(LifeSiteNews) — In a wide-ranging print interview with Dr. Taylor Marshall, Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò has stated that he considers Pope Francis to be an “anti-Pope” and that Benedict XVI’s resignation in 2013 was “certainly invalid” due to its “procedural defects.”
“The invention of the ‘papacy Emeritus’ further undermined the Petrine Primacy and opened the way to that ‘shared papacy’ — in a surreal division of munus and ministerium without any theological or canonical basis — which is today evolving into a reinterpretation of the role of the Pontiff in an ecumenical key,” His Excellency said.
Continuing, Viganò charged that Benedict XVI’s “redefinition of the Petrine institution and his creation of the ‘papacy emeritus’ constitute the maximum expression of the heretical instances of Ratzingerian theology, and as such must be the object of a very precise condemnation, together with other heresies (well highlighted by the studies of eminent Professor Radaelli) that the German theologian never disavowed.”
Marshall is a popular Texas-based Traditional Catholic author and podcaster. He recently sent a list of questions to Viganò, the former Apostolic Nuncio to the United States. Marshall, who released the interview in two parts on YouTube, asked the archbishop about the Third Secret of Fatima as well as the Vatican Bank, Summorum Pontificum, and a variety of other topics pertaining to the papacy and the duties of Traditional priests.
In his lengthy response, Viganò said, “I consider Jorge Mario Bergoglio an anti-Pope — or better said, a counter-pope, a usurper, an emissary of the anti-Catholic lobby that has infiltrated the Church for decades.”
Deo Gratias!!! Please everyone, double down on your prayers for Vigano. This is a real game changer and the freemasonic deep-state is going to seek revenge on him.
Notice what he says about sedevacantism …
Haven’t listened to these yet, but in the excerpt that Barnhardt posted, he didn’t refute SVism except to say is was not true. Can you point me to the mark where he talks about it? And really ANYTHING Marshall is involved in is questionable. The guy is a snake.
Right, Sedevacantism is not True. They’re not a remnant. They’re a multi-generational club that voluntarily broke from the Church over Vatican 2. This action actually strengthened Vatican 2 and allowed the Church hierarchy to impose its errors. Good job, guys. The Church can only be healed from within. Take care.
Haha….I listened to the SVism/Sedeprivationism portion and just as I figured there was zero argumentation against them.zero. As to Our Lord not allowing the disappearance of valid clergy or sacraments, he’s correct and they haven’t disappeared….we have valid clergy in the sede groups and even the SSPX.
Kono, actually he does cite one argument, that 65 years is too long of a vacante, which is an invalid argument! After all, it is he who now openly supports an 11 year vacante… so who gets to say how long is too long? And yes I already know all the old 58sede arguments about the innumerable times God chose to let His people suffer for very long periods. What the archbishop gets right, however, is in condemning the idea that the 58sedes are the sole Remnant. THAT, my dear friend, is the rabbit hole Fr. Cekada went down, and never came back. I’ve read all his essays about how all the sacraments/ordinations are invalid. It is insanity, and clearly so. It was exactly the cudgel he needed to get people to “convert,” and he never let it go. That was the exact The moment I learned, via the indoctrination pamphlets at my local CMRI, that to be a 58sede, I had to believe the entire Church was invalid other than the 58sedes, is what stopped me in my tracks.
Point of order: he supports a 2 year, not eleven year, vacancy. Which is well within reason, no matter what measure is used.
And, as for myself, I would say that one decade would be reason to question, one generation would be more than enough reason to be uncertain, and two generations would be indicative of falsity.
Seventy years? More than seventy years? Tough to justify, even if in the realms of historical possibility.
He may have been a heretic and a monster, but…
“I beseech you, in the bowels of Christ, think it possible that you may be mistaken.”
Sede Commentary:
Regarding this: “…actually he does cite one argument, that 65 years is too long of a vacante, which is an invalid argument!”
It’s true that it’s an invalid argument, since the matter (as I was explaining at dinner on Saturday) is not a question of mere years. It’s a question of whether what occurs in the meantime ends up destroying the essential character of the Church.
A different commentator points out that we can still have validly ordained clergy despite a long period without a pope (correct) but fails to address the question of ordinary jurisdiction. Bishops can only acquire ordinary jurisdiction with papal approval. If Pius XII were the last valid pope, then there would be no bishops with ordinary jurisdiction today (the last Pius XII-appointed bishop died in 2020). Without ordinary jurisdiction, there is no hierarchy and thus no visible Church, which in turn undermines indefectibility.
Classical sedevacantism (going back to 1958) is not heretical but has been suspect of heresy since 2020, since its logical conclusion results in the practical doubt or denial of a dogma (the apostolicity of the Church): https://dorothealudwigwang.com/p/a-short-refutation-of-sedevacantism.
Ironically enough, the failure to distinguish between orders and jurisdiction is related to the conciliar error of collegiality: https://dorothealudwigwang.com/p/collegiality-and-the-canonical-situation.
The theological question I’d like to ask, on the other hand, is at what point can we be certain that the validity of a certain papacy is a dogmatic fact (a secondary object of infallibility)? With regard to Francis, I would like to allow some room for debate, because if he ends up not being a true pope, the nature of the Church would not be destroyed (as there are still bishops with ordinary jurisdiction appointed by Benedict XVI). On the other hand, there are many things that occur in the meantime that are also predicated upon knowing validity at the moment. Perhaps one can resolve this by saying that there is a lesser grade of certitude “in the moment” and a higher one as time goes on (which is why I’d propose that classical sedevacantism became a less probable opinion as time went on, until it became impossible in 2020).
jmarrenjr:
That’s what I’ve been trying to say. Paleosedevacantism seems to contradict traditional Catholic theology, especially the dogma–as the Church taught before Vatican II–of indefectabity, which requires formal apostolic succession. It cannot defect until the end of time. The only way I see to answer this is to claim that time ended around Vatican II. Or the idea that the Church has material popes but no formal pop-e-but is a novel teaching not anticipated in dogmatic theology.
