Is it ok to listen to Dr Taylor Marshall?

[JimmyDFG]

In faithful obedience to tradition, the sacred Council declares that holy Mother Church holds all lawfully acknowledged rites to be of equal right and dignity; that she wishes to preserve them in the future and to foster them in every way. The Council also desires that, where necessary, the rites be revised carefully in the light of sound tradition, and that they be given new vigor to meet the circumstances and needs of modern times.

The traditionalists have doctrinal differences, different liturgical traditions, and very soon will recognize different authorities than the “Novus Ordo” Catholics. That means the Catholic Church is currently going through the process of a schism

Schism is defined as a division in the Church that did not involve doctrine. Schism is contrary to charity and obedience; to the former, because it severs the ties of fraternal charity, to the latter, because the schismatic rebels against the Divinely constituted hierarchy.

If Marshall is accompanied by enough traditionalists in claiming there are now two “Catholic” faiths occupying the same space then it is true merely by them claiming it…
I say that the claim itself, supported by enough people, suffices to prove the claim.

What you’re describing is the bandwagon fallacy!!! Good work.

If there is “two” Catholic faiths. Who is the supreme pontiff of your “Catholicism” (which loses the Apostolic succession, of course) and where does this “Catholic” faith reside?

, that traditionalism is the “True” Faith

So pre-Vatican 2, correct? And what of the popes after V2?

 

[psc17]

I already unsub from his yt channel.i think he is the one who infiltrated the church to sow fear and disunity.i dont like him and believe him anymore.i wouldnt be surprised if he establishes his own religion and many will join him!

 

[Ardent_Fire]

I have enjoyed his discussions of St. Thomas Aquinas. But lately with him and Gordon there are times I feel the need to pull back. In particular when Gordon all but insinuated that St. Gianna Beretta Molla was sinning by being a physician in his debate with Trent Horn, or one of them condescendingly calling EWTN the “elderly womens’ television network” I’m questioning how much I should listen to them.

The reality of bad liturgies is nothing new. But there are times they remind me of insufferable vegans and those that can afford to eat expensive organic food and feel the need to lecture others about it without understanding that life circumstances don’t allow everyone to live in such a purist manner. At times they come across as existing in a bubble and show a lack of knowledge or understanding of how things are for a lot of Catholics out there as far as having the luxury of being able to afford to move to a more conservative area (which they have suggested) or having Mass in the extraordinary form in close range.

 

[FossilResin]

I stick with Bishop Barron and Fr Mike Schmitz. These men won’t disappoint you and they love King Jesus with true grace and warmth and joy. They focus on what’s important. Taylor Marshall just lacks grace and warmth and humility. Nobody’s perfect and we all have our fallen moments, but Marshall seems to be increasingly making a brand of it. I dunno. Anyways, I don’t want to hate on the guy. I only heard a little bit of his stuff before I didn’t want to hear anymore.

 

[aroosi]

I was thinking the same. For example after the Church sex abuse scandal Bishop Barron wrote a ‘letter to the suffering Church’ while Dr Marshall wrote the inflammatory book ‘infiltration’. Already from the title you can tell who is humbly seeking healing and expressing love for Christ and His Church, and who is instead encouraging division and sensationalism.

 

[FossilResin]

I was thinking the same. For example after the Church sex abuse scandal Bishop Barron wrote a ‘letter to the suffering Church’ while Dr Marshall wrote the inflammatory book ‘infiltration’. Already from the title you can tell who is humbly seeking healing and expressing love for Christ and His Church, and who is instead encouraging division and sensationalism.

oint_up_2:t2:ray:t2:

 

[Crusader13]

I was thinking the same. For example after the Church sex abuse scandal Bishop Barron wrote a ‘letter to the suffering Church’ while Dr Marshall wrote the inflammatory book ‘infiltration’. Already from the title you can tell who is humbly seeking healing and expressing love for Christ and His Church, and who is instead encouraging division and sensationalism.

Seriously. In his letter Bp. Barron insists that we as the laity fight for our faith and raise our voices in protest by calling out the offenders, holding the clergy accountable for the corruption and not accepting pathetic excuses and making sure that our faith isn’t corrupted by these evil and wicked men.

Sounds similar to what Dr. Marshall has been doing.

 

[commenter]

after the Church sex abuse scandal Bishop Barron wrote a ‘letter to the suffering Church’ while Dr Marshall wrote the inflammatory book ‘infiltration’. Already from the title you can tell who is humbly seeking healing and expressing love for Christ and His Church, and who is instead encouraging division and sensationalism.

Nothing brings in internet traffic and sales like sensationalism and division. To play in the Calumny League, against 1p5, Lepanto, CM, Call to Action, National Catholic Reporter, Jack Chick, Nancy Grace, etc, you have to out-ominous the competition.

