A Taylor Marshall question

[Jen7]

I’m putting this in the “traditional Catholic” forum, because Taylor Marshall… but I hope lots of view points chime in.

Has anyone been following his videos on his blog lately? I discovered them trying to figure out what was going on re: the amazon synod, but I’ve stuck around because I’m intrigued.

He has been talking about the “issues” with Vat II and “modernity” in the Church. I was thoroughly catechized in Vat II - read the documents, studied the CCC, etc. I have considered myself a hugest fan of JPII. But Taylor Marshall is bringing up concepts about Vat II and the past few Popes that are sad and concerning…

It alllllll seems to hinge on this concept of whether man’s “natural end” is heaven or not.

And there i am completely confused. Can someone explain to me this distinction he’s making? I thought our hearts are restless until they rest in God & we are all seeking Him whether we realize what we are seeking or not. But Taylor Marshall seems to say this is a very wrong way to see things. Perhaps he feels God is seeking US but that we aren’t exactly seeking him? I don’t know. I wish I could ask him. But since I can’t I thought id ask here. Anyone???

 

[Phillip_Rolfes]

Take Dr. Taylor Marshall with a grain of salt. He’s not a theologian, he’s a philosopher. Also, he’s a relatively recent convert who is still coming to terms with/starting to grasp the Faith that he has converted to.

Many of his criticisms of modern popes are not well documented, or are documented from unreliable resources (as evidenced by the footnotes and bibliography in his most recent book). He outright calls Pope St. Paul VI a pseudo-modernist, and he paints Pope St. John Paul II up to look like a bumbling idiot of a pope. That being said, I do agree with many of his criticisms of the current pontificate, as well as his solution.

Stick close to the CCC and documents of Vatican II, also read the Doctors and Fathers of the Church and lives of the saints. You can’t go wrong with any of those. And remember, Dr. Taylor Marshall et al are not the Magisterium. They are self-proclaimed defenders of the Faith. And like the rest of us, they get some things right and other things wrong.

 

[MagdalenaRita]

we are all seeking Him whether we realize what we are seeking or not. But Taylor Marshall seems to say this is a very wrong way to see things. Perhaps he feels God is seeking US but that we aren’t exactly seeking him? I don’t know. I wish I could ask him. But since I can’t I thought id ask here.

It sounds like you may be referring to his discussion of the recent theory of the reasonable hope that all men are saved.

That is not Church teaching.
There are those that reject Christ.

 

[Crusader13]

And there i am completely confused. Can someone explain to me this distinction he’s making?

I forget which video this was on. I want to say it was his talk on the Nouvelle Théologie but I might be mistaken.

From my understanding he was disagreeing with the belief of De Lubac and others, in that they were saying man is born with his compass pointed towards God at birth.

This orientation towards God is the foundation for inferring that other religions, no matter how in error they may be, are still at a very basic level aimed at God. Therefore it’s only rational to suggest that it is good and pleasing to God.

This belief is what many point to within some documents of Vatican II and it’s how they explain Salvation outside of the Catholic Church. It’s how we get Bp. Barron’s privileged and non-privileged routes to heaven.

Basically everyone can be saved apart from any active will or desire to accept Jesus Christ through the Catholic Church, because we are born wanting to seek God and please him.

 

[Crusader13]

Also, he’s a relatively recent convert who is still coming to terms with/starting to grasp the Faith that he has converted to.

That understanding doesn’t accurately define his knowledge of the faith. He converted to the faith 13 years ago. He has a Ph.D in philosophy with his dissertation on Saint Thomas Aquinas and the natural law.

Rather then trying to discredit his academic background by claiming his 13 years in the faith is too short to be credible, people should focus on what he’s actually saying and they’ll discover the truth or error of his claims.

 

[Phillip_Rolfes]

Actually, there is no definitive Church teaching on whether or not we have a reasonable hope that all men be saved. There is a great deal of precedence in the writings of the Early Church Fathers (including a couple of Doctors of the Church) and many of the great Eastern Christian mystics that we do have a reasonable hope that all men be saved. But we have to be careful to make a strong distinction between hope and presume.

