Flashback: Why is Taylor Marshall accusing the Open Letter Signatories & Cdl. Muller of Promoting Sedevacantism?..."[Cdl. Muller said] No pope alone if he spoke ex cathedra could make possible the ordination of women"
 Taylor Marshall has never apologized for his most vicious comment: Telling people who doubt that Francis is pope that, in attending a Mass where the priest commemorates Francis in the Canon, they are committing the mortal sin of schism. And then he twisted the knife: Good luck finding a Mass where Benedict is commemorated in the Canon. The evidence that Benedict is pope is abundant, and the evidence that Bergoglio is not pope is triply so. "SedevacantISM," in a modern context, is the belief that there has been no pope since 1958. It is not "sedevacantISM" to hold that there is evidence that, for the past six years, either that we have had no pope, or that the true pope has been falsely believed to have resigned. Using the word "sedevacantISM" to squelch discussion is a sign of deep, entrenched intellectual dishonesty. Dr. Taylor Marshall is apparently accusing the Open Letter signatories and Cardinal Gerhard Muller of promoting sedevacantism. Marshall the co-host on the YouTube "TnT" show said: "[Cardinal Muller said] No pope alone if he spoke ex cathedra could make possible the ordination of women... It seems to be if the pope came out and said ex cathedra 'Women are to be ordained to the sacred order of the deaconate...'" "You have only two options at that point. One, it's true. That is Divine Revelation that God revealed. I can't see how it works. Or second, the pope ain't the pope. sedevacantist." (YouTube, TnT, Dr. Taylor Marshall, "What about Married Deacons, Minor Orders, and So-Called Women Deacons?," Time 18:15 to 19:02) In Twitter, Nick Donnelly wrote: | ||
"Bishop Schneider tells Raymond Arroyo that the [the Open Letter] signatories were wrong to accuse Francis of heresy because he hasn't made a formal, universal declaration of heresy. Though he admits he has allowed wrong teaching Very disappointing hair splitting." | ||
In responding to Donnelly's statement, Marshall apparently is implicitly saying Doctor of the Church St. Francis de Sales is promoting "sedevacantis[m]":
"I agree w Bishop Schneider. If you condemn Francis as “heretical pope” one must break communion with him. This is why I called the doc “practically sedevacantist”. It’s not formally sede but the natural conclusion [what it ultimately promotes] is."
[https://mobile.twitter.com/TaylorRMarshall/status/1129334902153986050]
Doctor of the Church St. Francis de Sales wrote:
"Thus we do not say that the Pope cannot err in his private opinion, as did John XXIL.; or be altogether a heretic, as perhaps Honorius was. Now 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, and must say as S. Peter did: 'Let another take his bishopric.'"
(The Catholic Controversy by St. Francis de Sales, Pages 305-306)
Marshall appears to be saying by inference that the Doctor of the Church is promoting "sedevacantis[m]" by "natural conclusion" when he wrote:
"[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."
Do Marshall and Schneider think they are greater theologians than St. Francis de Sales?
Do Marshall and Schneider think that the Church can't depose a pope contradicting a Doctor of the Church or possibly that magically the Church doesn't have to "condemn Francis as [a] 'heretical pope'" before it "either deprive him, or, as some say, declare him deprived, of his Apostolic See"?
According to Donnelly, Bishop Athanasius Schneider said "the signatories were wrong to accuse Francis of heresy because he hasn't made a formal, universal declaration of heresy."
Marshall agreed with this statement.
Are Schneider and Marshall waiting for "a formal, universal declaration of heresy" such as this:
Not privately, but Pope Francis officially acting as the pope explicitly contradicted traditional Catholic teaching on divorce and remarriage when he in a "official act as the pope" placed the Argentine letter in the the Acts of the Apostolic See (AAS) in which he said of the Buenos Aires region episcopal guidelines:
"There is no other interpretations."
The guidelines explicitly allows according to LifeSiteNews "sexuality active adulterous couples facing 'complex circumstances' to 'access the sacraments of Reconciliation and the Eucharist.'"
