A Taylor Marshall question

[Emeraldlady]

Emeraldlady:

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.

Can you direct me to the claim that “we are born knowing God”?

 

[Crusader13]

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.

The problem is that some within our Magisterium have traded these truths for a lie. Yet, they know they can’t openly oppose the Church and her teachings, so they work in secret and behind closed doors, slowly chipping away at whatever they can. That’s why in 2019 we are talking about women deacons…

 

[Emeraldlady]

The problem is that some within our Magisterium have traded these truths for a lie.

If not the Magisterium, who do we follow?

 

[Crusader13]

Well it’s not an all or nothing situation. Or better yet an everyone or no one situation.

We follow those in the magisterium who uphold the teachings and traditions of the Church.

 

[Emeraldlady]

Well it’s not an all or nothing situation. Or better yet an everyone or no one situation.

We follow those in the magisterium who uphold the teachings and traditions of the Church.

Do you know the De Lubac document at issue? Or are you just putting your faith in Marshall’s treatment of it over the treatment of Pope St John Paul II?

 

[Jen7]

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!

I am trained to teach through RCIA, although currently my classes are kids/teens. I do try to stay “in the loop” re: what is current in the Church though. Believe it or not my 2nd graders wanted to know what was going on with P-Mama. I didn’t say a lot because I didn’t want to scandalize them, but I also didn’t discount their questions at all. Kids watch the news & I think it’s great when they feel they can turn to trusted adults when they are curious about something they’ve seen.

 

[Jen7]

We follow those in the magisterium who uphold the teachings and traditions of the Church.

Watching Marshall has made me feel like I just woke up from a nice dream where everybody was on the same page in the Church. Well, I shouldn’t give Marshall all the credit for or that. The sex abuse scandals started it, the amazon synod continued it, and then I found Marshall’s page & am kind of watching his videos with my jaw hanging open. I am not taking everything he says like it’s Gospel… but he is making some thought-provoking points! And one of them seems to be that when bishops and Popes aren’t speaking from the chair… they can and do err. I knew that in theory but didn’t really think it happened. Until recently.

 

[Crusader13]

If I’m not mistaken De Lubac referred to this topic in his book Surnaturel. I believe Dr. Marshall referenced this book in previous shows but I cannot remember which.

 

[Jen7]

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

Oh I see!

By the way, thanks for walking me through all these details. I appreciate it. You seem to have an apt screen name!

 

[Jen7]

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.

I really get stuck here. Because isn’t it true that these ignorant folks COULD be saved?? It’s just that we, being bound by then sacraments, can’t PRESUME they are saved & so need to have some fire under our feet to get out there and “make disciples of all nations, baptizing them…” But what’s wrong with believing God likely does have mercy on them in their best attempts?

 

[Crusader13]

Watching Marshall has made me feel like I just woke up from a nice dream where everybody was on the same page in the Church.

I don’t blame you. I too never would’ve guessed that there was so much disagreement over our teachings and traditions.

Honestly the first time I ever questioned anything regarding my faith, was when I was a child. I often asked why at my grandparents parish, which was built in the early 1900’s I think, the priest never used the big altar that stood behind him.

There was a huge beautiful altar that just sat empty and instead he used this white very bland looking table. I was so puzzled why they built it and then just left it there. lol

 

[Crusader13]

I really get stuck here. Because isn’t it true that these ignorant folks COULD be saved?? It’s just that we, being bound by then sacraments, can’t PRESUME they are saved & so need to have some fire under our feet to get out there and “make disciples of all nations, baptizing them…” But what’s wrong with believing God likely does have mercy on them in their best attempts?

Of course, the teaching of invincible ignorance is valid and it does attempt to confront the issue of those who never heard of Jesus or his Church. Unfortunately the possibility of such a thing happening is often twisted into a probability.

Which is where things go further off the rails. Because there is a difference in having never heard of Jesus Christ and outright rejecting him or teaching an error about who he is.

We then get crossed because it’s not charitable to point to a fellow Christian and say “you’re wrong.”

