I definitely should've taken off my hat during the opening prayer. Extremely rude and disrespectful when I'm calling on the name of the Lord. My fault. Thanks for your comments, everyone. Appreciate the passion that some have and the care that others took to write thoughtful responses. Taylor is a good man. He deserves to be engaged directly. He's also a busy man, so it wouldn't surprise me if he doesn't have the time to engage us on his show or elsewhere. The Lord is good and He will see these things through on His own terms and at the proper time. The sovereign hand of the Lord is ever upon us. Thanks again for your feedback. Declue and I are hoping to address some of the more pointed comments in a follow up video. Good looking out brothers and sisters. Iron sharpens iron.
Taking your hat off during prayer? Sure, I mean great, but it's no sin and no disrespect, for a woman nor even a man, to have a hat on during private prayer outside of the Liturgy. (Paul's exhortation is culturally contextual, even then, if one takes it as a binding discipline, it applies during Public Prayer). God bless those tight wads who spread stink instead of Christ's joy. Hahaha.
Thankful for Taylor Marshall. We need to hear these truths in order to bring us closer to the roots of our faith. Continual denial of the evil and corruption creates way too much doubt and loss of faith. Again, thank you Taylor Marshall and Archbishop Vigano!!
He's a conspiracy nut. The devil has the power to assume a pleasing shape, and Taylor Marshall is that shape. He seems earnest. He seems like he cares. But he basically distorts many things to make it sound like he is the only person in the world who understand the secrets that conspiracies are controlling everything.
Well spoken, Nicolette. See how others react to your reaction: they right away come up with personal insults, name calling and satanizing. That is how people 'take care' of the issue...
@@tomthx5804 Nothing but more name-calling and personal attack. At this point, Tom, you are standing in your own way. Nobody can take you seriously. Same false generalizations. Over and over. And over.
Taylor Marshal is a fruit loop, does not speak for the Catholic Magisterium, has no authority to interpret documents int eh and of the Church, and increasingly is rejecting the eccumenical counsels and documents from those councils, which is schismatic, and increasingly seems to question whether the Pope is legitimate. None of these are marks of catholicity.
@@michaelspeyrer1264 Taylor Marshall does not claim to speak for the Catholic Magisterium. As he makes clear repeatedly. Taylor Marshall does not claim to have any authority to "interpret documents," but. He can read. As for his "increasingly rejection the ecumenical councils and documents" (plural) etc? Back this up with an actual.... fact. Otherwise I'll believe the real fruit loop, Michael, is you.
@@decluesviews2740 pray for the consecration of Russia by the Pope and all catholic bishops as requested by Our Lady of Fatima, all this madness will stop and her Immaculate Heart will reign! Why do you think Our Lady of Fatima wanted the 3rd secret revealed prior to the onset of Vatican II??? Of course, it never happened.....hmmm, I wonder why???
@@deluge848 I do pray for the consecration of Russia, regularly, and I find it baffling that it hasn't been done when it would be so simple. I'm with you there.
@@decluesviews2740 AMEN!!! we go back and forth about this and that and the other thing, when we've been given the remedy by OUR BLESSED MOTHER!! we need to concentrate on that.
TM has tried on several occasions to speak with Bp. Baron and he has will not make the effort to enter into dialogue. You need to also consider Abp. Vigano’s and Bishop Schneider’s thoughts/concerns about V-2. No question that there are issues with V-2 and when you start to recognize the state the church is currently in, you have to wonder if the errors of the past are to blame. Just saying.
There are no issues with Vatican II. All the "issues" that Vigano (he appears to have gone crazy) and Schneider (the pro SSPX man) bring up are jokes. They are not real problems. Sorry, but you simply believe what Taylor Marshall says. Ask yourself: Why does Taylor Marshall never have anyone who disagrees with him on his show. I will tell you why - he would soon be exposed as a fraud. So all you see on his show are cult members exchanging thoughts.
This was the best explanation of the "subsistit in" controversy that I've ever come across. I don't know why you're getting downvoted so much - people seem to want to stubbornly hold on to their schismatic beliefs. It's not Catholic, at all. Thank you for this video.
Abp. Vigano's letters makes point to point challenges to the intentional AMBIGUITY contained in V-II documents. It's not only Dr. Marshall. Speak to Abp. Vigano and Bishop Schneider's objections which have led Cardinals and the Pope to participate in pagan Pachamama rituals last October.
Joanne Mercier all Catholics make errors, coming down on your catholic brothers is not the way to keep the church. You must not be catholic but if you are this is no way to treat Gods kids
Vigano has gone crazy. He thinks that the Covid 19 is a plot by one world government to take over, and he thinks freemasons infiltrated the church etc. He has lost his marbles, which is a shame, because he seemed so good at first. Schneider seemed good, but now he thinks he is the pope and the greatest theologian of all time wrapped into one. He says strange things like communion in the hand is a denial of catholic doctrine, which is crazy. They he babbles about Vatican II and he points out things as 'errors" that are not errors at all, just things that he does not like. Let us go back to Pius XII in Casti Connubi to expose Schneiders arrogance and how wrong it is: " 104. Wherefore, let the faithful also be on their guard against the overrated independence of private judgment and that false autonomy of human reason. For it is quite foreign to everyone bearing the name of a Christian to trust his own mental powers with such pride as to agree only with those things which he can examine from their inner nature, and to imagine that the Church, sent by God to teach and guide all nations, is not conversant with present affairs and circumstances; or even that they must obey only in those matters which she has decreed by solemn definition as though her other decisions might be presumed to be false or putting forward insufficient motive for truth and honesty. Quite to the contrary, a characteristic of all true followers of Christ, lettered or unlettered, is to suffer themselves to be guided and led in all things that touch upon faith or morals by the Holy Church of God through its Supreme Pastor the Roman Pontiff, who is himself guided by Jesus Christ Our Lord." Schneider, Marshall and Vigano are perilously close to being schismatics, in that they "trust their own mental powers" to decide what is good Catholic doctrine and what is not. Also, you will never see Marshall have someone on his show who knows enough to show his many errors. All three are very close to rejecting the church.
@John Citizen The simple fact is that every papal doc from the beginning of time has ambiguity in it, if you want ambiguity to be there. Rad trads simply make the false claim that Vatican II was ambiguous and things before Vatican II were not ambiguous. This is a totally false assertion.