In the dogmatic theology manual that I read it says two things: 1) the identity of the pope is a dogmatic fact; 2) and that if a pope’s legitimacy is doubtful, it is not schism to not consider him the pope. Given the sordid history of antipopes, I’ve grappled with this conoundrum by conjecturing it to mean that a legitimate election CAUSES the pope to be universally accepted. A legitimate election is not the EFFECT of universal acceptance. Even if all the bishops were to agree that Hillary Clinton was the pope she could not be the pope because she cannot legitimately hold office, being a woman and non-Catholic. In the same way if the office was held by someone else, not even all the bishops saying so would make it a legitimate election.
T,
I love reading the comments because of comments like yours, honestly grappling with complex conundrums, willing to admit the answers are not necessarily clear although the path to clarity is relatively certain.
What I know about the Catholic Faith is that it is a struggle – there is no magic wand and pixie dust and the eureka moment when all spiritual struggles are easily ended. In my readings of the Saints, take St John of the Cross for instance, Saints Thomas Aquinas and Augustine whom I just finished reading about, their ultimate possession of God and the answers, (dimly discovered even at the end they would admit), was at the end of a *LIFETIME* of single-minded devotion to the pursuit of knowledge of and then union with God.
And so comments like yours, different perspectives, are helpful along the way. These days will not provide easy answers and simple solutions. One thing is clear, however …
“6 Seek ye the Lord while he may be found, call ye upon him while he is near:
7 Let the wicked forsake his way, and the unrighteous man his thoughts: and let him return unto the Lord, and he will have mercy upon him; and to our God, for he will abundantly pardon.” (Is 55:6,7)
We must pursue dogmatic and theological Truth – but only in pursuit of the one, true purpose … possession of and possessed by God.
Are you still with the CMRI?
Gia, I was never “with” the CMRI. But I have been to Masses there. They have valid orders and valid sacraments.
Mark, there is no pope to definitively settle the matter, so these theories are just that, theories. Fr. Cekada could be wrong.
As to Vigano, he and slick Marshall in 2020 attended a interreligious “Judeo-Christian” prayer meeting. And that was after he (Vigano) declared earlier that year that VII and it’s Assisi interfaith meetings was the beginning of a parallel Church.
I certainly don’t trust Marshall and to my knowledge he has never claimed to be a benevacantist, yet he promotes Vigano. The whole thing is weird.
Kono, Marshall is Trad Inc. Your suspicions are well founded.
It’s Sunday and I should probably try to comment charitably but I must agree with Kono regarding her “reptilian” assessment of Taylor Marshall…..still can’t get him to confirm/deny his $5,000,000 net worth.
Plus, didn’t Taylor provide $$$ to help stage the whole Pachamama Tiber dunk and retrieval?
It the eyes are the windows to the soul…..
Back in the day when I lived on Long Island, NY I was an attendee at the SSPX chapel staffed by Fathers Kelly, Sanborn, Dolan, Cekada et al and knew all in the “nascent” stages of their priesthood – amazes me how things developed.
What possessed Vigano to proclaim Donald Trump as the “katechon?” I’ve come to realize (in part to Michael Yon’s uncompromising search and revelation of truth) that Trump is an “uber zionist” as is Vance. Hard to believe Vigano missed this.
As for me, I’m focused on what can be, unburdened by what has been 😉
p.s I wonder if Vigano knew Cardinal Giuseppe Siri and the culprit who generated all that white smoke on the first day of the balloting conclave that eventually resulted in the election of John XXIII?
Not all sede groups hold that dogmatic position. There is a reason why Fr. Cekada and Bp. Sanborn split from the SSPV. Bp. Kelly did not hold that view.
However, if we hold that the NO is deficient, or that V2 taught error (both of which are true), then we also recognize that the institution that promulgated them is not, CANNOT, be the One Holy Catholic Apostolic Roman Church, but an anti-church. This means that the new rites do not have the guarantee of validity and infallibility that is reserved to Catholic rites. That doesn’t mean they are invalid, just that they aren’t Catholic. It also means they are doubtful, because they aren’t guaranteed.
I still don’t see how we are to hold that someone who obviously believed the heretical belief that the papacy could be bifurcated, or that Jews were guaranteed salvation, could be pope. If Jorge, who teaches heresy daily, cannot be said to have the grace of office, then his predecessors, who likewise taught heresy as pope could not be pope either.
Aaron, what you can see when you pull the lens way back is classic purity spiral. SSPX not good enough. SSPV not good enough. Sedeprivationism not good enough. So we have to declare the entire Church is false, except for “us.”
There have been many failed councils. V2 is a failed council, which will be corrected (the errors it taught) in due time.
What the 58sedes never acknowledge is that there have been VALID councils which were not failed councils but which nevertheless TAUGHT ERROR. The Council of Constance, in 1411, taught the error of CONCILIARISM… ironies of ironies. That error wasn’t condemned for a hundred years. Yet it is still obviously a valid council, as it ended the Western Schism.
In my experience, 58sedes are solid students of history beginning with Trent, but not at all before that. I could provide many more examples.