Some very devout God loving Christians teach that baptism is not necessary for salvation and others claim that it is. Well, it can’t be both. Either we need it or we don’t and the Holy Spirit will not lead someone to baptism and then lead another to reject it.

So is it more charitable to leave those Christians who reject baptism to their own fate for the sake of keeping up good ecumenical relations or should we tell them that to reject baptism is to invite ruin for their salvation?

 

[Emeraldlady]

If I’m not mistaken De Lubac referred to this topic in his book Surnaturel. I believe Dr. Marshall referenced this book in previous shows but I cannot remember which.

So really you are basing your rejection of the interpretation of St JPII and Bishop Barron only on choosing to put your faith in the authority of Marshall?

 

[Crusader13]

So really you are basing your rejection of the interpretation of St JPII and Bishop Barron only on choosing to put your faith in the authority of Marshall?

Not the authority of Dr. Marshall, but the understanding of what other theologians and doctors of the Church have said.

You seem to equate authority with knowledge and accuracy.

Dr. Ralph Martin is one of the most brilliant scholarly gentlemen in his field and I read his book Will Many Be Saved? Long before I ever knew who Dr Marshall was. And he refuted Bp. Barron’s claims, that we should have a reasonable hope that all will be saved, not by criticizing Bp. Barron, but by refuting Balthasar and others who Bp. Barron pointed to as reason for believing what he does.

And Ralph Martin is far from being a traditionalist or someone known for his divisive views.

 

[Emeraldlady]

Jen7:

I really get stuck here. Because isn’t it true that these ignorant folks COULD be saved?? It’s just that we, being bound by then sacraments, can’t PRESUME they are saved & so need to have some fire under our feet to get out there and “make disciples of all nations, baptizing them…” But what’s wrong with believing God likely does have mercy on them in their best attempts?

Of course, the teaching of invincible ignorance is valid and it does attempt to confront the issue of those who never heard of Jesus or his Church. Unfortunately the possibility of such a thing happening is often twisted into a probability.

Which is where things go further off the rails. Because there is a difference in having never heard of Jesus Christ and outright rejecting him or teaching an error about who he is.

We then get crossed because it’s not charitable to point to a fellow Christian and say “you’re wrong.”

Some very devout God loving Christians teach that baptism is not necessary for salvation and others claim that it is. Well, it can’t be both. Either we need it or we don’t and the Holy Spirit will not lead someone to baptism and then lead another to reject it.

So is it more charitable to leave those Christians who reject baptism to their own fate for the sake of keeping up good ecumenical relations or should we tell them that to reject baptism is to invite ruin for their salvation?

If we are all conformed to the spirit of Vatican II in which Pope St John XXIII taught…

"The Church has always opposed these errors. Frequently she has condemned them with the greatest severity. Nowadays, however, the Spouse of Christ prefers to make use of the medicine of mercy rather than that of severity. She considers that she meets the needs of the present day by demonstrating the validity of her teaching rather than by condemnations"…

We now have a new language and understanding of how to view others and evangelise. People that don’t exclude and condemn sinners are not abandoning evangelising. It’s like seeing people trying to heal and find happiness in different paths as having a primitive medicine, but that Jesus Christ is like a super antibiotic. We ‘sell’ that to them by being channels of Gods love for them. Not judging, but understanding that they have a desire for God in them and will respond to His mercy through us.

I had a wonderful reflection of myself shown to me by my husband many years ago. He was a non practising Catholic without much interest in the Church when we met but has been faithful and practising for the last 32 years. One day he laughed when I was talking about something to the kids and said 'you’re the only person I know who can talk about God all day long and not be a turn off!". I had vaguely sensed that I had the skill of weaving a Scripture lesson into almost every situation, but it was interesting to hear it said!

But that is what I love about the spirit of Vatican II. It allowed us to be in the world more but not of it.