@@tomthx5804 seriously, THANK YOU for this very important response - probably the best I've read anywhere on any site. I was pulled in all sorts of ways by the Marshalls/Gordon/Voris/Coffin discourse and not once did I feel I was enriched or experienced any kind of Catholic spirituality through their shared thoughts on this and that. Always an attack on someone or something. I also went to Bishop Barron's channel and found it enriching, enlightening, diverse, steeped in church history and biblical foundation. There have been a few times I didn't like what he said, but so what? Who am I anyway? The good thing is that I have come away knowing I must pray, read, study and ask God's help for understanding and wisdom, guidance and direction - and not base my compass on any of these TH-cam influencers. Many are drawn away by them, probably for the same reason I am - poorly catechised. Still, no excuse for being lazy and not doing the hard work myself. With your response here based on Pius XII in Casti Connubi, you've helped me a great deal. God Bless and thank you again!
@@lawmaker22 That is true. Technically, while an open dialogue between both of them is ideal, I think it could have caused more drama/damage than intended if it went thru (i.e. the wounds are still fresh). Esp with noisy, one-sided Catholics online from all sides wanting to rock the boat At least now, His Excellency has posted several videos on Vatican II and gave a response to all the faithful, including TM. When tensions are less high, maybe then there can be more productive dialogue
As a consequence of Nostra Aetate, St. Pope John Paul II invited Buddhists etc into the Assisi Church where they placed their "deities" on the Holy tabernacle in the Church. As a consequence of Nostra Aetate and Lumen Gentium, we have Pachamama earth gods in the Vatican and also documents like the Abhu dabi document, "God wills the plurality of all religions", just like He does for sex race etc. The ambiguities of those docs n others have led to misinterpretions and hence errors. Catholic teaching shouldn't be ambiguous. It should be crystal clear, as the words of Our Blessed Lord, as the previous councils etc. If the council is being debated, that is the clearest sign that it has ambiguities. Such debates have not been there for other previous Councils. By the time the CDF issues documents later on to clarify those in VII, it means that VII had ambiguities,. The ambiguities have led to errors in misinterpretions and these ambiguities, by that fact of lack of clarity, end up as errors. It's true, that VII docs can be interpreted in an Orthodox way, as you guys have done. And this is a good thing. If only all bishops n priests could take that path. But the problem is that the docs can also be interpreted in a purely liberal way, hence the consequences of Pachamama, Assisi scandal, Communion in the hand and extraordinary ministers of the Holy Eucharist, "plurality of all religions", lessening of the zeal in religious communities, etc and the combined effect of this liberal interpretation has led to the many novelties priests are inventing day n night in the Novus Ordo, making it similar to protestant worship (thsnks to Card. Annibale Bugnini), and hence à decrease in the faith, decrease in the Real Presence, priests leaving the ministry etc. St. Pope Pius VI himself said that [paraphrasing] - we expected a new springtime of the Church prior to the Council but after the Council, we got more confusion and conflict etc.
You are sadly misinformed by the fake youtube guys who pretend to know things. They are, for the most part, exaggerating and distorting things, which is evil in itself. First, all JP II did was set aside a room for the Buddhists to pray. He left it to the monk underlings to do all the necessary preparations. Your claim is based on ONE newspaper article printed in the NY Times, which claims that they did so and so. No one has ever verified that the Buddhists actually did this, nor has anyone bothered to ask the monks precisely went on at that time. Why? Because fake traditionalists WANT to use this supposed incident and exaggerate it. Presumably, when they allowed this chapel to be used, they removed the blessed sacrament etc. So all that was left was a table and what MIGHT have been a tabernacle box, which would have been empty. So all your youtube buddies are doing is spreading false allegations. Note they have never contacted the monks to find out exactly what happened. NO, Pachamama had NOTHING to do with Nostra Aetate and Lumen Gentium, and whoever told you it did is purposely making stuff up out of thin air. IF your youtube masters bothered to deal in reality, they would have discovered that Pope Francis told a visiting bishop that the Abu Dhabi document really meant the permissive will of God, which squares it with Catholic doctrine, so they always leave that out. No doubt the Abu Dhabi document was flaky and weak and the explanation is shaky, and more careful people would not have done it. But at least Francis tried to square it with Catholic doctrine. But when there is youtube hay to be made, why get these stories straight when telling exaggerations can build you a youtube empire?
@@tomthx5804 Surely you aren't saying the Pachamana incident and all those disgusting images of topless women breastfeeding animals being displayed in churches is acceptable? No "TH-camr Master" made up or exaggerated all that...it was an abomination.
None of what you have said is an accurate understanding of Nostra Aetate. And at odds with what Pope Benedict said is a keeping with a proper understanding of the documents of the council.
@@michaelspeyrer1264 Well maybe these things should be made crystal clear so there can be no misunderstandings or abuses by anyone on either side of the fence...then we wouldn't have such in fighting and divisions. You can't blame or judge anyone for having serious questions and concerns about these issues..
I'm sure Bishop Schneider hasn't listened to most of Marshalls videos. Bishop Schneider approves of Marshalls book on Infiltrating which there is. The bishop also has a platform to speak online on good practices of Holy Communion on the tongue and show reverence to God.
@@Time2see01 Maybe you misunderstand me, I am asking the above two gentlemen to acknowledge that a learned theologian/bishop (Athanasius Schneider) has been interviewed by Talyor Marshall many times (all on TH-cam). He has personally addressed some of these issues. He is a bishop in full communion and good standing with the RCC. Above they talk about how it would be so great for Talyor to talk to Bishop Barron without acknowledging Bishop Schneider's interviews or expertise at all.
@John Citizen Oh, ok I guess being a faithful successor of the Apostles is no big deal to you (you sound unhinged - friend). Au contraire, he has a very impressive resume; served in South America, Asia, Europe, taught Patristics at the seminary level, Speaks over 7 languages, has written several popular books on theology, but most importantly he has been a faithful priest for 30 years - one that has never taught heresy, a bishop for over 15 years ordained by Cdl. Sodano himself (you probably love him right?). Since even you seem to know so much about his "insignificant" excellency it is obvious that you would benefit from standing corrected by watching some of TM's interviews with Bishop Schneider. Humility we pray, oh Lord.
Schneider is not even a bishop. He's an auxiliary. He appears to be headed for the SSPX. All his complaints were stupid, lame complaints that did not even present Vatican II correctly. He said that communion in the hand was against Catholic dogma, which is clearly false. He does not know what he is talking about. he quotes a few phrases from Vatican II that he does not like. Big deal. One crummy bishop (not even a bishop) from Kazakhstan is supposed to know more than every pope we have had, more than the 2000 bishops who voted by votes like 2000 to 5 in favor of those documents? More than all the theologians who have endlessly poured over Vatican II for 50 years. They found no "erros". But this SSPX supporting bishop from Kazakhastan is suddenly the only guy who noticed this stuff? Get real.
