A Taylor Marshall question

[Jen7]

Church teaches that we must in a state of grace when we die or we lose our souls.

And no unbaptized person is ever in the state of grace, correct?

 

[Jen7]

I suspect if you are teaching kids and teens you have a good Catholic curriculum. I would continue to follow that.

I write the curriculum.

 

[MagdalenaRita]

This is what I was taught. I would love to know very specifically why Marshall believes it is wrong.

In his video on Nouvelle théologie, if this is the video you are talking about, at mark 30:24, he says we are not born programmed “knowing that there is a God”. He does not say that the natural law is not in us, nor does he say God does not call us, but that we are not born knowing God.
He also says that man is not automatically pointed to heaven no matter what he does, which is what the Nouvelle théologie suggests.

The guy on YouTube seems to be directly saying the CCC isn’t Magisterium when it says this. … But TM seems to say it’s wrong. If it is, I really want to understand why.

I don’t believe you are understanding what he says in the video and some of your comments are misrepresenting what he is saying.

 

[RogueSemicolon]

The guy on YouTube seems to be directly saying the CCC isn’t Magisterium when it says this.

In the Apostolic Exhortation Fidei Depositum, Pope St. John Paul II declared,

The Catechism of the Catholic Church, which I approved June 25th last and the publication of which I today order by virtue of my Apostolic Authority, is a statement of the Church’s faith and of catholic doctrine, attested to or illumined by Sacred Scripture, the Apostolic Tradition, and the Church’s Magisterium. I declare it to be the sure norm for teaching the faith and thus a valid and legitimate instrument for ecclesial communion.

 

[Jen7]

In his video on Nouvelle théologie, if this is the video you are talking about, at mark 30:24, he says we are not born programmed “ knowing that there is a God ”. He does not say that the natural law is not in us, nor does he say God does not call us, but that we are not born knowing God.

Yes, this is the video I am referring to. I suppose it feels like splitting hairs, but if we aren’t born knowing God does that mean we aren’t born with a thirst in our heart for God??

As an aside, Christopher West got raked over the coals years ago for saying something along the lines of Hugh Hefner was seeking something good via his life of public sin, but that he didn’t know a better way to do so. (I’m paraphrasing badly - I didn’t follow the details back then and it’s been years anyway). But the concept seems similar: can we say “nature” seeks the fulfillment God made us for but doesn’t know how to attain it without grace… or is Marshall saying we literally aren’t even aware of the possibility of anything more than a “natural” /corporeal existence without grace? (And my apologies to West if I misrepresented the debate from long ago! )

 

[Aquinas11]

if we aren’t born knowing God does that mean we aren’t born with a thirst in our heart for God??

No just means we all are born with an inclination to learn about God. Like how it’s natural to look up at stars and ask “who made all this?” But that inquiry alone doesn’t amount to knowing God. It’s merely first step to discovering God. Plus we can never fully know God.
Marshall makes analogy we have natural inclination to learn (not already know) about God the same way grass has natural inclination to tilt towards sunlight. So he says that’s what Philosophy is for

Philosophy = what you can figure out on your own with reason
(so if I’m on deserted island on my own I should be able to come up with logic argument that God exists)

Theology = what you can figure out with divine revelation
(On that desert island by myself I will never figure out the Trinity or Gospel. Can only learn that via divine revelation)

Marshall says De Lubac was wrong because he said everything we do is ordered towards Supernatural, thus all religions same, which can’t be true because we have natural instinct (philosophy above) and supernatural instinct (theology above) which are different. De Lubac equates them which is false. Marshall’s dissertation was that they’re related but distinct. Not everything you do fulfills the supernatural instinct. If it did, we wouldn’t need sacraments

 

[MagdalenaRita]

Yes, this is the video I am referring to. I suppose it feels like splitting hairs, but if we aren’t born knowing God does that mean we aren’t born with a thirst in our heart for God??

Knowing God is different than thirsting for God. I have the video going right now and he is talking about whether all men are born directly headed for salvation because they are born knowing God. He explains that it is God’s grace that calls and draws that thirst for God out of us and we through reason seek God.

is Marshall saying we literally aren’t even aware of the possibility of anything more than a “natural” /corporeal existence without grace?

The Church teaches that it is by grace we are saved, not of ourselves, so yes, it is by the grace of God, that seeks us and calls us, and that saves us. It is by the grace of God that we can know God. Believing otherwise that we are born knowing God, or that we can find God without God’s help and we do not need God’s grace is the heresy of Pelagianism.

 

[Emeraldlady]

Yes, this is the video I am referring to. I suppose it feels like splitting hairs, but if we aren’t born knowing God does that mean we aren’t born with a thirst in our heart for God??