 

[Jen7]

The Church has always opposed these errors. Frequently she has condemned them with the greatest severity. Nowadays, however, the Spouse of Christ prefers to make use of the medicine of mercy rather than that of severity . She considers that she meets the needs of the present day by demonstrating the validity of her teaching rather than by condemnations "…

But how can one method be chosen over another? Doesn’t it depend on the circumstances and not just on “an era”? I have one child who completely withers under punishments of any severity at all. A simple look will do the trick. But another child needs a firm hand & anything less is not even noticed by him! I can’t say “I parent thusly!” because it depends which kid we’re talking about. I will say I try to use the minimum severity needed… but that minimum is NOT zero in some cases. Surely it’s the same for the Church? How can someone state “we use mercy now instead of severity”? Always? Some won’t respond to that - they’ll take advantage!

 

[Crusader13]

We now have a new language and understanding of how to view others and evangelise.

And therein lies the problem. This new language would rather dialogue on what we have in common and compromise on what we know to be true in order to build on a foundation of mercy and understanding.

We don’t condemn nor do we coerce or force our beliefs upon others. If someone says God is not a Trinity and the Catholic Church is not the true Church founded by Jesus himself, then we can’t expect to get very far in our evangelization efforts if we don’t attempt to correct their misunderstandings.

If we tell them, “that’s ok I see you’re seeking God in your own way and at least we have that in common…”. How does that help our situation?

How does it help that individual if we just smile and say “there are privileged and non privileged routes to heaven” and in the end you and I will both get to where God is leading us.

That’s not Catholic teaching!

 

[Emeraldlady]

Emeraldlady:

The Church has always opposed these errors. Frequently she has condemned them with the greatest severity. Nowadays, however, the Spouse of Christ prefers to make use of the medicine of mercy rather than that of severity . She considers that she meets the needs of the present day by demonstrating the validity of her teaching rather than by condemnations "…

But how can one method be chosen over another? Doesn’t it depend on the circumstances and not just on “an era”? I have one child who completely withers under punishments of any severity at all. A simple look will do the trick. But another child needs a firm hand & anything less is not even noticed by him! I can’t say “I parent thusly!” because it depends which kid we’re talking about. I will say I try to use the minimum severity needed… but that minimum is NOT zero in some cases. Surely it’s the same for the Church? How can someone state “we use mercy now instead of severity”? Always? Some won’t respond to that - they’ll take advantage!

Evangelising is different to disciplining. There was a time where the Church taught the flock as you would teach children but now in this eschatological age, it recognising that 2000 years of Christianity, we are taught as adults are taught taking into account that the mature are more capable of reason and understanding.

I really think that the rebellion that is being stoked is coming from exploitation of those who have yet to grow fully in the faith as Catholics and who aren’t in a good position to fully discern the will of the Holy Spirit through the Magisterium.

 

[Emeraldlady]

If someone says God is not a Trinity and the Catholic Church is not the true Church founded by Jesus himself, then we can’t expect to get very far in our evangelization efforts if we don’t attempt to correct their misunderstandings.

I think that approach is just a myth or an ideal some have but that in real life, debate about the Trinity don’t come up. It is more about more base behaviours like sex outside marriage, homosexuality, not meeting together in faith and Eucharist. (Mass) The Church knew a long while back that condemning people for these behaviours in real life, did not effect good evangelising. That’s why the term “meeting people where they are at”, listening to their story and being a living witness to the Gospel are far more powerful evangelising approaches than condemnation.

 

[Jen7]

I really think that the rebellion that is being stoked is coming from exploitation of those who have yet to grow fully in the faith as Catholics and who aren’t in a good position to fully discern the will of the Holy Spirit through the Magisterium.

Wow. After saying we now disciple via mercy & don’t talk to to folks like children anymore… this is a bit condescending, no?

However, setting aside the tone, all I can say is that clarity of doctrine can sound severe, but that doesn’t make make it un-merciful. I would rather someone tell me straighten up what the religion believes and let’s me decide whether to take it or leave it… vs wasting my time on “common ground” and such. But maybe that’s just me. I’m also the person who read a All the one-star amazon reviews first. Tell me what’s I’m NOT going to like and I’ll decide if I want to keep shopping or not…