@@tomthx5804 Are you stating auxiliary bishops are not valid bishops in the true sense of the sacrament? Sounds like it to me - that is a canonically invalid position (and arguably heresy), Tom. Auxilary (which just means assistant really) or not, he is a member of episcopacy and deserves respect as being elevated as a Successor to the Apostles and not to be referred to as "crummy". I think your attitude sounds crummy but I would never call you a crummy person. Do you think Christ likes you calling his priest crummy? Bishop Schnieder is NOT associated in any authoritative/canonical way with the SSPX (like that even matters). Please point out one heresy that "Auxilary" Bishop Athanasius has supported. Back it with evidence, not your boisterous opinion (give me sources). Just google search him to see that he is respected, teaches well, and is as learned (if not more) than all those Vat. II authors/clerics you are pseudo-idolizing. Bishop Schneider may have some invalid opinions (I am sure he does) But my original post was addressed to the authors of the above video asking them to recognize/discuss Bishop Schnieder's views on Vat. II that is all. Now, relax, take off your mask and breathe easier, before you go around tearing people down next time.
@Apostolic Nuncio to Kekistan It is His Holiness Pope Saint Taylor Marshall the Infinite that refuses to have anyone on the show that disagrees with him. He is a weak sister, not interested in truth. He has blocked everyone on twitter that disagrees with him. Marshall never allows anyone on his show who can show he is full of it. Rule number one of conspiracy theorists is NEVER have someone on your show that can really debate you.
@@denismiller7516 I would, if he agrees not to turn his mic volume up twice as loud as mine and talk over me! (Something DeClue seems to like doing as well.)
Wow! As a Cradle Catholic, I'm only 10 minutes in and already am grateful to hear clear, smart Catholic perspective, with humility and charity, and without all the drama, offence & dark agendas. Michael Voris/Taylor Marshall disturb my soul and I've chosen to stop listening to them, pray, become better catechised (be willing to be taught). God Bless & THANK YOU!
Don't worry, your common sense seems to be winning out. A tree is judged by it's fruit, and a daily diet of rumors, bad news, a dash of calumny and lack of charity will turn your faith cold. Stick with the Saints, and good teaching without all the Mean Girls drama. I highly recommend the Thomistic Institute podcasts and this channel of course. Ascension Presents is good too, with more of an accent on practical Catholic spirituality.
Curious how M. Boris disturbs your soul. Most of his content deals with church corruption, all of which, from what I’ve heard, is very well documented. How does this disturb you and how is evidence a dark agenda? If you have evidence of your claim I’d like to hear it because I am open to the truth.
@@fragwagon Thanks alot for your supportive comments and guidance. I'm one of those Cradle Catholics that became lukewarm, was always poorly catechised, and as I started to wade into TH-cam looking for help/instruction, I tripped across Taylor Marshall etc and I just knew not to go down that rabbit hole. I feel with these guys - a real breath of fresh air, and yes - reading the Saints and good teaching without the Mean Girls drama (love that!) is my intention. Better late than never - but these guys have me excited now instead of discouraged. So much to learn - feels overwhelming - but 1 foot in front of the other.
@@mikazoftstrom2343 It's the sheer approach and tone toward his content presentations that put me off....and includes the constant put down of Pope Francis, corruption of the Catholic Church - making everything sound like the sky is falling - a whole lot of constant drama, and the biggest of all is a huge lack of charity and name-calling/disparaging of others characters - all in the name of Holy Mother Church - as he'd say - with an enormous air of self-righteousness and judgement.....and who is he? Michael Voris? What authority has he been given by the Catholic Church to judge and condemn her people? None of that to me is Catholic Spirituality - and I have no interest to get anywhere near that kind of spirit. In contrast, these 2 men are wholly charitable, with sound knowledge and respect for others, not intent on tearing people down but generously instructive.
Mark M. I understand but disagree to a point. When speaking of blatant corruption and attempts to change doctrine that is against the teachings of the church, he should hit hard and bring truth to the public and those in the Vatican that have authority. In cases where there is only speculation, I could not agree with you more. But fighting for the truth can not always be sunshine, lollipops, and spiritual bliss. Jesus was quite aggressive with those who denigrated the temple and was harder on hypocrites. I don’t see greater hypocrisy than those who blatantly hide rapists and thieves and those who would try and change the doctrine of the church to suit their own lifestyles.
Thank you Taylor for representing the Catholic Church teachings throughout the centuries. Thank you for questioning the current ethics and teachings of this pontificate and today's bishops.
@@tomgreene2282 The pope's failure to speak out against the abortion of our precious babies. The pope's failure to correct himself when it comes to dealing with corrupt politicians. More recently the pope saying ALL are part of The Church - Acta non verba.
The videos where DeClue's Views critiques Taylor Marshall always sound like a guy micro-obsessing/parting hairs looking for something to critique and 'have an opinion on'. He wants to show that he theologically astute. There's no 'meat' or main thrust with him-because there is none to really be had. I don't think anyone is attacking his desire to find a 'hermaneutic of continuity' with Vatican II documents. Taylor Marshall, Bishop Schneider, and others are and have been making the following points: That there are documents which have been taken (incorrectly or correctly intended as the case may or may not be) and used to advance modernist and novel practices, belief's, etc and for what clearly has been dissent, heresy, demolition of the Catholic Church. The last 50+ years have shown this demonstrably. That is the main thrust of the argument. So, the question begs, why bother with this hair-splitting about the documents when it's painfully obvious what has happened since the council? That's the point man. Everybody recognizes your degrees and knowledge base. . . but this is like a bunch of academics arguing about the finer points of something insignificant while there is a Elephant in the room clear as day. It's a waste of their time and the listeners. I won't give this guy a listen again when he decides to critique Marshall anymore and that is not meant as blanket endorsement of all that Marshall says, either. Taylor makes solid, practical points that have a main thrust. This guy is just trying to create clickbait by critiquing TM. Plance, first thing that stood out is the backwards hat for me too. Points for not having it in some moronic 'gangsta-sideway's' style, but yeah, it's time to retire that backwards hat.
I agree entirely, for us Catholic peasants, we look at the fruit of the tree. Things are happening after Vatican 2 that are making us confused and disenchanted. Our masses are now becoming like variety shows, the priests are saying green jokes and corny ones too during their homilies. I saw a video of a man denied the holy communion because he knelt down and opened his mouth to receive the Body of Christ. The Pope kissing the Koran. Our Pope lying about his knowledge about Macarrick's pedophilia. Priests who are cozing up with homosexuality. So many weird things, I am getting dizzy.