Mark, this has always been my problem. Trent is like the ultimate council to these specimens and yet, I guarantee you, there were far-right people displeased with Trent who were offended and wanted it “the way it was” before. And so on and so forth.
Aaron: Heresy relates to dogma. Nowhere was it an official Church teaching that the Jews could be saved, or that the papacy could be bifurcated. Now was it taught by those popes.
Popes say dumbass things all.the.time. But they don’t regularly preach that there is no hell, Jesus had Pagan blood, divorce is fine, homosexual unions can be blessed, and that a demon named Pachamama is Mary.
If you can’t see the difference between a guy saying the papacy can be bifurcated, which is a matter of Canon Law, and teaching that Hell Does Not Exist, I don’t know what to tell you.
You want a pope who is not only infallible but also never says stupid things. Has never happened. Remember Peter refusing the uncircumcised?
As I have said, if suddenly everything went back to the way it was in 1957, Sedes would still exist. The genie is out of the bottle. It’s a lifestyle for some.
Nice reply Aaron. You’ve stated it much better than I
Mark, you say sedes have valid orders and sacraments, so why then wouldn’t you prefer Masses /clergy that didn’t commemorate Bergoglio?
We know a great apostasy has been prophesied. That happened after nearly 100% of the Catholic hierarchy signed onto VII heresies. And the results have been disastrous for both the Church and the world.
Mike, you keep saying we should stay in the Church and fight within Her. If the VII Church is a “parallel Church” as Vigano has stated, that’s all you need to know that it’s not the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church. We align ourselves and pray with apostates.
Kono,
Vatican 2 isn’t the Church. Vatican 2 is what some in the Church are using to establish a parallel Church, the Anti-Church if you will. The institution of the Church IS WHAT IT IS. It has a lineage clear back to Christ.
The institution of the Church has been hijacked by Satan, but it’s still the Church. Look at it this way, dear:
Coca-Cola is a company. It has a 100 year recipe. It makes soda. Suddenly, it’s board of directors decides to start changing Coca Cola. They call it “New Coke”. This upsets everyone who loves Coke. Some fans of Coke decide to never drink Coca Cola again until it goes back to original Coca Cola. Some don’t come back at all.
After much grief the Coca Cola company decides to go back to making original Coca Cola. But some say “It doesn’t taste the same”.
What I’ve described is what is happening with the Church. Vatican 2 and Novus Ordo was “New Coke”. Coca Cola was the same company, but producing something awful. They lost a lot of consumers (parishoners). Some came back when it reverted to its original, some said it wasn’t the same after the reversion.
The Coca Cola company was/is the the same company started by John Pemberton. The Church is still the Church started by Jesus Christ.
Because you have a grievance with a tiny slice of Church history you have separated yourself from Jesus’ Church.
Anyone not in the Church is against the Church. I am in the Church. I loathe Bergoglio. I loathe Vatican 2. I loathe dancing nuns, fluorescent lighting, peace and justice committees. But I’m not pouting and throwing a tantrum, and unlike you I am going to fight the folks trying to make New Coke permanent from inside the company. As it should be.
But by that logic, the Catholic Church cannot defect as long as there are Eastern Orthodox bishops because Rome has recognized that they are material successors of the apostles and their sacraments are valid even before VII.
I don’t see how merely having material apostles or valid sacraments makes a group the Catholic Church. The question is, where is the indefectible Church with legitimate authority if paleosedevacantism is true? If they aren’t the Catholic Church, if there aren’t any formal successors of the apostles left alive? At lease if neosedevacantism is true, there are still formal successors of the apostle left alive so the dogma of indefectability has not been contradicted. Yet.
There IS a time frame for how sedevacantism can last. If all the legally appointed bishops die, it’s game over.
Mike, John Pemberton nor his successors have Christ’s Promise of infallibility. I understand your point, but as I stated before, but forgot the word “don’t”….Catholics do not identify nor pray with apostates.
Best of luck to you. I do like much of what you post regarding politics and such.
Kono, surely you understand what infallibility means, yes? It means when a pope is formally defining a matter of Church teaching he is prevented from error.
When the pope speaks ex cathedra, he is prevented from error.
My comparision stands.
Mark – I am not sure the Council of Constance provides the evidence you think it does:
“One should not speak of “the” Council of Constance, but of the councils of Constance. There was a council of bishops [and others] beginning 16 November 1414 which styled itself ecumenical, but which the true pope of the day did not recognize as such. There was another council [even if its members were those of the first] which he convoked, by proxy, on 4 July 1415 and did recognize as ecumenical. The ratification of “the” council by Martin the fifth, given in a footnote to session 45, was a ratification of everything determined “in a conciliar way … by this present council of Constance”, i.e. of the one convoked on 4 July 1415. The intent of the words “in a conciliar way” is, on my reading, to distinguish the true [ecumenical] council from the false one.
The matter is crucial to the possibility of the catholic doctrine of the infallibility of ecumenical councils, since the teachings of Vatican 1 on papal primacy are inconsistent with those of the first [non-ecumenical] Council of Constance [in particular the famous session 5, Haec Sancta, which taught conciliarism] , but not with those of the second [ecumenical] one.”
https://www.papalencyclicals.net/councils/ecum16.htm
I’m not a 58 sede, but I am very much interested in the doctrine(?) that the magisterium cannot teach error – because that seems to be the lynch pin to the validity of sedevacantist position.