(LifeSiteNews, "Confusion explodes as Pope Francis throws magisterial weight behind communion for adulterers, December 4, 2017)
In a article on OnePeterFive, specialist in Magisterial authority Dr. John Joy said "It means that it is an official act of the pope."
Moreover, the article said:
"Dr. Joy pointed out that adding the letter to the AAS could, in fact, damage the credibility of Amoris Laetitia by potentially removing the possibility that it could be intercepted in an orthodox way, via its publication in the official acts of the Apostolic See, that the unorthodox interpretation is the official one."
(OnePeterFive, "Pope's Letter on Argentinian Communion Guidelines for Remarriage Given Official Status," December 2, 2017)
The "official act of" Francis is a "unorthodox interpretation."
It is not just a private contradiction of traditional Catholic teaching.
The "official act of the pope" is a "unorthodox interpretation" which means it contradicts traditional Catholic teaching which is just another way of saying by "official act the pope" is teaching heresy.
Now, let us quote philosopher Ed Feser:
"(1) Adulterous sexual acts are in some special circumstances morally permissible... these propositions flatly contradict irreformable Catholic teaching. Proposition (1) contradicts not only the perennial moral teaching of the Church, but the teaching of scripture itself."
(Edwardfeser.blogspot, "Denial flows into the Tiber," December 18, 2016)
How's that for an understatement?
Marshall and Schneider might have heard that God commanded in one of the Ten Commandments:
"Thou shalt not commit adultery."
But, just in case they never heard of the Ten Commandments, Dubia Cardinal Walter Brandmuller said:
"Whoever thinks that persistent adultery and reception of Holy Communion are compatible is a heretic and promotes schism."
(LifeSiteNews, "Dubia Cardinal: Anyone who Opens Communion to Adulterers a Heretic and Promotes Schism," December 23, 2016)
Does this mean because Cardinal Brandmuller said that if a pope "open[ed] Communion to adulterers" he is "a heretic and promotes schism" that according to Marshall by inference he is a "sede" by "natural conclusion"?
How's that for an understatement?
Marshall and Schneider might have heard that God commanded in one of the Ten Commandments:
"Thou shalt not commit adultery."
But, just in case they never heard of the Ten Commandments, Dubia Cardinal Walter Brandmuller said:
"Whoever thinks that persistent adultery and reception of Holy Communion are compatible is a heretic and promotes schism."
(LifeSiteNews, "Dubia Cardinal: Anyone who Opens Communion to Adulterers a Heretic and Promotes Schism," December 23, 2016)
Does this mean because Cardinal Brandmuller said that if a pope "open[ed] Communion to adulterers" he is "a heretic and promotes schism" that according to Marshall by inference he is a "sede" by "natural conclusion"?
Getting back to St. Francis de Sales' teaching that heretical popes can be deposed by the Church, just in case Schneider and Marshall don't think the Doctor of the Church knew what he was talking about here are some of his credentials as a great theologian. The Catholic websites Word on Fire and Catholic Culture.org wrote:
- "In addition to his devotional and apologetical writings, he also was a brilliant theologian who helped orchestrate something of a cease-fire in the debates between the Dominicans and Jesuits on grace and predestination. He also wrote the mystical Treatise on the Love of God, of which Pope Benedict XVI said: 'In an intensely flourishing season of mysticism The Treatise on the Love of God was a true and proper summa and at the same time a fascinating literary work.'”
- "The special importance of the teaching of St. Francis de Sales: The thought of this Doctor of the Church is of special importance since the Pope himself followed the advice of St. Francis in putting an end to the debates De Auxiliis. Pope Pius IX reports it as follows:1 '. . . our Predecessor of holy memory, Paul V, when the famous debate De Auxiliis was being held at Rome decided to ask the opinion of this Bishop on the matter and, following his advice, judged that this most subtle question, full of danger, and agitated long and keenly, should be laid to rest, and that silence should be imposed on the parties.' The special importance of his teaching is even clearer from the words of Pius XI:2 'But taking the opportunity, he lucidly explained the most difficult questions, such as efficacious grace, predestination, and the call to the faith.'"
