“Pope Innocent III: ‘For me the faith is so necessary that, whereas for other sins my only judge is God, for the slightest sin in the matter of the faith I could be judged by the Church.’ (propter solum peccatum quod in fide commititur possem ab Ecclesia judican)
Sunday, September 15, 2019
5 Dubia Questions for Taylor Marshall
– Vatican I expert Fr. Chad Ripperger, PhD, in his book “Magister Authority” shows that almost all Francis apologists be they liberal, conservative or traditionalist are “proximate to heresy”:“[T]reating ALL papal statements as if they are infallible… is proximate to heresy because it rejects the precise formulation of the conditions of infallibility as laid out in Vatican I… by essentially saying the pope is infallible regardless of conditions…”
“… Worse still, those who were to follow a pope who was in error in a non-infallible teaching which is taught contrary to something that is infallible is not, therefore, excused.”
(Magisterial Authority, Pages 5-14)
– Pope Innocent III (1198-1216) in “Si Papa”:
“‘Let no mortal being have the audacity to reprimand a Pope on account of faults, for he whose duty it is to judge all men cannot be judged by anybody, unless he should be called to the task of having deviated from the faith. (Si Papa)'”
“Pope Innocent III: ‘For me the faith is so necessary that, whereas for other sins my only judge is God, for the slightest sin in the matter of the faith I could be judged by the Church.’ (propter solum peccatum quod in fide commititur possem ab Ecclesia judican)”
(The Remnant, “Answering a Sedevacantist Critic,” March 18, 2015)
|Dr. Taylor Marshall, the co-host on the YouTube “TnT,” show said:|
“[Cardinal Muller said] No pope alone if he spoke ex cathedra could make possible the ordination of women… It seems to be if the pope came out and said ex cathedra ‘Women are to be ordained to the sacred order of the deaconate…'”
“You have only two options at that point. One, it’s true. That is Divine Revelation that God revealed. I can’t see how it works. Or second, the pope ain’t the pope. sedevacantist.”
(YouTube, TnT, Dr. Taylor Marshall, “What about Married Deacons, Minor Orders, and So-Called Women Deacons?,” Time 18:15 to 19:02)
In Twitter, Nick Donnelly wrote:
|“Bishop Schneider tells Raymond Arroyo that the [the Open Letter] signatories were wrong to accuse Francis of heresy because he hasn’t made a formal, universal declaration of heresy. Though he admits he has allowed wrong teaching Very disappointing hair splitting.”[https://mobile.twitter.com/TaylorRMarshall/status/1129334902153986050]|
In responding to Donnelly’s statement, Marshall apparently is implicitly saying Doctor of the Church St. Francis de Sales is promoting “sedevacantis[m]”:
“I agree w Bishop Schneider. If you condemn Francis as “heretical pope” one must break communion with him. This is why I called the doc “practically sedevacantist”. It’s not formally sede but the natural conclusion [what it ultimately promotes] is.”
Doctor of the Church St. Francis de Sales wrote:
“Thus we do not say that the Pope cannot err in his private opinion, as did John XXIL.; or be altogether a heretic, as perhaps Honorius was. Now when he is explicitly a heretic, he falls ipso facto from his dignity and out of the Church, andthe Church must either deprive him, or, as some say, declare him deprived, of his Apostolic See, and must say as S. Peter did: ‘Let another take his bishopric.'”
(The Catholic Controversy by St. Francis de Sales, Pages 305-306)
Marshall appears to be saying by inference that the Doctor of the Church is promoting “sedevacantis[m]” by “natural conclusion” when he wrote:
“[T]he Pope… when he is explicitly a heretic, he falls ipso facto from his dignity and out of the Church, andthe Church must either deprive him, or, as some say, declare him deprived, of his Apostolic See.”
Do Marshall and Schneider think they are greater theologians than St. Francis de Sales?
Do Marshall and Schneider think that the Church can’t depose a pope contradicting a Doctor of the Church or possibly that magically the Church doesn’t have to “condemn Francis as [a] ‘heretical pope'” before it “either deprive him, or, as some say, declare him deprived, of his Apostolic See”?
According to Donnelly, Bishop Athanasius Schneider said “the signatories were wrong to accuse Francis of heresy because he hasn’t made a formal, universal declaration of heresy.”
Marshall agreed with this statement.
Are Schneider and Marshall waiting for “a formal, universal declaration of heresy” such as this:
Not privately, but Pope Francis officially acting as the pope explicitly contradicted traditional Catholic teaching on divorce and remarriage when he in a “official act as the pope” placed the Argentine letter in the the Acts of the Apostolic See (AAS) in which he said of the Buenos Aires region episcopal guidelines:
“There is no other interpretations.”