The point is that Marshall and his few buddies have NO reason to believe that ANY of the problems of the church actually stem from Vatican II or anything it really taught. They have never been able to show how ANY of the stuff they complain about came from Vatican II or any of its documents. At most, they seek to distort what Vatican II said, and they find an occasional phrase that they do not like. But that phrase is only a problem if one has a distorted understanding of what it means. For example. Taylor Marshall said that Vatican II said that through Buddhism, you can achieve "perfect liberation". But Vatican II did not say that at all. When you go read the document, all it is really doing is making a list of things that Buddhists believe. So you are being led down the garden path by a goof like Marshall who does not even understand what he is reading. All of your allegations against DeClue come about simplly because you believe the conspiracy goof Taylor Marshall, and you think he is basically on point. But when people like Declue come about, who actually know this stuff, you reject it because you prefer a conspiracy theory . NONE of the criticism that Schneider and Marshall make about Vatican II have the least substance. Do you think it is possible for something like Vatican II to teach error, and be around for 50 years, and nobody notice it until now. Finally, look at the guest Marshall has on his show. He NEVER has on anyone who really knows the documents and can debate him. He is a conspiracy nut, and conspiracy nut rule number one is never debate with anyone who really knows this stuff. Just have other conspiracy goofs on your show.
@@tomthx5804 If one has already been the proof for decades/centuries? of homosexual rape and paedophilia, raping Nuns; A little Chy-nese cash getting rinsed out thru the Vatican Bank, and the Good Lord only knows what else, I can most assuredly pay very close attention to Dr. Marshall. Y'all are following after the Sheep in Wolf's clothing bait. God is calling His people to get things cleaned up.
I was confirmed last month. Without Dr. Marshall having addressed many of the issues that were holding me back, it never would have happened. Thanks Dr. Marshall.
@John Citizen Until the word radtrad I thought you were speaking of the "No one goes to hell" Bp Barron, or the "99 baby" Cd Tobin, and other friends...
Richard, @24:24 you refer to Taylor's frustration with V II ambiguities. Then you point to parallels. This is my frustration w V II-----can you name one other council than V II that SOUGHT to be ambiguous? to blur rather than to clarify?
I don't accept the narrative that it sought to be ambiguous. I don't use one heretic peritus's supposed but undocumented comment as the interpretive key for the Council when it is counter-factual to the explicit statements of the popes and documents themselves.
OK, little bro, I'm honored by your reply. But you can make me feel a lot better by citing one or two things V II clarified😊. Maybe 'extra ecclesia...' ? What an anonymous Christian is? Throw me a bone, please!
@@kneelingcatholic Anonymous Christian was Rahner's, not the Council's term. Although, I did do a video about that. As far as the Church and salvation, it is in Lumen gentium. I am at work right now, but we did quote at least part of it in the video.
Richard, V II seems to be a case of what they reiterated of old dogma was good, and the new items they hinted at , e.g. like other Faiths saving people thru faithful observance of false doctrines ---- were not good....feel free the correct me if they did not push in that direction!
Linda Fowler you sound bitter & negative. I’m retired as well - glad to know you weren’t talked out of your savings, as many of these internet celebrities manage to do. I wish you well with your disability & hope you feel better or can cope well enough.
@@markm.5756 I have been coping fine for nearly 30 years. I am not bitter at all. I accept my pain as a kiss from the Cross. J have deep joy even through the pain.
@20 mins, I have never heard TM flout his doctorate. He lists his title, Dr. Taylor Marshall, just as all people with titles do. He earned it, why wouldn't he use it? I know lots of people with doctorates and they list their title on videos and publications. Your comments sound like sour grapes.
Read his book infiltration, the forward was written by bishop Schnieder who admits there is no evidence to back up any of the claims in his book. Should both the bishop and Dr. Marshall know this is a sin? Bless ya mate.
@@themoderncatholicwarrior7216 I do have his book Infiltration and I did read it though I need to go back to check the forward. I watch every single video that TM publishes and order all of his books. I think he is a force for good in the world. Let's not argue about personalities. Do you honestly believe that Vatican II is *not* in error? The RCC has been bleeding members since the Novus Ordo. Entire parishes are closing down. Meanwhile, the Traditional Latin Mass folks are growing in leaps and bounds. Have you attended a TLM? They are packed, children everywhere. I believe trads like TM represent a revitalization of the faith.
@@npickard4218 Hey, ok first a bit of my background. I grew up in a Novus Ordo Catholic High School, St. James in East Bentleigh Melbourne, Australia. I was persecuted for being a follower of the SSPX and only attending the Latin mass. Then the SSPX opened St. Thomas High School in Tynong, Victoria. I was one of the first students. Ok, so my fellow students from St. James don't know or understand the Vatican 2 story. Some of them have had a struggle with their faith and left but most still believe. Student of the SSPX can tell you all about Vatican 2 and they love to talk conspiracies about the church and Freemason but they have almost all lost the faith. They all had the Latin mass growing up. Also, the writers of Vatican 2 also said the Latin mass daily while at the council. Sorry but this is fake news. It has been reported here in Australia that the fastest growing religion is the Catholic faith, not the traditional Catholic movement which is dying. I have noticed at Latin mass centers in Victoria, they are shrinking. This is both SSPX and mainstream church. In fact in my church that I go to, when I left the SSPX in 2011 and went there I came across a priest who I grew up within the SSPX. He brought in the Latin mass. From 2011 to early this year mass attendance shrank. People started going to other churches. At midnight mass back in 2012 I mad to park far from the church and the church was crowded outside bec there was no room inside. I would literally be standing on the footpath which is nowhere near the front door. But then this priest decided to make midnight mass Latin and last Christmas the church was not even half full. Sorry but this thing about people in the church losing their faith while Latin mass goers are growing is fake news. In Melbourne Australia, if you look up all the Latin mass centers and attend them all a different one each week, you will notice the same people are circulation the different centers to try and keep numbers up.