But, again, just in case Schneider and Marshall need St. Francis de Sales' credentials as a great theologian on matters dealing with papal theology explained by another anti-Open Letter conservative Catholic here is what pro-Francis Dave Armstrong wrote about the Doctor of the Church:
"Historically, there were many expressions similar to 'papal infallibility', such as: papal authority, papal primacy, headship, papal supremacy, Roman primacy, etc. All of those can be traced back to very early times. Papal infallibility developed (i.e., became more fully understood in its detail) just as all Christian doctrines do."
"But if we restrict ourselves to uses of the word infallibility itself, (and with direct reference to the pope), one notable historical use comes from a Doctor of the Church, St. Francis de Sales, and his book, The Catholic Controversy, completed in 1596. Note how remarkably it anticipates the later fully developed dogma of papal infallibility, as pronounced at the First Vatican Council in 1870 (274 years before it):
Also, it appears that Schneider and Marshall, although good men, appear cowardly when compared to St. Athanasius.
Athanasius demanded the Arian semi-heretical and heretical Church leaders of his time be deposed unless they repented.
Schneider and Marshall are directly contradicting the traditional teaching of Doctor of the Church St. Francis de Sales in saying the Church can't depose a heretical pope.
And in saying there is no formal Church definition saying the Church can depose a heretical pope so let's sit in our hands they are showing they are very unlike Athanasius.
Again, Athanasius shows Schneider and Marshall to be a bit cowardly as compared to him by his defense of the as yet not formally defined traditional teaching that Jesus is God and demanding a Church formal definition that Jesus is God.
We need to act like Athanasius did, and not act like Schneider and Marshall, in demanding that the traditional teaching that a heretical pope can be deposed be formally defined by the Church.
Sadly, the sincere Schneider and Marshall are apparently like many good men in the Church in our time and I hope they prove me wrong. They speak well of the truths of the Church, but are afraid to act on those truths.
There is only one bishop in our time acting with the bravery of St. Athanasius. That is Bishop Rene Gracida.
All good, but fearful Catholics needs to hear the following:
- Bishop Fulton Sheen:
"Cowards go to Hell. Never forget that. No matter what happens in your life never forget that basic truth."
(CatholicMilitant.com, "Saints and Popes Quotes")
- Pope Pius IX (1792-1878)
"If a future pope teaches anything contrary to the Catholic Faith, do not follow him. (Letter to Bishop Brizen)"
- Francisco Suarez S. J. (1548-1617)
"If the pope gives an order contrary to right customs, he should not be obeyed; if he attempts to do something manifestly opposed to justice and the common good, it will be lawful to resist him; if he attacks by force, by force he can be repelled, with a moderation appropriate to a just defence. (De Fide, Disp. X, Sec. VI, N. 16)"
- St. Robert Bellarmine, S. J. (1542-1621)
"Just as it is lawful to resist the pope that attacks the body, it is also lawful to resist the one who attacks souls or who disturbs civil order, or, above all, who attempts to destroy the Church. I say that it is lawful to resist him by not doing what he orders and preventing his will from being executed. (De Romano Pontifice, Lib. II, Ch. 29)"
[https://www.patheos.com/blogs/davearmstrong/2018/10/resisting-heretic-popes-classic-catholic-reflections.html]
Pray an Our Father now for the restoration of the Church.
"But if we restrict ourselves to uses of the word infallibility itself, (and with direct reference to the pope), one notable historical use comes from a Doctor of the Church, St. Francis de Sales, and his book, The Catholic Controversy, completed in 1596. Note how remarkably it anticipates the later fully developed dogma of papal infallibility, as pronounced at the First Vatican Council in 1870 (274 years before it):
'When he teaches the whole Church as shepherd, in general matters of faith and morals, then there is nothing but doctrine and truth. And in fact everything a king says is not a law or an edict, but that only which a king says as king and as a legislator. So everything the Pope says is not canon law or of legal obligation; he must mean to define and to lay down the law for the sheep, and he must keep the due order and form.'