Haec Sancta is the key, and I’m not sure how it could be said this wasn’t a valid council? Besides which, the Conciliarist error was not corrected until some hundred years later, meaning three popes approved it: “First [the council] declares that, legitimately assembled in the holy Spirit, constituting a general council and representing the catholic church militant, it has power immediately from Christ; and that everyone of whatever state or dignity, even papal, is bound to obey it in those matters which pertain to the faith, the eradication of the said schism and the general reform of the said church of God in head and members.”
Here is a good article on Haec Sancta : https://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2016/07/haec-sancta-1415-conciliar-document.html
Mark- thanks for the link. Apparently the “first session” Council of Constance was convoked by an anti-pope and therefore not valid to begin with(?):
“The Council of Constance was convoked in 1414 by the Anti-Pope John XXIII, one of three rival claimants to the papal throne, the other two being Gregory XII and Benedict XIII. The Council was called to resolve all doubts as to the true successor of Peter, and end the Great Schism. John agreed to resign if his rivals would do the same, then he fled the city. In the absence of a papal convenor, the Council enacted Haec Sancta (fifth session, 15 April 1415), which purported to subject even papal authority to the authority of the Council. John was brought back and deposed for scandalous conduct. Gregory convoked the Council anew, rejected all its prior proceedings (including Haec Sancta), and then resigned. The Council acquiesced in these actions, passed decrees on reform, condemned the heresies of Hus and Wyclifand, after deposing Benedict, elected Martin V, under whom unity was restored to the Church.
While no council, not even Ecumenical, has authority to depose a Pope, the two men who were deposed were both Anti-Popes. The true Pope was Gregory XII, who resigned rather than being deposed. He it was who authorized the sessions beginning on 4 July 1415, and declared all previous sessions (the first thirteen) null and void. Martin V ratified the succeeding sessions at the conclusion of the Council.”
https://www.ewtn.com/catholicism/library/council-of-constance-1459
I just read the interview text with Arbp
Viganó. A couple excerpts relevant to common confusions and disputes stood out, this one his concluding thoughts on Sedes (etc):
“What I can say is that, with respect to the theses of sedevacantism or sedeprivationism – which also have elements that can be shared in theory – *it is not possible to believe that the Lord allowed His Church to remain eclipsed and deprived of the ordinary means of Grace – the Sacraments – for over sixty years, with Bishops and priests not validly ordained and therefore with invalid Masses and Sacraments* (emph added). The mysterium iniquitatis cannot imply the failure of the assistance promised by Christ to the Church – Ecce ego vobiscum sum usque ad consummationem sæculi (Mt 28:19). But on our part, it is urgent to restore the integrity of the Depositum Fidei (Lex credendi) and its prayerful expression (Lex orandi) so that the gates of hell do not prevail.
Aqua, surely you see the multiple errors in his reasoning here, even if he is right in the end?
I don’t actually.
I agreed with everything he said.
It’s a mess, he correctly shows why and how it is became so and then he shows the proper way out of the mess.
So if you can show how Arbp Viganó is in error, I am respectfully listening.
Further excerpts from the Arbp
Viganó interview. This particular question struck close to home for me, since it has been persuasive to me for probably 10 years. To me, this following Q/A is the genesis of all that went wrong. Not rectifying this fundamental error on the nature of the Papacy renders the error a cancerous living tumor eating away and destroying key organs of the Church Body.
– quote –
“Q: What do you think of the munus vs. ministerium argument that Benedict XVI did not truly resign?
A: The Resignation of Benedict XVI, due to the procedural defects and the canonical monstrum that it produced [of two apparent “popes”], is certainly invalid, as Professor Enrico Maria Radaelli has excellently explained. The invention of the “papacy Emeritus” further undermined the Petrine Primacy and opened the way to that “shared papacy” – in a surreal division of munus and ministerium without any theological or canonical basis – which is today evolving into a reinterpretation of the role of the Pontiff in an ecumenical key, as we see in the Study Document “The Bishop of Rome” that was recently published by the Dicastery for Promoting Christian Unity. A unity that is already a mark of the one true Church of Christ, which is the Catholic Church, and which Vatican II significantly presents as an objective to be achieved by interpreting dogma in a way that does not cause conflicts with the errors of the non-Catholic sects.
The fact that Ratzinger may have subjectively believed that he abdicated from the Papacy does not affect the nullity of the Renunciation. Despite the aura of orthodoxy that surrounds the Pontificate of Benedict XVI, especially within moderate conservative circles, *his redefinition of the Petrine institution and his creation of the “papacy emeritus” constitute the maximum expression of the heretical instances* (emph added) present in Ratzingerian theology, and as such must be the object of a very precise condemnation, together with the other heresies (well highlighted by the studies of the eminent Professor Radaelli) that the German theologian never disavowed.”
– end quote –
Given the partial list of antipopes & interregna, should we be surprised to see another in our day? “What’s past is prologue.”