@@npickard4218 Part 2. Some things I think you should know and go and research is the fact that the pre-Vatican 2 church wanted the Novus Ordo Mass. When I first left the SSPX in 2011 I studied as much as I could and had an impressive list of notes and references, one of them was a quote from St. Pius X stating that he didn't want mass to be in Latin in the future church. My computer crashed and I lost all the notes and could never find this quote again. However, I did find out that Pope Benedict went to seminary in the late 1940s and he learned then that the church wanted a revised mass that took the tradition of the Roman Rite of noble simplicity. This is the Novus Ordo Mass. Additionally, Marcel Lefebvre started this entire movement. But Padre Pio warned him not to. Lefebvre started the SSPX saying the Novus Ordo mass. the Latin mass was brought in 2 years later as a gimmick along with a dress code of the 1950s style. This was to trick people into thinking this was the mass you grew up in. But he was against Vatican 2. He was also one of the bishops of Vatican 2 who wrote up and signed off on all documents to be authentically Catholic. The SSPX originally denied this back in the 90s. Then they accepted this but claimed he didn't sign 2 of the 16 documents and now they acknowledge he signed all documents but changed his mind after even though there is no evidence of this. Now it has been released he elevated a predator priest to the priesthood after that man was found out. Be became close friends with him and that man went on to abuse people as a priest. He got in trouble with the church not for saying Latin mass but for wanting to ordain priest in secret, why? I think we know now. At the school, they hired a known sex offender who defended the man claiming he was innocent. This is Fr. Todd Angele the first headmaster of St. Thomas. He is now accused of covering up for another sex offender at St. Mary's in the US.
@@themoderncatholicwarrior7216 Thank you for your long reply. I am interested in Victoria since I follow a guy on Bitchute who reports and the draconian lockdowns by the provincial government (not sure if you have states or provinces.) I live in California though I was raised at the Canadian border in Michigan. I wonder how much of our experiences are about living in different countries. Hm. I am not Catholic but I am starting the conversion process after the Nov 3rd election (because I'm spending all of my energy organizing Trump rallies.) I am going to a Latin Mass about a half hour from where I live and it is bustling with activity and enthusiasm. I tried going to Novus Ordo and they are have empty ... a lot of women but not many men attend. It seems to be a feminized mass. Men don't like all the handholding, touchy-feely stuff that transpires at these Novus Order masses. That's what I noticed. I would not want to be Catholic if I had to go to NO. It's the TLM that attracts me to the faith and the "trad movement." I think Pope Francis' newest encyclical called Fratelli tutti is creepy. It's just his personal opinion so I can criticize it. He states that there are many paths to God. Why would I convert to Catholocism if there are "many paths?" It feels like New Age nonsense to me. It was a trad who told me, "there is no salvation outside of the Church." Then he showed it to me in the Cathechism. That's is exclusive and beautiful. I guess it's my personality but I am repelled by N.O. yet I am drawn to TLM. I love liturgy and I love eternal languages. I grew up Jewish and learned to daven in Hebrew. Jews all around planet Earth daven (pray) in liturgical Hebrew. It's a universal language for Jews. Latin in the RCC is an exact parallel if that makes sense. Different language, different religion but all the arguments that the trads make for Latin are the same arguments Jews make for Hebrew. I don't want to go into a long letter about the power of liturgies bc I'm sure you've heard those arguments. But, yeah, here in California the Latin Mass is where all the energy is. It's also true in other American states. I know it's true in Texas because I have friends there who tell me TLM is crowded while N.O. is lifeless and not well-attended.
You started the first 30 minutes with ad hominem attacks against TM and already, this became the color of the rest of your podcast. Can you not just focus on the issues and do away with subjective nuances of your discussions? Do you agree with parading the pachamama in the Vatican and placing it in the church? Will you accept women priests as being proposed by the amazon synod? Will you discourage receiving communion by the hand? Are priests right in denying communion to people who advocate abortion? is it right for Father Barron to say that defending the statues and churches from the mobs the job of the lay people? Do you condemn the Pope from kissing the Koran in the Vatican? I am not a theologian but I am more concerned with lay issues which I see everyday. TM was able to connect some of these questionable practices to the Vatican 2 that is why his opinions carry some weight. Whether the clergy has wrongly interpreted Vatican 2 or not, it is apparent there is ambiguity in the wordings which is aptly being exposed by TM.
Taylor Marshall folllowers are always instructed to call ANY criticism "ad hominem" Even when it is totally not ad hominem at all. And then they pretend that if you disagree with Taylor Marshall, then you agree with everything Pope Francis does. That is not true. And always the baloney about kissing the Koran. And look - although you THINK Taylor Marshall has linked this laundry list of things to Vatican II, that does not mean he actually has. He has not. He just is repeating the same discredited nonsense the SSPX has always told - Just remember, Taylor Marshall says a lot of things that are completely untrue, that are totally made up, that exaggerate, that misinform, etc. You simply cannot rely on the guy.
@@tomthx5804 "Taylor Marshall says a lot of things that are completely untrue, that are totally made up, that exaggerate, that misinform, etc." A for eg would be useful here, Tom. In your own time. Thanks.
Thank you for this. It is good to get people talking about this rather than just Marshall. It's good to keep our heads on straight and have a meaningful conversation.
@@cyndephillipshohbein8232 Having watched a lot of Dr. Marshall, I am fairly certain I have heard him refer to himself as Marshall in the third person freely. As far as the Lord, I suspect He would have said Taylor, but I wouldn't dare be so familiar.
@Andrew Preslar I do tend a bit too literal in my response to comments, but I assure you that I was entirely sincere in what I said with no degree of malice.
How did pope Paul v1 get around the decree at the Council of Trent imposed by pope Prius v session 7 canon 13 that the liturgy and sacrament of the mass could not be changed and it’s in the word derogation = the meaning is the suspension or a suppression of a law. And pope Paul v1 used this to promote the new liturgy and the new mass in Vatican 11
Guys thank you so much for this. I was sent this TM video by a friend and I researched it as I watched it. I ended up writing a 12 page paper in response to him (it was largely quotations) but I’m very relieved to see you all bring up the same issues I had while watching it. Thank you guys for this video. It really makes me feel like I’m not alone in questioning TM. God bless you both!
Hard pass on Chris Plance. I love Tim Gordon but chris is the reason I stopped watching R4R. I watched 9 minutes of this video and couldn’t take any more of the ragging on Taylor Marshall. Seems you’ve been ratioed on this. You act like you know whether Taylor has prayerfully discerned this or not and implied he hasn’t. Maybe that’s something you all should have done before this video instead of suggesting he do it. By the way I can decide for myself if I agree with someone or not. I don’t need someone else out there censoring content or suggesting others don’t put their valid ideas/theological discussions out there. And for the record I don’t agree with any one popular catholic lay TH-camr out there 100% of the time bc we don’t have to and should think for ourselves anyways.
