G
gracepoole
Guest
Your statement doesn’t seem to mean anything. Can you explain?gracepoole:
Note that this is not what the Church teachesIf that’s not sowing division I don’t know what is.
Your statement doesn’t seem to mean anything. Can you explain?gracepoole:
Note that this is not what the Church teachesIf that’s not sowing division I don’t know what is.
First definition that pops up for concedes: “admit that something is true or valid after first denying or resisting it.”gracepoole:
Well it means “accept as true and valid”What a telling choice of words.
Unless one chooses a more “telling” choice of definition
Now this doesn’t mean anything, can you explain?Note that this is not what the Church teaches
The first definition that pops up via Google? Hardly.What a “telling” choice of definition.
It means, per the comment below to which I was originally responding, that the Church does not consider the Novus Ordo a “liturgical failure.” It does not teach that the Church is bifurcating into two religions and it does not teach that we ought to make a choice of the “original and traditional Catholicism.”gracepoole:
Now this doesn’t mean anything, can you explain?Note that this is not what the Church teaches
On Taylor Marshall’s FB April 27. He said:
“the Novus Ordo has been a liturgical failure. Catholicism seems to be bifurcating into two religions. Choose the original and traditional Catholicism.”
then by all means link us the source where Dr Marshall denied or resisted that NO is valid.Hardly.
nor does it teach that commenting on liturgical preference constitutes “sowing division”It does not teach that the Church is bifurcating into two religions
You keep reverting back to this red herring. As far as I know, no one has said that Marshall claims the OF is invalid. His personal preference, however, definitely has morphed into something of a moral imperative of late.gracepoole:
then by all means link us the source where Dr Marshall denied or resisted that NO is valid.Hardly.
And again, Marshall isn’t just “commenting on liturgical preference” when he claims the OF is a “liturgical failure.”gracepoole:
nor does it teach that commenting on liturgical preference constitutes “sowing division”It does not teach that the Church is bifurcating into two religions
so that definition choice was “telling”no one has said that Marshall claims the OF is invalid.
Sure he is. You disagree, but its not more than opinion.And again, Marshall isn’t just “commenting on liturgical preference” when he claims the OF is a “liturgical failure.”
Your post zeroed in on one word in a long post about him. Then another post asking forum about his mental state. Then starting a thread regarding his social media account status. Its clear where the obsession with him lies.why you’re so insistent on defending Marshall at every turn…can become obsessions
What exactly is Taylor Marshall teaching?? His comments and videos speak volumesNote that this is not what the Church teaches
And therein lies the problem…For what i gathered the guy just put the light on very real issues of the church