'We must not think that in everything and everywhere his judgment is infallible, but then only when he gives judgment on a matter of faith in questions necessary to the whole Church; for in particular cases which depend on human fact he can err, there is no doubt, though it is not for us to control him in these cases save with all reverence, submission, and discretion. Theologians have said, in a word, that he can err in questions of fact, not in questions of right; that he can err extra cathedram, outside the chair of Peter. that is, as a private individual, by writings and bad example.'
'But he cannot err when he is in cathedra, that is, when he intends to make an instruction and decree for the guidance of the whole Church, when he means to confirm his brethren as supreme pastor, and to conduct them into the pastures of the faith. For then it is not so much man who determines, resolves, and defines as it is the Blessed Holy Spirit by man, which Spirit, according to the promise made by Our Lord to the Apostles, teaches all truth to the Church.' (The Catholic Controversy, translated by Henry B. Mackey, Rockford, Illinois: TAN Books, 1989, 306-307)"
Schneider and Marshall, although good men, appear not to be great theologians when compared to St. Francis de Sales.Also, it appears that Schneider and Marshall, although good men, appear cowardly when compared to St. Athanasius.
Athanasius demanded the Arian semi-heretical and heretical Church leaders of his time be deposed unless they repented.
Schneider and Marshall are directly contradicting the traditional teaching of Doctor of the Church St. Francis de Sales in saying the Church can't depose a heretical pope.
And in saying there is no formal Church definition saying the Church can depose a heretical pope so let's sit in our hands they are showing they are very unlike Athanasius.
Again, Athanasius shows Schneider and Marshall to be a bit cowardly as compared to him by his defense of the as yet not formally defined traditional teaching that Jesus is God and demanding a Church formal definition that Jesus is God.
We need to act like Athanasius did, and not act like Schneider and Marshall, in demanding that the traditional teaching that a heretical pope can be deposed be formally defined by the Church.
Sadly, the sincere Schneider and Marshall are apparently like many good men in the Church in our time and I hope they prove me wrong. They speak well of the truths of the Church, but are afraid to act on those truths.
There is only one bishop in our time acting with the bravery of St. Athanasius. That is Bishop Rene Gracida.
All good, but fearful Catholics needs to hear the following:
- Bishop Fulton Sheen:
"Cowards go to Hell. Never forget that. No matter what happens in your life never forget that basic truth."
(CatholicMilitant.com, "Saints and Popes Quotes")
- Pope Pius IX (1792-1878)
"If a future pope teaches anything contrary to the Catholic Faith, do not follow him. (Letter to Bishop Brizen)"
- Francisco Suarez S. J. (1548-1617)
"If the pope gives an order contrary to right customs, he should not be obeyed; if he attempts to do something manifestly opposed to justice and the common good, it will be lawful to resist him; if he attacks by force, by force he can be repelled, with a moderation appropriate to a just defence. (De Fide, Disp. X, Sec. VI, N. 16)"
- St. Robert Bellarmine, S. J. (1542-1621)
"Just as it is lawful to resist the pope that attacks the body, it is also lawful to resist the one who attacks souls or who disturbs civil order, or, above all, who attempts to destroy the Church. I say that it is lawful to resist him by not doing what he orders and preventing his will from being executed. (De Romano Pontifice, Lib. II, Ch. 29)"
[https://www.patheos.com/blogs/davearmstrong/2018/10/resisting-heretic-popes-classic-catholic-reflections.html]
Pray an Our Father now for the restoration of the Church.
Comments
“Cowards go to hell.” - Bishop Sheen
“Don’t call Bergoglio a heretic unless you want to be called (gasp) .... sedevacantist! Taylor Marshall.
It is what it is Taylor. I have no interest in devoting my life to his earth Wicca religion. No way did I sign up for that.
“Don’t call Bergoglio a heretic unless you want to be called (gasp) .... sedevacantist! Taylor Marshall.
It is what it is Taylor. I have no interest in devoting my life to his earth Wicca religion. No way did I sign up for that.
Francis has spent six years just about begging for the label of "Antipope." I wouldn't want to deny that to him.
What really gets me is that despite the evidence that has been present for a while, he absolutely REFUSES to acknowledge that Benedict could still be pope. Not even a consideration. Rejects it flat out. His "sedevacantism" claim would vanish if he just acknowledged that Francis' blathering and anti-Christian activities are only possible because he was never pope. Our Lord would not allow a Vicar of Christ to do that to His Church. An anti-pope, yes. A pope, no.