The competition will fight back, of course. Nothing succeeds like excess.

 

[Crusader13]

They focus on what’s important. Taylor Marshall just lacks grace and warmth and humility.

Well you’re certainly entitled to your opinion. The problem I have with sources such as Word On Fire is that I heard nothing from that site in reference to the confusion and anger at what transpired at the synod. Nothing to address the pagan idolatry that was taking place.

Perhaps he did make some comments in interviews or what not, but I didn’t see anything on the site that specially addressed this issue.

Unfortunately many Catholic apologists and other clergy who’ve been critical of Dr. Marshall have largely avoided even mentioning the synod and what took place. In fact they’ve been posting articles and topics on anything but the synod.

 

[commenter]

largely avoided even mentioning the synod and what took place. In fact they’ve been posting articles and topics on anything but the synod.

Personally I think the synod was bad. A multitude of websites have agreed with me, over and over. But a really useful website will look at what information has already been provided, and provide information on a different topic, that is not “trending” at the moment. Tell me something I do not already know, especially something I personally can act on.

That differentiates Bishop Barron from the “herd”.

There is a certain guilty pleasure in following those “if it bleeds it leads” websites. Some people can’t get enough of it. I’m not sure this is spiritually beneficial.

 

[Crusader13]

But a really useful website will look at what information has already been provided, and provide information on a different topic, that is not “trending” at the moment. Tell me something I do not already know, especially something I personally can act on.

Fair enough. However, you run into the problem that so many on this forum have been debating since even before this synod began. Is the synod bad???

You have clergy and official Vatican spokesmen giving conflicting statements that everything was fine, no idolatry took place, it’s not Pachamama, they weren’t worshipping the statue etc etc.

Who’s right?

Others will blindly stand with anyone wearing the collar and they point to men like Bp. Barron and sites such as Word on Fire and think that because they aren’t speaking about the confusion of the synod, they are more humble and charitable then those who are criticizing it.

They view the inaction and silence as a type of endorsement.

 

[commenter]

Others will blindly stand with anyone wearing the collar and they point to men like Bp. Barron and sites such as Word on Fire and think that because they aren’t speaking about the confusion of the synod, they are more humble and charitable

I know very few Catholics who will blindly stand with anyone wearing the collar. These folks won’t point to Bishop Barron’s website, they are elderly, rarely or never use computers.

There are also a few people who still think the world is flat. So what? That hurts me how?

We live in the era where a large herd is obsessed that somewhere there are dangerous complacents lurking. At a time when prolife causes are fading due to lack of workers, there is enormous effort expended on rooting out these complacents, who might think Bishop Barron charitable, if they had heard of him.

Is 2019 is complacency a bigger problem for Catholics than the craving to follow “what’s trending now”? Why is there so little interest in Laity doing practical work on a local level towards prolife and evangelism, and do much fixation on pope and bishops?

 

[aroosi]

Dr Marshall in his book brought up a lot of conspiracy theories (St Gallen Mafia, Carbonari (!) etc) with little or no proofs and in his youtube channel went so far as asking Francis (not Pope Francis!) if he is a heretic. Do you really don’t see any difference between his attitude and bishop Barron’s attitude?

 

[gracepoole]

Another fantastic example of a former protestant who is now a protestant-Catholic.

 

[gracepoole]

You could say that on the other end of the spectrum that those other apologist are more Protestant than Catholic because of their favor for VII and the Novus Ordo.

I think those apologist the big name ones and Catholic Answers are good at basic catechesis.

However over time as things shook up after the 2014 Synod of the Family, and going into 2016 Amoris Laetitia I perceived they were explaining things away and they no longer hold my trust in matters of current events within the Church.

It’s comes down to two different philosophies either the Pope can be wrong and can make grave mistakes or we take everything for face value and if the Pope or some other authority tells us to jump off a bridge we do it even if it contradicts 2000 years of tradition and theology.
[/quote]

I don’t know any Catholic theologian who believes the pope is never wrong.

CA is good at basic catechesis, I agree. But CA Live has always been focused on converting protestants, so hiring former protestant apologists makes sense. I’d contend that there are now far greater worries than protestants to the faith, like secular humanists. And I don’t think CA is properly equipped to deal with this problem.

 

[commenter]

*** Weak Joke Warning***

Guy is bragging to his buddies:
" In my house, I make the major decisions - why we lost the Super Bowl, how California got into the water shortage, where we went wrong on Mideast policy…"

“My wife makes the minor decisions: where to buy a house, where to send the kids to school, what TV channels to block.”

The internet is mostly a spectator sport. Many sites give you the feeling you are directly acting on the high level issues of the day, simply by following that site (with premium plan, you get even more lurid information on wickedness in high places, not provided to everyone).