But if we’re going to talk about this, we should start a new thread so as not to derail this one…

 

[Phillip_Rolfes]

Writing a dissertation on Thomas Aquinas’ natural law theory doesn’t make one a theologian. I know people with Ph.D.s in philosophy who treat Aquinas as any other philosopher and all but ignore the theological worldview contained in his writings. Aquinas isn’t the only (or necessarily even the greatest) theologian in Church history. In order to understand many modern theologians - like von Balthasar, Congar, John Paul II, Benedict XVI, Danielou, et al - one has to go back and study the Patristic sources. Dr. Marshall is openly critical of the proponents of this “resourcement” (return to the Patristic sources) movement, and outright refers to them as modernists in his most recent book. That’s why I have difficulties taking him seriously as a theologian.

Like I said in my previous post, there is much that I agree with Marshall on. There is also much with which I disagree. He’s human and subject to err like the rest of us. He’s also not Magisterial. So, as you said, we should read/listen to what he says and “discover the truth or error of his claims.” As I said, we should take him with a grain of salt.

 

[ChurchSoldier]

While I am a believer in checking any teaching against the Magisterium, I have found Taylor Marshall’s teachings to be well researched and on point.

He is an Episcopal Priest who came over to Catholicism. Generally speaking, Anglican clergy who come to the RCC and particularly academics have a high level understanding of theology in general and RC theology in particular. I guess that’s a long way of saying he is a theologian.

 

[MagdalenaRita]

Actually, there is no definitive Church teaching on whether or not we have a reasonable hope that all men be saved.

Exactly but we do know there is a hell and we do know that there are also saints and popes who have said that many will be there.

But if we’re going to talk about this, we should start a new thread so as not to derail this one

I do not believe this is necessarily derailing this thread but answering the OP question regarding whether all men are seeking God and what is mans natural end.

Writing a dissertation on Thomas Aquinas’ natural law theory doesn’t make one a theologian…

I dont believe he meant it to be a Taylor Marshall critiquing thread. We already have one of those going.

 

[Crusader13]

I wasn’t trying to argue that we should treat him like a theologian. In fact he’s stated in his videos that he is not a theologian.

As for Thomas Aquinas his studies and commentaries have helped to shape much of the church’s teachings and doctrines. His explanations and views on those church fathers who came before him has also been of great value.

So it is certainly debatable as to how one may “rank” him in the annals of history with regards to his contribution to the Church, but the problem according to Dr. Marshall is that those within the Nouvelle Théologie have opted to reinterpret or put aside the Thomistic studies in favor of the “New Theology” which was a term coined by Reginald Garigou-Lagrange.

His criticism isn’t without merit. When you look at what Bp. Barron has stated regarding his views on salvation and how Bp. Barron points to many of these theologians to support his claims, we see that Dr. Marshall isn’t alone in his refuting of the bishop’s views.

Ralph Martin wrote an excellent book on why Balthasar was wrong in daring to hope that all will be saved. The problem is that not many theologians or clergy want to have that debate with Dr. Marshall.

 

[Jen7]

Omgoodness, all I did was go to Sunday Mass real quick! Lol. Lots of posts to catch up on here!!

Let me clarify, I am NOT asking about Marshll’s critique on Bishop Barron’s claim that he’ll may be empty. Even if God in his mercy let’s loads of folks into heaven for ignorance-through-not-fault-of-their-own… I’m still pretty sure there are folks who definitely know better but choose serious sin anyhow. “To whom more has been given, more will be expected.” I’ll post more in a minute…

 

[Jen7]

I forget which video this was on. I want to say it was his talk on the Nouvelle Théologie but I might be mistaken.

From my understanding he was disagreeing with the belief of De Lubac and others, in that they were saying man is born with his compass pointed towards God at birth.

This orientation towards God is the foundation for inferring that other religions, no matter how in error they may be, are still at a very basic level aimed at God. Therefore it’s only rational to suggest that it is good and pleasing to God.

