not and without knowing anything more, we cannot claim it to be so."
(Infiltration, Page 237)
As we shall see Marshall does "know... more."
Marshall, who apparently has no legal background, seems to think because Benedict XVI "claims that he did not" resign under duress there is not a case to be made that a elderly person could have been under pressure despite claiming that he wasn't under duress.
Marshall made this same claim in one of his YouTube TnT shows about a month ago to his co-host Timothy Gordon who went to law school. Gordon explained that under the law a person could have been under duress despite claiming he wasn't under duress.
Strangely enough when I went to the YouTube playlist so I could quote the show it appears to be listed as "Deleted video."
It is possible I could be wrong, but all the other videos within the same time frame don't cover this subject.
This back and forth in the video stuck to my memory because of the emotion I saw when Gordon contradicted Marshall's claim explaining that under the law someone could be under duress despite claiming not to have been.
Marshall at that moment had a displeased look that appeared to be anger for a moment and then recovered his poker face when his co-host showed it was possible Benedict resigned because of pressure despite claiming otherwise.
The strange thing is that Marshall himself narrated the duress or pressure that Benedict was in at the time in his August 27, 2018 YouTube video "Dr. Taylor Marshall ties together Vatican financial scandal with homosexual activity":
"First of, Vigano blew the whistle on money laundering."
"Two, the accusations of money laundering leads to the Vatileaks scandal."
"Three, the Vatileaks scandal leads Benedict to form a secret investigation with three cardinals."
"Four, those three cardinals expose moral rot, sexual deviancy, that is paired up with financial irregularity."
"This is what moves the Pope to resignation. And just to make sure there is enough pressure on him to do it and do it quick something funny goes on with the Vatican Bank beginning on January 1, 2013."
"And it seems the powerful cardinals within Vatican City wanted it to happen fast because they don't want the 300 page dossier released to the public because there is moral scandal in those pages."
"That binder was left with Pope Francis, but nothing has been done. And what we see is that those who were oppose to Benedict XVI theologically, but also on administration, have been reinvolved, reinstated and promoted."
Why is Marshall now saying there is no possibility that Benedict resigned because of pressure or duress thus possibly making it invalid?
Even pro-Francis Cardinal Walter Kasper and canon law expert Nicholas Cafardi say that it is "difficult, if not impossible" for a pope to resign "if a political faction in the Church is trying to force it."
(Reuters, "Can the pope's accusers force him to resign?", September 3018 and LifeSiteNews, Cdl. Kasper: A 'forced resignation' of Pope Francis would be invalid," January 30, 2019)
[https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.lifesitenews.com/mobile/news/cardinal-kasper-a-forced-resignation-of-pope-francis-would-be-invalid#ampshare=https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/cardinal-kasper-a-forced-resignation-of-pope-francis-would-be-invalid and https://www.google.com/amp/s/mobile.reuters.com/article/amp/idUSKCN1LN1IL#ampshare=https://www.reuters.com/article/us-pope-abuse-law/can-the-popes-accusers-force-him-to-resign-idUSKCN1LN1IL]
If Kasper and canon law expert Cafardi are right that it is "difficult, if not impossible" for a pope to resign "if a political faction in the Church if trying to force it" then Pope Benedict XVI probably, if not for sure, is still Pope which would mean Francis is not a valid or real pope.
Was there "a political faction in the Church trying to force" Benedict to resign which put into "doubt... whether the situation [Benedict was] in... really allow[ed] for a free choice" as Cafardi said to Reuters?
Was Benedict's stepping down "a forced resignation [which] would [make it] invalid" according to Kasper and canon law expert Cafardi?
Was there "a political faction in the Church trying to force" Benedict to resign?
Respected pro-gay Italian journalist Emiliano Fittipaldi, one of two journalists charged in the Vatileaks trial in the Vatican court for obtaining confidential Church papers, inferred that "a political faction in the Church [was] trying to force" Benedict to resign:
“Ratzinger [Pope Benedict XVI]... was very traditionalist and conservative... but he did important things. The things he did in relation to pedophilia, which was not much, but double the time for prescribing crimes in the Vatican, sent away almost 600 priests in a few years. The incredible thing is that Francis did a lot less."
"... The story of the gay lobby has... importance in the Vatileaks and the dismissal of Pope Ratzinger... He destroyed the careers of those who were with them. To stop this group, a group of supporters of Ratzinger began to issue a series of documents, which was called Vatileaks... He destroyed the careers of those who were with them. To stop this group, a group of supporters of Ratzinger began to issue a series of documents, which was called Vatileaks. I can say this shock, this war of [Vatileaks] documents led to the end of Ratzinger."
"... Ratzinger made... war against pedophilia... [h]e just started and resigned."
But, getting back to Marshall, since he is being so magnanimous in allowing resignationalist Fr. Nix to, at times, co-host with him on his show, it seems that he should have a friendly debate on the open question on if Pope Benedict's resignation was valid or not with his resignationalist frequent guest co-host.
Hopefully, Marshall is confident enough in his facts against the resignationalist questioning of the Benedict abdication to not be afraid to debate Fr. Nix on the subject.
Also, maybe in the debate Nix will let us know who the "Cardinal... questioning" the "valid resignation of Pope Benedict" is.
Pray an Our Father now that that cardinal receive the grace of courage to join Bishop René Gracida in calling for an cardinal investigation into the Pope Benedict resignation and the Francis conclave.