Look, Martin Luther "prayerfully discerned" everything. So does James Martin. All these conspiiracy goofs pretend they are prayerfully discerning everything, but they are really just listening to themselves think. Let me remind you, it is not for you, as a lay person who knows virtually nothing about theology to decide that you "agree" with Marshall or any other youtube dude. Your only role is to figure out what the real church teaches, not what some goofball with conspiracy theories thinks. Read my comments above. Quite often, marshall is totally wrong about everything. He gets his facts wrong. He makes things up. If you a a protestant, you think for yourself and ignore what the church teaches. if you are protestant, you decide complex theological questions based on viewing a conspiracy dude on youtube. You have been tricked by Marshall. Real Catholics follow church teaching, not what some youtube dude says.
@@tomthx5804 Just go on and back there BS Truck right now, Bubba. Who in the Hades do you presume to think you are???? Let ME remind YOU, Buffalo Breath (apologies to Buffalos), it is NOT for YOU to tell ME what or HOW to THINK. YOU know LESS than a Rodent's Rotten Rump about what I May or May NOT know about Theology or ANYTHING else!!!! Were you promoted to Pope and I missed it????? May I suggest that you read the book, The Bad Popes. Explain to me why the Mc Carrack dossier is not yet released??? Waiting for him to die to clip that cash flow??? God WILL save His Church; however, many, perhaps such as yourself will be turned away whilst you're screeching "Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in Your name, and in Your name drive out demons and perform many miracles?’…"Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven....
@@cyndephillipshohbein8232 Of course I am not the pope. The one true pope is "His Holiness, Pope Saint Taylor Marshall the Infinite". Peace be upon his holy name. Peace to you sister, you are the quintessential Taylor Marshall fan.
Watch our actual point by point rebuttals to TM's points. Then I'll take the criticism more seriously. We have had a number of people thank us for helping them understand this issue better. So, I will not apologize for putting our perspective out there.
Quite frankly, Marshall is a total disaster. Here is another example of his fake information. He POSES as a guy who knows thing, but he really just misleads you. He quoted Bugnini in his Vatican II video. But Bugnini never even said that. Marshall quotes Bugninin as saying " “We must strip from our Catholic prayers and from the Catholic liturgy everything which can be the shadow of a stumbling block for our separated brethren, that is for the Protestants”. This is a fake quote that the SSPX has spread for years. It's totally fake. Here is what Bugnini really said - he was quoted in the March 19, 1965 L osservatore Romano, "“The 7th prayer [of the new rite for Good Friday] bears the title: ‘For the Unity of Christians’ (not ‘of the Church’, which was always one.) No longer used is the pariah ‘heretics’ and ‘schismatics’ but ‘all brethren who believe in Christ…’ Scholars think to shed light on biblical and liturgical sources from which the new texts are derived or inspired, which the Study Groups of the “Council” accomplished by using a chisel. And let’s say that often the work proceeded ‘with fear and trembling’ by sacrificing terms and concepts so dear, and now part of the long family tradition. How not to regret that ‘Mother Church- Holy, Catholic and Apostolic - deigned to revoke’ the seventh prayer? And yet it is the love of souls and the desire to help in any way the road to union of the separated brethren, by removing every stone that could even remotely constitute an obstacle or difficulty, that has driven the Church to make even these painful sacrifices." So we must face it - lots of stuff you hear from Taylor Marshall is totally made up. forums.catholic.com/t/what-archbishop-bugnini-really-said-the-article-that-proves-it/267059
@@tomthx5804 Bugnini was a Freemason who wrote the Novus Ordo Mass on a napkin in a Roman bar while having drinks. He was a disaster for the Church - and was later banished to Iran by Paul VI. Louis Boyer said (to paraphrase) that Bugnini was a man as bereft of culture as he was of honesty.
@@jm08050 No, the SSPX says that Bugnini was a freemason. But the only evidence for that is a STORY printed in an Italian conspiracy book. The book cites an anonymous source for a story that runs like this. Bugnini left his briefcase behind one day. They looked through it and found freemasonry documents. But the book never tells us any facts. Who found this briefcase? They dont tell you. In Italy, they write conspiracy books about the church all the time. So no, it was never proven at all, they have found no evidence at all that Bugnini was a freemason
A lot of us have been waiting for a response like this. We love the traditions of the Church but don’t fall in line with everything Marshall says. Hope you guys team up more often.
1:56:30 I have honestly never heard this line from Vatican II UR #3: "Nevertheless, our separated brethren, whether considered as individuals or as Communities and Churches, are not blessed with that unity which Jesus Christ wished to bestow on all those who through Him were born again into one body, and with Him quickened to newness of life - that unity which the Holy Scriptures and the ancient Tradition of the Church proclaim. For it is only through Christ's Catholic Church, which is "the all-embracing means of salvation," that they can benefit fully from the means of salvation. We believe that Our Lord entrusted all the blessings of the New Covenant to the apostolic college alone, of which Peter is the head, in order to establish the one Body of Christ on earth to which all should be fully incorporated who belong in any way to the people of God." This is a very impressive line and should be spread far and wide.
@@decluesviews2740 This has been a huge eye opener for me as I've been struggling with some traditionalist fatigue lately. Question... Taylor's starting point with regards to VII is that the Church has been "infiltrated" and thus Vatican II as a council and its subsequent documents are the result of said infiltration and are therefore malicious in intent. How would you approach this line of reasoning? Thank you.
Nick The protection of the Holy Spirit was placed onto the Church through Peter, the Head, and the successors along with the Apostolic College as said in UR. VI defined Extraordinary Infallibility and begun the Magisterial discussion of Ordinary Magisterial Infallibility. Malice in intent by some of the Bishops does not deny the truth or falsity of the content. Surely not all Ecumenical Councils have been free from malicious intent of the bishops and not all Councils have been free from “bad fruit.” For example, Council of Ephesus that denounced Nestorianism as a heresy was used by heretical bishops from the East as grounds to affirm the heresy of Monophysitism. In fact they (mostly Oriental and Coptic Orthodox now) claim that we, the Catholics, and Eastern subscribe to Nestorianism because we claim Christ has two natures and that we go against the Council of Ephesus! You can’t appease everyone or force everyone to have a consistent interpretation of an Ecumenical Council
Great to see this comment here, Mr Vogt. I think I can guess at several reasons why the good Bishop Barron will not engage publicly with TM and I applaud him for it. My guesses in a suggested order of importance are : 1/ he is far, far too busy for it with the rest of his WOF ministry and work as Bishop in a huge diocese-- as attested to by his need to cut back to fortnightly rather than weekly podcasts/videos with you. 2/ it will not serve the Church very well AT ALL to give TM the additional platform and exposure that would come from being on the Bishop’s very broad reaching show. It is possible that TM would subsequently misrepresent such an event - and even more people could then be lead astray. C/ the Bishop would not seek to publicly humiliate another person who is in error, he would use his discretion and sacred authority as a holy priest to minister to them privately first- if they were at all open to the process. ... I am only guessing though. I applaud the Bishop’s approach on this matter so far. His silence on the specifics speaks volumes if it is heard correctly. It is not cowardice - it is ‘the long game’ approach as far as I can see . Many can see that the Word is truly on Fire within the good Bishop, especially now, and it is appreciated. Please let him know , Regards, VC
@@virginiacharlotte7007 thank you for sharing your thoughts to Brandon - and allowing us to read them. I, for one, have been disturbed and confused by all the "Mean-Girl" approach TM, Voris, Coffin etc take - all this red pill stuff and the constant putting down of Pope Francis and Bishop Barron, among so many others - always creating division and sensational drama that probably increases his follower base and financial gain but pulls those of us less cathecized and seeking instruction into error. I knew to pull back - my spirit was feeling disturbed by TM and the others. Just received B. Barron's Catholicism DVD series and super-excited, but equally as excited to have found these 2 men here. Ready to pull up my sleeves, learn, pray and try to be - FINALLY - a better Catholic. Thanks again.