Practical sites that could guide real actions by you, are neglected.

 

[Crusader13]

Another fantastic example of a former protestant who is now a protestant-Catholic.

What do you mean by a Protestant Catholic?

 

[JimmyDFG]

No, what I am describing is that if you claim there is only one side, all that it takes to disprove your claim is to find some people who define themselves as being on a side opposite to yours.

What you describe is the very definition of the bandwagon fallacy e.g.
“If Marshall is accompanied by enough traditionalists in claiming there are now two “Catholic” faiths occupying the same space then it is true merely by them claiming it.”

A proposition must be true because many people believe it. Merely saying it does not make it true.

Furthermore, what I am claiming is, there is only one Catholicism that is in communion with the pope.

That the Church and the anti-Church exist and occupy the same space is a claim made by the previous Pope

Can you site your source please? And as for the “anti-Church” who and what are they, what did they introduce to the Church?

That there are two sides in conflict is inarguably true.

This depends on what your definition of “conflict” is.
You have the Traditionalist who support the Novus Ordo Mass as being valid. As Pope Benedict XVI, writing as a high-ranking Cardinal in The Ratzinger Report of 1985
“Whoever denies Vatican II denies the authority that upholds the other two councils and thereby detaches them from their foundation. And this applies to the so-called ‘traditionalism,’ also in its extreme forms… To defend the true tradition of the Church today means to defend the Council.”

The other Traditionalist who deny Vatican 2 and deny popes after the Second Ecumenical Council are outside the Church, or Sedevacantism and the likes of the SSPX who are not in communion with the Vatican.
As I see it, Mr. Taylor Marshall is heading down this road, even yourself said “Marshall is… claiming there are now two “Catholic” faiths” along with his criticism. Whether he commits himself to up hold the teachings of Vatican 2 is only a matter of time which way he goes.

There are NO two different Catholicism. You are either in communion with the pope which is also in support of Novus Ordo/Vatican 2, or you are not. And if you are not, you are not Catholic

I myself have chosen to take the “wait and see” approach with which cleric is truly faithful and which isn’t, as I am entirely without the education or authority to make any declaration.

If that’s the case, then why say…

I myself consider myself a “traditionalist”

that traditionalism is the “True” Faith

 

[RogueSemicolon]

As valuable as commentators are in modern society, I wonder how many people acknowledge the disproportionate influence commentators have on guiding intellectual discourse, generating opinion, and consolidating ideological support. Is there, perhaps, a danger that Catholic pundits and personalities are being relied on, by some, to digest news and controversies? I observe a parallel to US politics, where it is sometimes difficult to distinguish news reporting from news commentary, often aired or published in close proximity, as if it’s not enough that we get the facts but that we be told how they are to be interpreted, reacted to, and responded to as well.

Commentators ought to be understood as means for challenging, clarifying, or supplementing your own thoughts and observations. Give them attention, credence, responsibility to arrive at the truth, at what point are you relinquishing your assent to a questionable authority? When does thoughtful consideration become loyal acceptance? When do you stop being a listener and become a follower or devotee? Imagine all that you miss seeing and hearing when you stop looking and listening with your own eyes and ears and heart. You should be wary of shirking your responsibility of thinking for yourself, as tempting as it is to let others think for you. Staking your trust on any one fallen man is bound to disappoint. (I need not give reminders of popular Catholics who have since fallen from grace, do I?)

 

[MagdalenaRita]

Dr Marshall in his book brought up a lot of conspiracy theories (St Gallen Mafia, Carbonari (!) etc) with little or no proofs and in his youtube channel went so far as asking Francis (not Pope Francis!) if he is a heretic.Do you really don’t see any difference between his attitude and bishop Barron’s attitude?

Dr. Marshall only discussed the St. Gallen mafia, it was a cardinal who let the story out. As far as attitudes on the crisis in the church goes I don’t know who has a better attitude but Bishop Barron has gone a little off on his theology. There is even a video of Father Mike Schmitz explaining where Bishop Barron is wrong.

Another fantastic example of a former protestant who is now a protestant-Catholic.

So, now I am back to wondering if we have the right to judge another person as I see happening in this thread. Saying someone is a protestant-Catholic is judging the state of their soul. We can disagree with them sure, so I think it is better to discuss the points rather than call names.

CA is good at basic catechesis, I agree. But CA Live has always been focused on converting protestants, so hiring former protestant apologists makes sense. I’d contend that there are now far greater worries than protestants to the faith, like secular humanists. And I don’t think CA is properly equipped to deal with this problem.

From what I have understood CA is as you say meant to convert protestants and then only to defend the faith, not to discuss the issues at hand.