I found the video and started watching from the 30 minute mark for about 15 minutes. It literally made me feel nauseous. This to me is glaringly a gnostic position that stridently seeks to downplay the innate spirit living in people because they want to gain authority as having a unique spirit themselves. They want power that only rightly belongs to the authentic Magisterium.

I did not feel at all good listening to the two men talking. It was so red flag to my lifelong Catholic sensibility.

Don’t try and find out what Marshall is talking about. He seems to have the art of ambiguity just refined enough to make you doubt the authority of the Church without knowing why.

 

[MagdalenaRita]

stridently seeks to downplay the innate spirit living in people

We are not born knowing God. Yes we are spiritual beings that thirst for God but we are not born knowing God. We need God’s grace to know Him, love Him and serve Him. As I said earlier we are saved by grace not of ourselves. To believe we are born knowing God and do not need His grace for salvation is the heresy of palageism.
I heard a priest once say that believing we are saved without the grace of God is trying to get to heaven by “pulling up our bootstraps and working very hard”, which is not Catholic teaching.

 

[Aquinas11]

To believe we are born knowing God and do not need His grace for salvation is the heresy of palageism.

Yes would be like being told that you’re born immortal so don’t need to go doctor and then you die at very young age because of that lie. If you were told truth that you are mortal and need to see doctor, you’d have lived a long life.

 

[Crusader13]

This to me is glaringly a gnostic position that stridently seeks to downplay the innate spirit living in people because they want to gain authority as having a unique spirit themselves. They want power that only rightly belongs to the authentic Magisterium.

That is… I’m not even sure how you got that from his video. You believe the same man who tells us to pray for the Pope and the magisterium and to bring back the traditional catholic teaching of the Church is now more focused on usurping power from the Church itself???

 

[esieffe]

Bringing souls to a relationship with Christ and his true church is all I care about as a catechist but it matters to me if I’m expressing the authentic deposit of faith!!

I was a Catechist for two years. Unless you are teaching adults, I wouldn’t worry about the “goings on” in Rome. The deposit of faith cannot change. I would just continue to stick with the basics. If anything like Pachamama were to come up, depending on the age group, I would just say it was above my pay grade. I would teach what I know to be true. You sound like a wonderful person. Thank you for serving!

 

[Emeraldlady]

Emeraldlady:

This to me is glaringly a gnostic position that stridently seeks to downplay the innate spirit living in people because they want to gain authority as having a unique spirit themselves. They want power that only rightly belongs to the authentic Magisterium.

That is… I’m not even sure how you got that from his video. You believe the same man who tells us to pray for the Pope and the magisterium and to bring back the traditional catholic teaching of the Church is now more focused on usurping power from the Church itself???

Not sure if you listened to the video but Marshall says that God cannot be known from within and then some waffle about that. However the Church teaches the opposite regarding that divine spark in all men.

2. From ancient times down to the present, there is found among various peoples a certain perception of that hidden power which hovers over the course of things and over the events of human history; at times some indeed have come to the recognition of a Supreme Being, or even of a Father. This perception and recognition penetrates their lives with a profound religious sense. (Nostra Aetate)

Ask yourself why Marshall would want to deny that capacity in all men? I can only think of how the gnostics to promote their claim of a ‘special knowledge and authority’, taught that only a privileged few were destined to know God. The Church rejected their premise because they denied any divinely protected authority of the Church promised by Christ.

Why are there so many supposed educated Catholics now in this era, denying the Spirit within and discrediting the teaching authority of the Magisterium? They are the classic false teachers. Marshall also claims the freemasons have infiltrated the Church, the freemasons being a gnostic cult. Surely he is aware that the most powerful way to deny the gnostics power, is to encourage deeper faith in the Church Magisterium which we absolutely believe is protected by the Holy Spirit.

 

[MagdalenaRita]

Not sure if you listened to the video but Marshall says that God cannot be known from within and then some waffle about that.

@Emeraldlady you are misrepresenting what he said in the video. He did not say that God can not be known from with in and then some waffling. You are taking things out of context. He said that we are not born knowing God. I would also say it would be better to actually quote what he says in the video rather than say “some waffle”. That really doesn’t say a whole lot except to attack the person rather than what is said. How does one comment on “some waffle”.

at times some indeed HAVE COME to the recognition of a Supreme Being, or even of a Father.

Where does this quote say we are born knowing God? As a matter of fact it says they “have come to the recognition” of a Supreme Being.

 

[Crusader13]

2. From ancient times down to the present, there is found among various peoples a certain perception of that hidden power which hovers over the course of things and over the events of human history; at times some indeed have come to the recognition of a Supreme Being, or even of a Father. This perception and recognition penetrates their lives with a profound religious sense. (Nostra Aetate)

Ask yourself why Marshall would want to deny that capacity in all men?