Mark M. My experience pretty much mimics yours! A lapsed and poorly catechised cradle Catholic who is slowly and rationally finding their way back... When funds allow I will start working through some of the WOF course work too. In the meantime- good introductory commentary and links to church documents via sites like this one will also help a lot. I can also recommend Classical Theist and a few videos from Mathoma who, in conjunction with Bishop Barron’s back catalogue of videos (and some debates I followed involving John Lennox and various low-ball thinking atheists like Dawkins, C.Hitchens etc etc), all set me on the path to realising that this whole Christianity thing has a lot more logic and reason to it than I had allowed myself to believe. I have a long way to go yet... Best wishes, VC
@@virginiacharlotte7007 thanks Virginia - I'm smiling as I read your response here - happy & also relieved to be on this path/journey. Profound patience and Divine Mercy - if it weren't for that I'd have been lost forever. All the best!
Christians should be united in all that binds them: faith in the Trinity, the Redemption of Christ, the gift of the Holy Spirit, eternal life, a clear vision of what Christ asks us to do in the Gospel-. Of course, LIVING OUT the Gospel in practical terms entails sacrifice, and the realm of behavior is the place where doctrine most comes into conflict with real life and disputes arise, as well as in the existence and use of authority, since none of us like to be told what to do, but God has granted some authority to human beings, The first points are relatively shared--the Sacraments more complicated for non-Catholics--but sexuality and marriage are always a source of tension because faithfulness to our commitments is not easy, and people often look for justification for what they want to do instead of accepting what Christ wants them to do. Christian unity is a divine gift, as St. John Paul II insisted, not a state we can simply will to exist. We have to SEE the same truths and ACCEPT the same commitments. There will otherwise be disagreement and disunity. Unity is the fruit of prayer and the action of the Holy Spirit.
Your proposal exactly begs the question of who is Christian and who is not, which is exactly the item under discussion for 2000 years now. Your message exactly assumes your personal opinion, which is that 'all' are Christian. In short: what you write is nonsense.
Its not nitpicking when you confront a professed Catholic, who is preaching publicly that an Ecumenical Council in union with the Holy Father contains error. This is a major issue.
@@pierreschiffer3180 Trent does not teach error. Trent also said that if you criticize a mass published by the Holy Catholic Church as unholy or impious you are anathema. Was Trent wrong on that account?
Brothers, I have been studying this issue for over 7 years, and there are many many many educated faithful and good people that have the same view on this issue. To assume they have not prayerfully discerned these questions is an assumption that lacks charity. These questions are important and they haven't just popped up now. And because their is ample evidence to be critical of these questions does not mean they lack faith or doubt their faith. The problems with the 2nd Vatican council are real. Clarity is lacking in these documents and their are clear shifts away from tradition interpretations of doctrines. Your characterization of criticizing the documents means your dark or that faces change when saying something about the docs is reason for its error is very subjective and sophomoric.
I am not assuming anything of the sort. We offered a detailed reply to the very specific, sophomoric, and often blatant mischaracterizations of the documents that TM presented in his own video. It was a response to that specific video.
@@decluesviews2740 Your specific statement here does nothing to Bri ng about a meeting of the minds. It is unabashedly divisive. Who are you to come down on him like this? What, if any, authority do you have over him?
@@decluesviews2740 "sophomoric"?? Cardinal Ottaviania who was the head of the Holy Office during the second VII which is now the Congregation for the doctrine of the Faith raised the exact same issues with the documents of the council. It in my opinion is sophomoric to characterize criticism of specific portions of the document as sophomoric. I am most assured you have read the Ottaviani intervention, have you not? This intervention came from the one charged with defending the doctrines of the faith. So criticism of these issues i think are not sophomoric. The purpose of the magisterium is to clarify - we have nothing but the opposite over the past 60 years.
Actually, most SSPX conspiracy nuts have studied this for many, many years. The trouble is, by "studying" they usually mean they read conspiracy books, SSPX books etc. Suffice it to say that almost no one in the world has ever found any real error in Vatican II. The whole argument that "clarity" is lacking from these documents is silly. Lack of clarity is found in all documents, and if you do not like a document, it is easy to claim it lacks clarity. if you understood that Vatican II was never meant to pronounce new dogmas, you would realize that the precision required to define dogmas was simply not necessary. Except for the two dogmatic constitutions, the documents of Vatican II were never meant to be phrased in legalist clear language, but rather as the church merely speaking to the world in ordinary language ordinary men can understand. And it does that.
@@tomthx5804 i am not a rad trad - nor an SSPX conspirator. Almost no one has found error??? Thanks for the response, no need to go any further with this conversation.
I'm a baby Catholic, not yet confirmed (finishing RCIA) and I found this very helpful. I also like some material Taylor Marshall puts out there, so I have nothing personal against him. And to be fair, I'm pretty sure I have heard him say that he does accept Vatican II as valid. But anyways, this whole thing can get really confusing, especially for people looking into the Catholic faith, so I really appreciate your treatment of this matter. I also didn't think you guys were being rude towards TM, at least no more than he or anyone else on this platform has been to others. I'm seeing a lot of strong reactions in the comments, so I just wanted to let you know that I for one appreciated this conversation :)
Every time you feel like a "baby catholic" remember the centurion, "“I tell you, not even in Israel have I found such faith.”(Lk 7:9) You are the miracle
If traditionalists have problems with passages in the documents of Vatican II and the Church has been willing to dialogue, as you say, why hasn’t the CDF issued clarifications in response to those concerns? All of this discussion would be unnecessary.