This belief is what many point to within some documents of Vatican II and it’s how they explain Salvation outside of the Catholic Church. It’s how we get Bp. Barron’s privileged and non-privileged routes to heaven.

Basically everyone can be saved apart from any active will or desire to accept Jesus Christ through the Catholic Church, because we are born wanting to seek God and please him.

THIS is exactly what I find confusing!!!

Okay, so I definitely see how this way of thinking can be construed into the concept that we can partake in any religious ritual (even pagan) because the folks worshipping are “doing he best they know how” so “it’s okay for them” and our participation with them is “just being brotherly or friendly”… and I don’t agree with that because we baptized folks know better & should do better.

I also get that this way of thinking could lead people to say “Meh, why evangelize the Amazonians (Or whomever)? Let’s just leave them in non-culpable ignorance of the sacraments & let God be merciful to them.” And I think that’s disgusting because while God may be merciful and save a very good pagan… the truth is that some non Christian practices do promote or even require sin & in those cases I think it’d be much harder for someone to truly lead a genuinely “trying my best to follow natural law” type of life. Concupisence afflicts all of us. And even a pagan should “know better” than to do some of the things his religion might promote… so we shouldn’t want him left to such temptations OR devoid of a life of grace and personal intimacy with christ.

But… all this said… I don’t see why all this HAS to be construed in the way I just described.

More in a sec…

 

[Jen7]

Can’t it be true that our hearts are oriented toward God “deep down” and most of us do the best we can with what we have?? Not that is a “priveledged way” and “a less priveldged way” exactly… but almost. What is WRONG with saying souls doing their BEST (which, without grace is going to be HARD) to follow natural law are NOT likely saved?? What’s wrong with saying these folks are even thirsting after God although they may not know it? (Afterall, haven’t many converts said they’ve had an “ah-hah!” Moment of “this all makes sense!” Doesn’t that indicate that they were sensingng certain truths and recognized them when they discovered them in their fullness??

I hope what I’m writing makes sense. If everything Taylor Marshall seems to be claiming is true, it seems like we are all just almost animalistic until grace miraculously reaches down to us as a gratuitous and seemingly random gift. I just don’t feel the non-Christians are THAT “lost” although I believe they certainly need Christ.

Could it be kind of like a lost child who knows he’s looking for his dad & it’s definitely going to be AWESOME when he finds his dad… but he won’t jecessaripy DIE living on scraps and sleeping in the local park. Oh and I’m the meantime this child definitely has a sense of the father-love he’s seeking. If he finds it, he’s going to experientially KNOW IT. He is not just an ignorant animal waiting for something totally unfamiliar to show up. That’s what bugs me most about what Marshall seems to be saying - that God seems to “other.” So… unknown. Maybe I’m spoiled because I’ve always known God. Are some folks really wandering around with NO ACCESS to a CLUE about a higher being who deserves their worship??

Help??

 

[Jen7]

I’ve thought some more and figured out what bugging me: I feel like Marshall is suggesting God doesn’t necessarily give Faith to everyone… and if we don’t evangelize folks they may never be saved. It just sounds so stingy of God. Didn’t Jesus tell St. Faustian he dumps his mercy on every soul? What about paragraph 1 of the CCC: “at every time and in every place God draws close to man…”??? I feel Marshall says “no” - that God draws close to a random few and they are tasked to preach to others.

Edited to add - I love paragraph 1 of the CCC so much I hand calligraphy it for baptism gifts, replacing “man” with the name of the baby. Call me crazy but I’m really disturbed Marshall is calling this concept into question!

 

[po18guy]

I consider him to be fringe. A voice of discord. Sadly, there are many such voices.

 

[Jen7]

Do you feel his concepts are incorrect? I admit he has a bit of a sensationalist style. But I don’t really care about the style. It’s the content I’m pondering…

 

[MagdalenaRita]

I feel like Marshall is suggesting God doesn’t necessarily give Faith to everyone… It just sounds so stingy of God.

I have listened to Taylor Marshall for years and have never heard that before from him.