The guidelines explicitly allows according to LifeSiteNews “sexuality active adulterous couples facing ‘complex circumstances’ to ‘access the sacraments of Reconciliation and the Eucharist.'”
(LifeSiteNews, “Confusion explodes as Pope Francis throws magisterial weight behind communion for adulterers, December 4, 2017)
In a article on OnePeterFive, specialist in Magisterial authority Dr. John Joy said “It means that it is an official act of the pope.”
Moreover, the article said:
“Dr. Joy pointed out that adding the letter to the AAS could, in fact, damage the credibility of Amoris Laetitia by potentially removing the possibility that it could be intercepted in an orthodox way, via its publication in the official acts of the Apostolic See, that the unorthodox interpretation is the official one.”(OnePeterFive, “Pope’s Letter on Argentinian Communion Guidelines for Remarriage Given Official Status,” December 2, 2017)The “official act of” Francis is a “unorthodox interpretation.”
It is not just a private contradiction of traditional Catholic teaching.The “official act of the pope” is a “unorthodox interpretation” which means it contradicts traditional Catholic teaching which is just another way of saying by “official act the pope” is teaching heresy.Now, let us quote philosopher Ed Feser:
“(1) Adulterous sexual acts are in some special circumstances morally permissible… these propositions flatly contradict irreformable Catholic teaching. Proposition (1) contradicts not only the perennial moral teaching of the Church, but the teaching of scripture itself.”(Edwardfeser.blogspot, “Denial flows into the Tiber,” December 18, 2016)
How’s that for an understatement?
Marshall and Schneider might have heard that God commanded in one of the Ten Commandments:
“Thou shalt not commit adultery.”
But, just in case they never heard of the Ten Commandments, Dubia Cardinal Walter Brandmuller said:
“Whoever thinks that persistent adultery and reception of Holy Communion are compatible is a heretic and promotes schism.”
(LifeSiteNews, “Dubia Cardinal: Anyone who Opens Communion to Adulterers a Heretic and Promotes Schism,” December 23, 2016)
Does this mean because Cardinal Brandmuller said that if a pope “open[ed] Communion to adulterers” he is “a heretic and promotes schism” that according to Marshall by inference he is a “sede” by “natural conclusion”?
Since Marshall wants to claim everyone who demonstrates that the Francis teaching that Communion for adulterers is heresy or anyone who calls for an investigation into the validity of the Francis conclave is a schismatic or a Sedevacantist or a Benevacantist, here are five really short and easy to answer dubia questions which hopefully aren’t too complicated for Marshall to answer to prove he is not a heretic who believes it is impossible for a supposed pope to be a antipope or is not proximate to heresyin treating “ALL papal statements as if they are infallible… [which] is proximate to heresy.”
To make it really easy for him it has been formatted so that he only has to answer: yes or no.
1. Doctor of the Church St. Francis de Sales said “The Pope… when he is explicitly a heretic… the Church must either deprive him or as some say declare him deprived of his Apostolic See.” Was St. Francis de Sales a Sedevacantist or a Benevacantist? Answer: yes or no.
2. “Universal Acceptance” theologian John of St. Thomas said “This man in particular lawfully elected and accepted by the Church is the supreme pontiff.” Was John of St. Thomas for saying “the supreme pontiff” must be BOTH “lawfully elected and accepted by the Church” a Sedevacantist or a Benevacantist? Answer: yes or no.
3. Do you think that a “supreme pontiff” if “universally accepted” is still Pope if, to quote papal validity expert Arnaldo Xavier de Silveira on “dubious election[s]”, that he is “a woman… a child… a demented person… a heretic… a apostate… [which] would [thus] be invalid[ed] by divine law”? Answer: yes or no.
4. Renowned Catholic historian Warren Carroll agreed with Bishop René Gracida on the determining factor for discerning a valid conclave for a valid papal election besides divine law. Carroll pronounced:
“But each Pope, having unlimited sovereign power as head of the Church, can prescribe any method for the election of his successor(s) that he chooses… A papal claimant not following these methods is also an Antipope.”
Are renowned historian Carroll and Bishop Gracida for saying this Sedevacantists or Benevacantists? Answer: yes or no.
5. Is Bishop Gracida really only a pawn of the legendary and notorious “Sedevacantist and Benevacantist” mastermind Ann Barnhardt for convincingly demonstrating that there is valid evidence that Pope John Paul II’s conclave constitution “Universi Dominici Gregis” which “prescribe[d].. [the] method for the election of his successor(s)” was violated and must be investigated by Cardinals? Answer: yes or no.
Pray an Our Father now for the restoration of the Church