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.
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.
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.
(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.