God has given to everyone a measure of faith (Romans 12:3) and has written the natural law into our hearts, but we are not saved by faith alone, so just having faith is not enough.
Just because we have that faith written on our hearts does not mean we act on it.

most of us do the best we can with what we have??.. What is WRONG with saying souls doing their BEST (which, without grace is going to be HARD) to follow natural law are NOT likely saved??

We also can not be good enough, so doing our best in this life is not going to get us saved either. We need the grace conferred on us from the sacraments.

We need Jesus. We need His saving grace. We are saved by faith and works.
People can reject the faith given them or the call of God on their hearts and people can refuse to obey the commandments given to us by Christ.

and if we don’t evangelize folks they may never be saved.

Evangelizing others is a command of Christ.

If everything Taylor Marshall seems to be claiming is true, it seems like we are all just almost animalistic until grace miraculously reaches down to us as a gratuitous and seemingly random gift.

We are not animalistic but every human being is born with original sin and it is baptism that cleanses us from that sin. Hence the importance of evangelizing as Christ told us to do and baptizing all nations as Christ told us to do. And grace does miraculously reach down to us and cleanse us.

Didn’t Jesus tell St. Faustian he dumps his mercy on every soul?

God doesn’t just dump mercy on us, like a blanket and everyone is thus saved because of that blanket dumped on them.

There is no salvation outside the Catholic church. The Church is necessary for salvation, though there are those who CAN be saved due having invincible ignorance of Christ and His Church but that is up to God. God is not bound to the sacraments but we human beings are.

Not that is a “priveledged way” and “a less priveldged way” exactly… but almost.

Jesus is NOT a “priviledged way” as some one has recently said but Jesus is the Way as He has said in His word: He IS the Way, the Truth and the Life.

I wish I could ask him. But since I can’t I thought id ask here.

Taylor Marshall has several web pages that I suspect you could message or email him and ask him to clarify what you think he is saying, otherwise here you will more than likely get opinions of Taylor Marshall rather than answers to your questions. Maybe not but I suspect by what is already seen.

 

[esieffe]

Most of us who have jobs and or families don’t have a lot of time to sort all of this out. Few of us are theologians or philosophers. Some things though are hard to turn a blind eye to however.

During centuries gone by, Popes and princes of the church would go way out of their way to avoid even the appearance of scandal. In that light, the events of the amazon synod are hard to ignore. I choose to leave it right there, at least publicly.

The Church will go on. Despite wild parties and unbelievable things going on right inside the Vatican walls, it is still Christ who is the head of the Church. Christ, the true word and the deposit of faith cannot be changed. Anyone who says otherwise is fooling themselves. The Eternal City is run by human beings who are sinners just like you and I.

There is no reason to despair. Just pray for the church [we are a part of the church] and pray for the conversion of all, including ourselves. We are only here for a short while. Earth is not a botanical garden, but a training academy. I think it is fine to keep up with what is going on around us, but if you find yourself getting depressed about it, take a break from it and focus on your relationship with Christ, and continue to do your part by praying for all.
pax

 

[strita]

We are all supposed to be defenders of the faith, Marshall is simply using his God-given gifts to help the rest of us who have not researched things as much as he has.

I am more disturbed about the things he digs up (which are true, I believe) than I am by the fact that he says them. I think he is 100% Catholic. Recent converts are not second-class Catholics.

 

[Jen7]

All living men have some amount of Grace within them and partake in that Grace in some manner. When Hitler says a nice thing about his friend, he is partaking in the Good and thus in that way and in that moment, he is good. But that is God within him, that good does not come from him. There is no “natural good” in man that is distinct from God. The virtuous pagan is virtuous insofar as he (albeit unknowingly) aligns himself and embraces God.

Makes sense to me! But is Marshall saying there is no virtuous pagan? No graces moment EVER for Hitler? Because these folks weren’t baptized?? (Well Hitler probably was baptized, so scratch him. But the virtuous pagan - he’s not “seeking God”? Just… what? Contentment? Physical pleasure? Intellectual beauty found in the natural world alone, such as mathematics?)