Natalius – antipope? (199-200)
St. Hippolytus of Rome – antipope (217-235)
Novatian, Latin Novatianus – antipope (251-251)
Felix (II) – antipope (355-358)
Ursinus – antipope (366-367)
Eulalius – antipope (418-419)
Laurentius, English Lawrence – antipope in 498 and from 501 to about 505/507
Dioscorus – pope or antipope, for 23 days in 530
Theodore – antipope from 21 September to 15 December 687
Paschal (I) – antipope against both the rival antipope Theodore and the legitimate pope St. Sergius I during 687
Constantine (II) – antipope (767-768)
Philip – antipope in July 768
John – antipope (844-844)
Anastasius the Librarian, Latin Anastasius Bibliothecarius – antipope (855-855)
Christopher – antipope (903-904)
Leo VIII – pope, or antipope, from 963 to 965
Boniface VII – pope, or antipope, from June to July 974 and from August 984 to July 985
John XVI – antipope (997-998)
Gregory (VI) – antipope (1012-1012)
Benedict (X) – antipope (1058-1059)
Honorius (II) – antipope (1061-1064)
Clement (III) – antipope (1080-1100)
Theodoric – antipope (1100-1102)
Albert, also called Adalbert or Aleric – antipope (1102-1102)
Sylvester (IV) – antipope (1105-1111)
Gregory (VIII) – antipope (1118-1121)
Celestine (II) – antipope (1124-1124)
Anacletus (II) – antipope (1130-1138)
Victor (IV), original name Gregory Conti – antipope (1138-1138)
Victor (IV), original name Ottaviano De Monticelli – antipope (1159-1164)
Paschal (III) – antipope (1164 to 1168)
Calixtus (III) – antipope (1168-1178)
Innocent (III) – antipope (1179-1180)
* Interregnum – Sede vacante (29 November 1268 – 1 September 1271)
[2 years, 276 days]
* Interregnum – Sede vacante (4 April 1292 – 5 July 1294)
[2 years, 92 days]
* Interregnum – Sede vacante (20 April 1314 – 7 August 1316)
[2 years, 79 days]
Nicholas (V) – antipope (1328-1330)
Clement (VII) – antipope (1378-1394)
Benedict (XIII) – antipope (1394-1423)
Alexander (V) – antipope (1409-1410)
John (XXIII) – antipope (1410-1415)
* Interregnum – Sede vacante (4 July 1415 – 11 November 1417)
[2 years, 136 days]
Clement (VIII) – antipope (1423-1429)
Felix (V) also called Amadeus VIII of Savoy – antipope (1439-1449)
* Interregnum – Sede vacante (29 August 1799 – 14 March 1800)
[197 days]
Note: Thus far, God has never allowed an interregnum to go on beyond 2 Years, 276 Days. There are some who claim that we have been in a period of interregnum since 31 December 2022 [1 year, 7 months, 12 days including the end date]
https://gloria.tv/post/33Z6Fxc6MU9C33nYsPCix4pqF
I would like to say that , while I find some of these comments quite helpful, there is a tone here in some that I find disturbing, especially in the criticism of Taylor Marshall. Let me first clarify that I am not a fan of his and rarely pay much attention to him, and I agree that he is or has been quite dodgy and not altogether trustworthy. That being said, I believe that resorting to calling the man a “snake” is language beneath a group of folks who are purporting to be faithful Catholics concerned with the fate of the Church. This is exactly the sort of rhetoric that gets us traditionalist Catholics labeled as “rigid” and, let’s face it, folks, just plain rude. cold and unwelcoming. I am a revert to the Faith, brought back by the Lord and His Blessed Mother after 35+ years in the desert of evangelical Protestantism and then Eastern Orthodoxy. The Novus Ordo was repugnant to me, but I hesitated for a long time to attend the TLM just because of this very attitude I had encountered among some trads.
We need to avoid this at all costs, my friends, if we ever hope to bring people to the truth. I came to believe that Bergoglio was an antipope as long back as 2016, and have frequently wondered how people cannot see what seems so obvious, especially after all the damage done this past year or two. But I have seen people slowly coming around, and we need to pray for our brothers and sisters who haven’t yet discovered the truth; not everyone gets there at the same time. I don’t know what’s going on with Taylor Marshall. Maybe this whole interview was simply click bait for his website and he is still untrustworthy, but we cannot discount the possibility that God is unveiling something to him. I have seen several folks at the SSPX chapel I attend move from being diehard “Francis is Pope” defenders to now admitting that that probably is not the case. It’s always possible that God is working on Marshall (let’s not forget Patrick Coffin). At any rate, let us temper our language, approach this with gentleness and charity, and pray that others be enlightened and given the gift of discernment, that we and others may hear and recognize the Good Shepherd’s voice and remain steadfast in the Faith. May God bless all of you richly.
Amen, and welcome home!
Quite dodgy and untrustworthy…
” you serpents, generation of vipers, how will you flee from the judgment of hell?”
Douay-Rheims Bible
Woes to Scribes and Pharisees
(Luke 11:37-54)
1Then Jesus spoke to the multitudes and to his disciples, 2Saying: The scribes and the Pharisees have sitten on the chair of Moses. 3All things therefore whatsoever they shall say to you, observe and do: but according to their works do ye not. For they say, and do not. 4For they bind heavy and insupportable burdens and lay them on men’s shoulders: but with a finger of their own they will not move them. 5And all their works they do for to be seen of men. For they make their phylacteries broad and enlarge their fringes. 6And they love the first places at feasts and the first chairs in the synagogues, 7And salutations in the market place, and to be called by men, Rabbi. 8But be not you called Rabbi. For one is your master: and all you are brethren. 9And call none your father upon earth; for one is your father, who is in heaven. 10Neither be ye called masters: for one is your master, Christ. 11He that is the greatest among you shall be your servant. 12And whosoever shall exalt himself shall be humbled: and he that shall humble himself shall be exalted.
13But woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites, because you shut the kingdom of heaven against men: for you yourselves do not enter in and those that are going in, you suffer not to enter. 14Woe to you scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites, because you devour the houses of widows, praying long prayers. For this you shall receive the greater judgment.
15Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites, because you go round about the sea and the land to make one proselyte. And when he is made, you make him the child of hell twofold more than yourselves.