Then it sounds like you’ve misunderstood what he’s trying to say. In the video they both acknowledge that there is some sense of longing for God and how we are made in the image and likeness of God but I don’t recall him arguing against any part of the CCC with regards to this understanding .

He’s saying that some within this New Theology have stated that we are born with this ordering towards God and as a result, the beatific vision is owed to us by God. So someone like De Lubac was trying to infer that if human beings are ordered and directed towards God at birth, then it is only logical and merciful that God would allow for every human to receive this gift of Salvation, regardless of their status with regards to the Church or Jesus Christ.

So they go on to point out that this exact misunderstanding is what Pope Pius XII was refuting in his encyclical Humani Generis. The problem is that these theologians have used their understanding of this concept as a way to further teach that we have a reasonable hope that all men are saved.

Why? Because if God has created man from birth to be ordered towards God, then he would be a cruel God if he didn’t give every human being their final end, which is Heaven and the Beatific Vision. Dr. Marshall is saying that De Lubac came under fire because in De Lubacs’ words, he was saying that the Beatific Vision is owed to us, because God created man with his longing for it.

 

[Jen7]

Marshall makes analogy we have natural inclination to learn (not already know) about God the same way grass has natural inclination to tilt towards sunlight. So he says that’s what Philosophy is for

Oh thank you or sharing this! I was concerned he was saying the grass (to continue the analogy) didn’t notice the sunshine without grace.

 

[Jen7]

Marshall says De Lubac was wrong because he said everything we do is ordered towards Supernatural,

So “to be ordered toward the supernatural” means to be taking direct steps in the process toward the God we know via divine revelation? If so, I can see why that’s false. The sacraments are the ways God gave us to directly connect with Him. We can experience his attributes in nature and long for him… but not just any religion or spiritual practice connects us into a relationship with the Trinity. Do I have that right?

And how does John Paul II fit into all this? Did HE say what de Lubac said re: all routes arriving at divine revelation? I never remember seeing anything like that in his encyclicals or the CCC… but I sure don’t want to be missing error!

 

[Crusader13]

But the concept seems similar: can we say “nature” seeks the fulfillment God made us for but doesn’t know how to attain it without grace… or is Marshall saying we literally aren’t even aware of the possibility of anything more than a “natural” /corporeal existence without grace? (And my apologies to West if I misrepresented the debate from long ago! )

From my understanding of his video, he is saying that humans aren’t born knowing that there is a God or that anything supernatural even exists. We don’t have this knowledge locked away inside our minds from birth. Typically, we are taught and educated as we grow to understand more about who God is and what He has done for us.

How are we to know God from all the other false ideas of God? Through His Church, which is the pillar and foundation of TRUTH. It is the duty of the Church to go out and baptize everyone who accepts this truth and to help get souls to heaven.

Unfortunately, the authentic teaching of the Church and these TRUTHS, as they pertain to our Salvation have been largely dismissed and put aside in favor of a more universal and merciful understanding. Which is the very thing that Dr. Marshall is speaking out against.

After Vatican II, many have embraced this view that all men will be saved, because God ordered us towards him to begin with, so therefore everyone will eventually find God in some way, shape or form. And so long as you stay morally right according to your own beliefs, then you too will be saved because it’s not your fault that you remained ignorant of God. You were merely seeking him in what you believed God was to you.

 

[Aquinas11]

Oh thank you or sharing this! I was concerned he was saying the grass (to continue the analogy) didn’t notice the sunshine without grace.

Yeah he was just saying the grass naturally leans towards Sun like we naturally yearn (but don’t already know) about God. Thus all the “who made all this?” questions looking at stars which precede the divine revelation of learning about Gospel, Trinity, Sacraments necessary for salvation

So “to be ordered toward the supernatural” means to be taking direct steps in the process toward the God we know via divine revelation? If so, I can see why that’s false.

Yes. Hence Marshall made analogy that under this theory it wouldn’t matter if you go to Mass on Sunday or Yoga class on Sunday. Both would equally move you towards God via your supernatural end. Obviously false

The sacraments are the ways God gave us to directly connect with Him. We can experience his attributes in nature and long for him… but not just any religion or spiritual practice connects us into a relationship with the Trinity. Do I have that right?

Yes bingo

And how does John Paul II fit into all this? Did HE say what de Lubac said re: all routes arriving at divine revelation? I never remember seeing anything like that in his encyclicals or the CCC… but I sure don’t want to be missing error!

I believe JPII made De Lubac a Cardinal weeks before he died which legitimized his teaching to many

 

[Emeraldlady]

So someone like De Lubac was trying to infer that if human beings are ordered and directed towards God at birth, then it is only logical and merciful that God would allow for every human to receive this gift of Salvation, regardless of their status with regards to the Church or Jesus Christ.

Can you point me to this claim of De Lubac?