Taylor Marshall's Twitter feed has disappeared

[gracepoole]

gracepoole:

I think he’s saying both: if you are part of a parish that does things allowed by the Church, you’re part of a heretical slide toward women deacons.

Sounds like he’s saying the parish is part of the problem. Not necessarily you as an individual parishioner.

Sure. I agree that’s his claim.

I think he’s attempting to show how the changes to the liturgy have slowly eroded the faith. Even if something was allowed at a particular point in time, it only served as another stepping stone towards women deacons and possibly women’s ordination, which is what some clergy support.

But again, as you note here, these things are allowed. By the Church. Is the Church permitting heresies? Would she permit something that leads to heresy?

 

[gracepoole]

Emeraldlady:

The Church was never going to be immune to or effective in the changing world by being holed up in another time refusing to recognise changes in the world she served

Jesus and His Church do not conform to the world and its times or fads. The world is to conform to God.

Amen, amen.

 

[Emeraldlady]

Emeraldlady:

The Church was never going to be immune to or effective in the changing world by being holed up in another time refusing to recognise changes in the world she served

Jesus and His Church do not conform to the world and its times or fads. The world is to conform to God.

That could be a defense against the Mass in Latin as well. It was a change to the early Churchs first Eucharist.

Changing to be able to meet the world in time and place is conforming to God.

 

[MagdalenaRita]

Would she permit something that leads to heresy?

I believe the thought was those things would not lead to the heresy of women’s ordination

 

[gracepoole]

MagdalenaRita:

Emeraldlady:

The Church was never going to be immune to or effective in the changing world by being holed up in another time refusing to recognise changes in the world she served

Jesus and His Church do not conform to the world and its times or fads. The world is to conform to God.

That could be a defense against the Mass in Latin as well. It was a change to the early Churchs first Eucharist.

Changing to be able to meet the world in time and place is conforming to God.

Is that why the Tridentine Mass was regularized?

 

[gracepoole]

gracepoole:

Would she permit something that leads to heresy?

I believe the thought was those things would not lead to heresy.

One would hope, anyway. So if they have led to heresy, as Marshall seems to suggest, how is this accounted for?

 

[MagdalenaRita]

If they have led to heresy, as Marshall seems to suggest, how is this accounted for?

or leading to heresy…

Good question

 

[Emeraldlady]

Emeraldlady:

MagdalenaRita:

Emeraldlady:

The Church was never going to be immune to or effective in the changing world by being holed up in another time refusing to recognise changes in the world she served

Jesus and His Church do not conform to the world and its times or fads. The world is to conform to God.

That could be a defense against the Mass in Latin as well. It was a change to the early Churchs first Eucharist.

Changing to be able to meet the world in time and place is conforming to God.

Is that why the Tridentine Mass was regularized?

It is a permission and not an ordinary form.

 

[Fauken]

It is a permission and not an ordinary form.

It was never abrogated, per Summorum Pontificum.

 

[Emeraldlady]

Emeraldlady:

It is a permission and not an ordinary form.

It was never abrogated, per Summorum Pontificum.

It is not the ordinary form of the universal Church.

 

[MagdalenaRita]

could be a defense against the Mass in Latin as well. It was a change to the early Churchs first Eucharist.

Changing to be able to meet the world in time and place is conforming to God.

Part of the reason for the N.O. Mass, except for the language change, was that they believed they were going BACK in time to the very early days of the Mass in the catacombs.

 

[Fauken]

It is not the ordinary form of the universal Church.

But it was never abrogated. It was wrongfully suppressed. It is one form of the Latin rite.

 

[Emeraldlady]

Emeraldlady:

could be a defense against the Mass in Latin as well. It was a change to the early Churchs first Eucharist.

Changing to be able to meet the world in time and place is conforming to God.

Part of the reason for the N.O. Mass, except for the language change, was that they believed they were going BACK in time to the very early days of the Mass in the catacombs.

Is your point then that that is not conforming to God because only the Latin Mass conforms to God?

 

[gracepoole]

It is a permission and not an ordinary form.

You weren’t originally speaking of it in the current world, though. You were speaking of it as a change in liturgy from the earliest days of the Church. And at one time (for a long time), it was the ordinary form.

 

[MagdalenaRita]

What I’m saying, I guess not very well, is that you cant say that the Church conformed to the times if it went backwards.

I’m saying the Church does not conform we do.

 

[Emeraldlady]

What I’m saying, I guess not very well, is that you cant say that the Church conformed to the times if it went backwards.

Vatican II was not appealing to tradition though. It was making changes for the benefit of the people she serves. That isn’t going backwards.

I’m saying the Church does not conform we do.

The Church conforms to the Holy Spirit. That is why we conform to her teaching and guidance from age to age and not idolise any particular era as ‘the Church’. A wise Sicilian novelist once wrote that “everything has to change so that everything can stay the same”. We can easily see that applying to the Church.

 

[MagdalenaRita]

The Church conforms to the Holy Spirit.

This we can agree

 

[AlbMagno]

It’s funny to see traditionalists trying to save Marshall’s words in his tweets when they themselves are the first to not accept other explanations of the Pope’s words.

 

[Crusader13]

But again, as you note here, these things are allowed . By the Church. Is the Church permitting heresies? Would she permit something that leads to heresy?

I think the problem is that when you say the Church, many would argue that it’s not the Church per se, but certain clergy that have advocated for these changes and allowances.

I would not argue that the Church itself would permit heresies but individuals could. No different than saying it’s not the Church which is allowing the idols in the churches right now, but instead it’s certain clergy and even Pope Francis himself.

 

[Crusader13]

It’s funny to see traditionalists trying to save Marshall’s words in his tweets when they themselves are the first to not accept other explanations of the Pope’s words.

Who’s trying to save his words? There’s nothing wrong with what he said.