16Woe to you, blind guides, that say, Whosoever shall swear by the temple, it is nothing; but he that shall swear by the gold of the temple is a debtor. 17Ye foolish and blind: for whether is greater, the gold or the temple that sanctifieth the gold? 18And whosoever shall swear by the altar, it is nothing; but whosoever shall swear by the gift that is upon it is a debtor. 19Ye foolish and blind: for whether is greater, the gift or the altar that sanctifieth the gift? 20He therefore that sweareth by the altar sweareth by it and by all things that are upon it. 21And whosoever shall swear by the temple sweareth by it and by him that dwelleth in it. 22And he that sweareth by heaven sweareth by the throne of God and by him that sitteth thereon.
23Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites; because you tithe mint and anise and cummin and have left the weightier things of the law: judgment and mercy and faith. These things you ought to have done and not to leave those undone. 24Blind guides, who strain out a gnat and swallow a camel.
25Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites; because you make clean the outside of the cup and of the dish, but within you are full of rapine and uncleanness. 26Thou blind Pharisee, first make clean the inside of the cup and of the dish, that the outside may become clean.
27Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites; because you are like to whited sepulchres, which outwardly appear to men beautiful but within are full of dead men’s bones and of all filthiness. 28So you also outwardly indeed appear to men just: but inwardly you are full of hypocrisy and iniquity.
29Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites, that build the sepulchres of the prophets and adorn the monuments of the just, 30And say: If we had been in the days of our fathers, we would not have been partakers with them in the blood of the prophets. 31Wherefore you are witnesses against yourselves, that you are the sons of them that killed the prophets. 32Fill ye up then the measure of your fathers. 33You serpents, generation of vipers, how will you flee from the judgment of hell?
34Therefore behold I send to you prophets and wise men and scribes: and some of them you will put to death and crucify: and some you will scourge in your synagogues and persecute from city to city. 35That upon you may come all the just blood that hath been shed upon the earth, from the blood of Abel the just, even unto the blood of Zacharias the son of Barachias, whom you killed between the temple and the altar. 36Amen I say to you, all these things shall come upon this generation.
That was God speaking. It’s alright for Him as the Judge to speak that way. It isn’t for us when we don’t know people’s hearts or where they may be in their journey.
Elizanna,
Your response reminds me of a famous quote by the wise Abraham Lincoln: “Sir, my concern is not whether God is on our side; my greatest concern is to be on God’s side, for God is always right.”
It is supremely important to know sacred Scripture intimately.
It is also supremely important to do so in humility and obedience to the authority of Holy Mother Church who gave us Scripture, and presumes to interpret it for Her children.
Our first instinct, when judging a situation of ethical questions, to apply such judgement personally, introspectively, as applicable to our own conscience.
As you say, we can’t really intimately know the heart and soul of another, such as Taylor Marshall. But we can, with spiritual discipline, come to know our own – which is not as easy or as common as we might think.
Much easier to make judgements external to ourselves and insist on “changes” to others. Much harder to approach our own unacknowledged spiritual darkness.
As one who frequently quotes Scripture (so much of it memorized during my lifetime as a prior Protestant), I take your good advice (“That was God speaking. It’s alright for Him as the Judge to speak that way”) personally.
Elizanna, like the poor, we will always have folks that speak like this hanging about. It’s not unique to the traditionalist circles either. I’ve heard much worse in other spheres, both in and out of the Church. It’s best to simply ignore what they say and pray for them, in my experience, unless you’re particularly gifted in influencing others to be more charitable in speech. The Church Militant has people of all sorts, and some of us are grumpy, and say regrettable things. And even if we were all perfect angels, we’d still be guilty of “rigidity” in some people’s eyes.
Hello TF,
I think the “poor” should be offended by your “hanging about” analogy. Seems rather uncharitably dismissive…sort of like flicking off a piece of lint from an article of clothing.
” It’s not unique to the “traditionalist circles either.” You must be referring to the “foibles of human nature.”
Speaking of universality of application….the aphorism “Follow the money” comes to mind when thinking of Taylor.
“And even if we were all perfect angels, we’d still be guilty of “rigidity” in some people’s eyes.”
One can do worse than be likened to a “rigid perfect angel”. Ok, I’ll make one concession: Maybe not in the eye’s of Jorge Bergoglio who eschews rigidity.
Elizanna,
Dittos, big time.
I’m sorry Elizanna that my snake reference of the *possible* “dodgy and untrustworthy” Marshall was upsetting to you.
In charity, I’ll assume you’ve prayed for me; otherwise your chastising me rings hollow.
And yes, welcome home. I too am a revert after spending time in the protestant wasteland.
You assume correctly, Kono. I am praying for you and I hope you may find it in your heart to pray for me. We reverts sometimes bring unwanted baggage back with us. Let’s lift each other up. May God bless you.
Hi Mark, I was really uplifted by Taylor Marshall’s persistence at getting Archbishop Vigano to respond to his questions. I was heartened by the Archbishop’s thoughtful replies.
I wanted to see how people were responding to the videos…..when I started reading the comments, I felt like I’d stepped into a den of rabid hyenas! Don’t know if I’ll be back.
Meg, TM has his critics, and not without cause. FWIW, I try not to censor comments here, so sometimes it does get heated.
Meg,
I didn’t watch the videos. I read what I think was the full transcript. It consisted of ~ 10 seconds of questions by Taylor; ~ 10 minutes of response by Arbp Viganó. On point, highly relevant questions. No interviewer editorializing at all, at least in the transcript.
Btw, I met Taylor and his family at Mass a couple of years ago. Super nice guy. A lovely family.