Why does anyone give Taylor Marshall aka "The Milkman" the time of day?
Taylor Marshall has never apologized for his most vicious comment: Telling people who doubt that Francis is pope that, in attending a Mass where the priest commemorates Francis in the Canon, they are committing the mortal sin of schism. And then he twisted the knife: Good luck finding a Mass where Benedict is commemorated in the Canon.
The evidence that Benedict is pope is abundant, and the evidence that Bergoglio is not pope is triply so.
"SedevacantISM," in a modern context, is the belief that there has been no pope since 1958. It is not "sedevacantISM" to hold that there is evidence that, for the past six years, either that we have had no pope, or that the true pope has been falsely believed to have resigned. Using the word "sedevacantISM" to squelch discussion is a sign of deep, entrenched intellectual dishonesty.
The evidence that Benedict is pope is abundant, and the evidence that Bergoglio is not pope is triply so.
"SedevacantISM," in a modern context, is the belief that there has been no pope since 1958. It is not "sedevacantISM" to hold that there is evidence that, for the past six years, either that we have had no pope, or that the true pope has been falsely believed to have resigned. Using the word "sedevacantISM" to squelch discussion is a sign of deep, entrenched intellectual dishonesty.
Exactly Father. He's never walked it back or apologized. And now I can truly no longer listen to him on TnT. I was surprised to see his tweet still up there after Ann's total smack down. I fear I don't understand how a seemingly good Catholic cannot see his errors when they're pointed out to him.
Well weren't they both former Anglicans? That may explain it. Also, Marshall tells Catholics who believe Bergolio isn't really pope to not go to mass. That's Satanic.
Fr. VF, Could not agree more. This term has gotten a bad rap and is being misused for malign purposes.
I highly recommend reading “The Secret Of Benedict XVI - Still The Pope”, by Antonio Socci. It is unbelievably good.
He not only makes the obvious comprehensive case for what happened and why, Truth to the nth power, he is making the case that what Benedict XVI did was not a strange, random, practical choice at all .... but is in direct response to God Himself in intimate conversation - Papal communion with his Lord Jesus Christ. In a way that Prophets are always closely linked to the mind and will of Almighty God, Benedict XVI has been and currently is profoundly connected to God in “prayer and contemplation” and is now doing His precise will.
He did what he did because God directed him to do so.
It is time for judgement and vengeance against evil people and this is part of God’s plan to bring righteous wrath down on their heads. At the same time it is time for God’s mercy, a time for restoration and healing for those whose faith has been attacked by these evil men. The Zchirch is full of filth. These people think they are having a party. They are merely the substance in a boil that is being lanced.
Pope Benedict clearly states he intends to devote his remaining life in full to “prayer and contemplation”. Evil men dismiss and laugh at “prayer and contemplation” ... reflecting their own barren lives. The See Of Peter is all that matters to them - Bishop of Rome; Governor of the world spanning Church; maker of rules; commander of obedience. Prayer?! Contemplation?! Yeah, yeah, that’s what old people with a lot of time on their hands do.
Holy and righteous men, however, know that “prayer and contemplation” is essentially the *entire point* of being Pope. That *is* the Office of Moses whose true power came from his moments on the Mountains; his moments in the Cloud amidst the Holy Temple; direct communion between Almighty God and his chosen Vicar, Prophet, King.
The See Of Rome without the Munus is like the camp of Israel before the Golden Calf. God is not there. Great evil is being done. Yes, Aaron is *in charge*. No, Aaron is not an agent of God. God’s agent is on the Mountain. Their time is almost up.
I highly recommend reading “The Secret Of Benedict XVI - Still The Pope”, by Antonio Socci. It is unbelievably good.
He not only makes the obvious comprehensive case for what happened and why, Truth to the nth power, he is making the case that what Benedict XVI did was not a strange, random, practical choice at all .... but is in direct response to God Himself in intimate conversation - Papal communion with his Lord Jesus Christ. In a way that Prophets are always closely linked to the mind and will of Almighty God, Benedict XVI has been and currently is profoundly connected to God in “prayer and contemplation” and is now doing His precise will.