Meg, you have captured my feelings exactly. I’m not sure I’ll be back either. If I am, I will certainly avoid the comment section. Since when is speaking about the need for charity among us a controversial topic among Catholics? Faith, Hope and Charity – and the greatest of these is…?
Elizanna states, “That being said, I believe that resorting to calling the man a “snake” is language beneath a group of folks who are purporting to be faithful Catholics concerned with the fate of the Church. This is exactly the sort of rhetoric that gets us traditionalist Catholics labeled as “rigid” and, let’s face it, folks, just plain rude. cold and unwelcoming.”
Elizanna is completely wrong about this. Taylor Marshall is a “public figure.” Because he is a public figure, he is open to public criticism that is necessary for public discourse, using rhetorical methods such as hyperbole. It is not at all uncharitable or calumny. If you called an average parishioner, NOT a public figure, a “snake,” yes, that would be detraction or calumny, but Taylor Marshall is a public figure.
I specifically asked a good orthodox priest recently about this because we have an archbishop in Mobile who wields the “calumny” or “detraction” threat to anyone who criticizes himself or certain priests. The priest said that he even considers every priest to be a “public figure.” So normally, there is no threat of detraction or calumny when discussing a public figure.
Thank you Joel. Calling out snakes/wolves is a warning for the faithful….not a condemnation or reading of their reptilian souls. The “anti-bully”, “I’m ok, you’re ok” crap has got to stop in these evil days. As Ann, the sheep dog would say, “woof”, right Mark?
LOL … I think I like “reptilian souls” even better, but you’re right, we can’t use that.
Joel,
For context, two definitions –
Calumny def: “making a false and defamatory statements about someone in order to damage their reputation”.
Snake def: “a treacherous or deceitful person.”
What is the main example that renders Taylor a snake?
Aqua, I’ll take a stab at this. TM’s most widely known deception was the staging of the Dunkamama during the Demon Synod. He reported to his viewers as if it was spontaneous “Live coverage” by pure chance, but it reality he had staged and paid for the whole things. Since this is a true fact, and already public knowledge, I commit no calumny nor detraction by repeating it.
Fair enough. I’d still like to hear his side of the story before drawing a firm conclusion on his character, especially as it relates to that event.
But for context, Arbp Viganó chose him (of all possible venues) for his very important, very informative, very encouraging interview. I don’t imagine Arbp Viganó would choose a snake for his media outlet. If he did, what does that make him?
In sum, I still appreciate TM’s overall body of work. Thanks for the info on that PachaDemon event.
Deep breath….But for context, Archbishop Vigano anointed “the Donald” as the katechon….maybe the good Archbishop defers to the Scofield bible?
“Are you bewitched?” Galatians 3:1.
Rumor has it the antichrist will come from Israel…..maybe the modern version of the antichrist is an Uber Zionist from the Bronx?
Like they say, “Truth can be stranger than fiction.”
I meant to say, (hit the “reply” button by mistake on my little “dummy” phone.
Louie Verrecchio’s AKA is a good blog. Charity isn’t the first thing that comes to mind, but still, one of the good ones in his way.
Louie Verrecchio
For your reading and listening pleasure Aqua: a few good, thorough and charitable responses to Marshall’s book, “Infiltration” are available in his Tradcast podcasts. Be enlightened.
https://novusordowatch.org/?s=Taylor+marshall
Kono,
And why would I want to be led astray by the “snakes” and “wolves” at NovusOrdoWatch?
I’ve been to their site, will never go there again. I find it spiritually oppressive. I’m sure if they don’t like him, TM is probably just fine.
Well, this is just silliness on steroids Aqua. Any intellectually honest Catholic who’s read or listened to Mario Derksen would not call him a snake or wolf. Sure, you can disagree with him, but he’s a charitable Catholic who is quite brilliant and thorough in his defense of SVism.
Kono,
Mario Derksen’s bio:
http://www.dailycatholic.org/marioder.htm
He’s just a dude with opinions. Nothing more. And they’re mostly wrong.
If TM is a wolf for presenting a dishonestly staged media event, then Mario Derksen is a wolf for encouraging Catholics, such as those personal to me, to go Sede and leave the Catholic Church and Her Sacraments.
Aqua, do you deny the sede groups have valid clergy and sacraments?
As to Mario and his credentials, he, unlike you, gives sound, theological arguments for his position. I remember quite well when I started questioning the SVist position, I hit the blogs, like this one and Fred Martinez’s to be convinced of its falseness because I was fearful of it ..and the only arguments against it, like yours, were emotional blah, blah blah.
The Catholic commits no sin if they are doubtful of the pope’s validity. So even if we’re wrong, we’re good.
The reason you’ve read no argument here against 58sedeism is because I’ve never written it up. When I do, you won’t like it.
A classic Mario Derksen move was to excommunicate an 18th century Bishop, from the comfort of his computer chair. As recounted by Chris Jackson, The Remnant (“Novus Ordo Watch Excommunicates Archbishop for Resisting Pope in 1700’s”):
– quote –
“Not satisfied with claiming Archbishop Beaumont had no moral right to resist an unjust suppression which ended in the French Revolution and decline of Christendom, Mr. Derksen then decides to impugn the great Archbishop Beaumont one final time by excommunicating him.
Yes, you heard that correctly. Mr. Derksen, *with all of the authority of a layman who runs a website in 2017*, declared to his readers that the great Archbishop Christophe de Beaumont of Paris, “a prelate respected universally for his zeal” and referred to by his contemporaries as “the modern Athanasius,”[iv] a man who wrote tirelessly against the Jansenist heresy and against the philosophical errors of Voltaire, a man who was the most avid defender of the pope and papacy, and a man of whom the Catholic Encyclopedia said, “In the eighteenth century the See of Paris was made illustrious by Christophe de Beaumont” was excommunicated.
What is Mr. Derksen’s proof, you ask? You guessed it. *His own private judgment*. Yes, Mr. Derksen simply read Clement XIV’s brief, Dominus ac Redemptor Noster, to himself, decided Abp. Beaumont was covered by the excommunication therein, and then proceeded to announce to the world that the illustrious Archbishop had been excommunicated. As Mr. Derksen triumphantly declares:
‘So, there we have it: If words have any meaning, then the Archbishop of Paris incurred automatic excommunication (latae sententiae) reserved to the Holy See by refusing to suppress the Jesuits in his diocese and audaciously resisting the Pope. That a blogger at The Remnant can so nonchalantly side with an excommunicated archbishop and single-handedly presume to exonerate him based on his reading of a Novus Ordo historian, is a frightening thought. This is serious business.’
Serious business indeed! Presuming to publicly excommunicate a heralded Catholic Archbishop of Paris that is. As for my “exonerating” Archbishop Beaumont, this is hardly necessary since the only accusation of excommunication leveled against him in Catholic history is from a Novus Ordo Watch blogger in 2017.”
– end quote –
https://remnantnewspaper.com/web/index.php/fetzen-fliegen/item/3073-novus-ordo-watch-excommunicates-archbishop-for-resisting-pope-in-1700-s
That is my experience also with this anti-Catholic pompous braggart. When I say his web site is spiritually oppressive, it is because of this – private judgement proclaimed as new dogmas (“if words have any meaning”, as he lines to say). Pope Mario has proclaimed it, ‘the Catholic Church is dissolved, ended, and it is so’. Acid for the soul.
Kono,
As to emotion, I have children involved in this thing, and Mario Derksen has a part to play in their thinking. So if I come across as emotional … there’s that. It truly p****s me off, people like that. I’ve been to his NOW web site, first because you asked me to, then because someone I live was going down Derksen’s Sede paths. As I said, the content is spiritually oppressive. And I see first hand where his logic ends up. It’s not good. Souls are at stake. Don’t take this lightly. I certainly don’t.
As far as I’m concerned Derksen is the leader of a cult. If it is Catholic, it is just tangentially so. Yes, the Sacraments are likely valid.
But the spirit behind his movement is Protestant to the core – “*if words have any meaning*, then this, that, or the other must therefor be so”, as he likes to say. It reminds me of the Protestants, oh so sure of themselves and their Sola Scriptura Bibles, “compare scripture to scripture and God will speak to you directly; no need for a power-hungry intermediary – God is revealed to all by the plain literal meaning of His Word”. *IT’S THE SAME THING!*
Aqua, The Remnant piece by Chris Jackson is pure, sloppy garbage. Mr. Jackson uses NO “theologians” to argue his point whereas Derksen uses, wait for it, pre-VII, much closer to the suppression events, theologians to argue his case.
Here is NOW’s response to Jackson’s hit piece. I know you, Aqua won’t read it, but this is for those here who might believe what you posted from Jackson is trustworthy….it is not.
I’m so sorry that you cannot see how ridiculous and destructive the R&R position actually is. It destroys the notion of what the papacy IS. It is from Satan.
https://novusordowatch.org/2017/01/resisting-pope-remnant-suppression-jesuits/
Kono,
Your sources, like your Sede religion, are for the most part restricted to the NovusOrdoWatch web site.
I feel sorry for anyone who chooses to go there and gets sucked into what’s-his-face’s cult.
Aqua, yes I use and link to NOW because it is a great, one stop sede site. Heck, even Barnhardt once touted how thorough they are in pre-VII information and uses it herself for reference. And for any readers interested here, Louie Verrechio at akaCatholic is a great site too. Talk about a most charitable and well informed Catholic, Louie is superb.
Aqua,
He comes across as a freemasonic/CIA and controlled opposition “crisis actor.” Same with Kennedy Hall.
There is always the blank look on their faces and emotionless commentary, like they are reading a script given to them. For example, it is extraordinarily irritating how they interview “objectively” the excellent Dr. Mazza, who gives irrefutable evidence that Bergoglio is an antipope, and yet they will not commit. Why? What does their employer have to gain in getting people to believe for as long as possible that Bergoglio is “Pope Francis” and has papal authority?
Where did they get all these publishing deals? What made them feel like they should be spokesmen for Catholicism when they are converts? It is all very suspicious.
I think Louis Verrecchio is onto something:
“According to Taylor Marshall, the Church has been infiltrated by the following organizations:
Freemasons
Communists
Liberals
Modernists
Fascists
Satanists
Certainly, there is evidence that these groups have infiltrated the Church; however, there seem to be at least two (or perhaps three) groups missing from the list.
The readers of AKA Catholic will, no doubt, know who these groups are.
Why, one might ask, would Marshall seemingly deliberately omit these groups from Infiltration?
To answer this question, we need look no further than the Catholic and, more importantly, secular media outlets that have catapulted Taylor Marshall into the limelight.”
https://akacatholic.com/who-is-taylor-marshall-part-ii-infiltration/
Joel,
Not so sure how much TM is in the “limelight”. Like Mario Derksen, he’s just a dude with opinions. He doesn’t affect me either way. Don’t care.
But at least, unlike Mario Derksen, Taylor is not encouraging my special someone in the family to leave the Catholic Church and all Her Sacraments.
Well said. Thank you.