He did what he did because God directed him to do so.
It is time for judgement and vengeance against evil people and this is part of God’s plan to bring righteous wrath down on their heads. At the same time it is time for God’s mercy, a time for restoration and healing for those whose faith has been attacked by these evil men. The Zchirch is full of filth. These people think they are having a party. They are merely the substance in a boil that is being lanced.
Pope Benedict clearly states he intends to devote his remaining life in full to “prayer and contemplation”. Evil men dismiss and laugh at “prayer and contemplation” ... reflecting their own barren lives. The See Of Peter is all that matters to them - Bishop of Rome; Governor of the world spanning Church; maker of rules; commander of obedience. Prayer?! Contemplation?! Yeah, yeah, that’s what old people with a lot of time on their hands do.
Holy and righteous men, however, know that “prayer and contemplation” is essentially the *entire point* of being Pope. That *is* the Office of Moses whose true power came from his moments on the Mountains; his moments in the Cloud amidst the Holy Temple; direct communion between Almighty God and his chosen Vicar, Prophet, King.
The See Of Rome without the Munus is like the camp of Israel before the Golden Calf. God is not there. Great evil is being done. Yes, Aaron is *in charge*. No, Aaron is not an agent of God. God’s agent is on the Mountain. Their time is almost up.
I believe Tim is a life long Catholic. And personnally, I don't believe being a convert explains much at all. It's something else. Whatever it is, it's infected Skojec and Marshall the same.
Striking comparison:
"The See Of Rome without the Munus is like the camp of Israel before the Golden Calf. God is not there." Around 22 minutes Abp Fulton Sheen offers the observation that in the end the "Church" would be about politics and that maybe "She" was already there in the 20th Century. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kpGm9pVHkc0
"The See Of Rome without the Munus is like the camp of Israel before the Golden Calf. God is not there." Around 22 minutes Abp Fulton Sheen offers the observation that in the end the "Church" would be about politics and that maybe "She" was already there in the 20th Century. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kpGm9pVHkc0
BTW: "Sedevacantism" is NOT A HERESY. It is the judgment that the Roman See is vacant. This is something which undoubtedly happens every time a pope dies. All reasonable people were "sedevacantists" twice in 1978, once in 2005. Was the See vacant in 2013? Is the See vacant right now? It is NOT A HERESY to have doubts about these questions. It is illegitimate to throw around "sedevacantist" as a devil-word, simply to shut down discussion.
Aqua: The only theory about Benedict's "resignation" (valid or invalid) that makes sense to me is that the whole point of it was to allow the freaks to run riot, to come out of the woodwork and from under the rocks. Only eight bishops voted against Bergoglio's death penalty heresy. The majority of American bishops are pro-abortion Democrats, many of them overtly so. Bishop Strickland praises Bishop Seitz for crossing the border and bringing illegal aliens (who vote 80% pro-abortion) into the U.S. James Martin and Emma Bonino are the darlings of the "papacy" now.
Fr. VF, Socci directly addresses that fact: the Church is infested with evil. Pope Benedict XVI resigned at the direction of God Himself to bring that evil out of dark corners and into the light. Pope Benedict XVI was called by God Himself “up the mountain” to communicate directly with God in intercession and protection of the small holy remnant that remains. The evil is being purged. Pope Benedict XVI protects the Holy Bride through intercession - prayer and contemplation with Holy God who is rising in wrath.
Get real and stop being selfrighteous....Taylor is wrong. He made a MISTAKE...I'm a big fan of TnT and watch many of their videos....In fact, they unlike many Trads are not afraid to ask the big questions regarding the colossal tragedy of Vatll and the conciliar popes.
TomHealey: Which mistake? Wrong about what? I missed that part.
“Don’t call Bergoglio a heretic unless you want to be called (gasp) .... sedevacantist! Taylor Marshall.
It is what it is Taylor. I have no interest in devoting my life to his earth Wicca religion. No way did I sign up for that.