They have a issued a number of documents, some of which we quoted in this very video. We addressed all of his concerns directly in the video with sources.
DeClue's Views Gottcha. I hadn’t watched the whole video before commenting. Duh. What about the CDF responding to concerns of the SSPX and Vatican II documents? Any public clarifications?
Tim Flanders is yet another conspiracy nut. Go look at his website. He has a bizarre theory about how the church was secretly taken over and nobody noticed. But of course, conspiracy theorists flock together and support each other.
About the Vatican-2 text on Islam, if that text had to be re-written in Hebrew would the Vatican have used Yachid or Echad? The Vatican would have to use Echad to be consistent with the Trinitarian understanding of One. Hence a Hebrew speaking Christian who read the same text would be absolutely sure that the One (Echad) God which Christians understand is categorically different from the One (Yachid) God of Islam. The English translation when it uses One, does not convey readily or immediately whether Muslims hold to the Echadness or the Yachidness of God. Herein lies the problem which has sparked so much debate.
You have done a great job addressing this. I hope TM will admit his intellectual dishonesty in his scandalous treatment of the documents of Vatican II. Thank you, kind sirs. Your humility, clarity and service of the Truth is quite edifying! Cheers!
1:27:50 Why would the council say this in NA#3: "The Church regards with esteem also the Moslems." Why are they holding them in esteem? They are the main enemy of Christians even to this day. I sense a "peace-times" message in Nostra Aetate with disregard to the conversion to Catholicism. World Peace > Conversion to the Truth Faith. This leads to grave confusion among people of all religions. This also makes it difficult even for lay people or religious to convert peoples of other religions. Pope Francis has even been against "proselytism" .
Brothers, that kind of attitude is the reason many of our leaders (pastors and bishops) have been emboldened to behave badly. nobody is holding to them to account. The church is bleeding badly. Docility is good but only up to a point. I have been catholic all 48 years of my life. And I am disgusted by what is happening in our church. I love our church, I love being catholic. But the reality of the matter is there are ambiguities. Just look at what is happening around us. Fr. James Martin, the irreverence in the many masses.
Yes, and actually Taylor Marshall and his freak show are keeping people from addressing the real problems in the church. He is blaming everytihng on conspiracy theories, because he is one terribly confused man. Sure, bishops should be held accountable. And we are kept from really addressing the real problems in the church by this anti Vatican II nutjob circus that Marshall is putting on. I wonder if McCarrick is paying Marshall to do this, because those harming the church are getting away while Marshall diverts attention with his goofy conspiracy theories.
James Greiner's parents told him to be docile to McCarrick. They would not believe him and instead believed McCarrick. Docility to erring authority is dangerous for the body and the soul! That attitutde is enabling abusers since there are so many homopredator priests and bishops!!!
@@tomthx5804 I've not read a single comment of yours in these many comments that is sensible. I'm ready for the swamp to be drained. I'm willing for there to be a faithful remnant remaining after the smoke clears. It's necessary for the salvation of souls.
I am so very grateful for this excellent commentary. I appreciate your honesty and desire to 'set the record straight' about the comments that have been made. I have been terribly upset about all of the fighting--I feel that we are so fortunate to have our Catholic faith, and the ability to worship in either TLM or Novus Ordo. That's a great gift to us! And I appreciate your keeping the focus on our faith in God and keeping our eyes fixed on that. Too often egos and personalities can obscure our vision. Keep up the great work! I look forward to watching more videos and learning more about the Vatican II documents. Thanks be to God!
AWESOME VIDEO, this cleared up so much confusion I’ve had as a recent convert trying to learn about the faith. I’d love to see a series with you guys addressing more of Vatican 2 and more traditionalist arguments such as Quo Primum and the changing of the rites.
@Adrian Yañez Your data comes from where??? I am most vexed at the two hate mongers running the particular video. I went thru RCIA 27 years ago - still have my Catholic membership card... And I love Dr Taylor Marshall's presentations.
Dear brothers in Christ, Thank you for taking the time to clarify from your understanding the arguments raised by TM. It is good we are having these discussions. You are quiet right that we should approach all that the Church proposes with humility recognizing that we are not the successors to the apostles. Docility always involves the appreciation for treating all viewpoints with respect and an open mind. I don't want to get into an argument regarding accepting or rejecting all or parts of Vat 2. I have read all the documents as early as 5 years after they were promulgated and have re-read them several times. While there is no excuse for not reading the documents themselves, I would be concerned that the books that TM cites somehow could not be read as a means of understanding the ongoing controversy we have experienced post Vat II. Forgive me if I got the impression that these were dismissed outright as if they should have never been considered. Having read them, as early as 1970, many interior alarms went up with some of the statements -- especially in light of the statements made by recent previous popes. Most of these arose from portions of Nostra Aetate, Dignitatis Humanae, & Unitatis Redintegratio. I attributed this to an entirely different pastoral approach and have tried to do so ever since. (as an analogy, consider the language of Pius XI in Moratalium Animos where he uses the word "Bewail" with reference to the separation of the Protestants and the word "esteem" used by Vat 2 to refer to the Muslims). I do not reject Vat II especially regarding those statements that are clearly dogmatic and are obvious restatements of what has always been believed by the Church -- many of which you emphasize by citing those quotations with comments like "bing bam boom". However, I fail to see what Vat II teaches dogmatically that has not already been defined nor what it further develops that was not clear in previous councils that would now bind me to greater degree? Perhaps you could shed more light on this. Those very clear statements you emphasized that were not cited by TM clearly are part of the Depositum Fidei & would bind all Catholics. I get that, but when the Church is making an observation of what it believes to be a fact regarding false religions, why am I bound to that? In Evangelii Gaudium, Pope Francis says that with a true interpretation of "authentic" Islam, one would conclude that it is a religion of peace. Whether one personally believes that or not, what authority does a pope have to bind a Catholic on what is authentic regarding a non-Catholic religion? Am I bound to believe that? This is an example where faithful Catholics have questioned presumably the pastoral intentions of many of these statements when they seem to have produced these subsequent remarks using the documents themselves as their authority. One might also make the same conclusion regarding Ecumenism. Should Catholics be cynical when they read this from the late Bishop Tony Palmer of the Communion of Evangelical Episcopal Churches, who regarded Pope Francis his spiritual father. The late bishop Palmer was careful to point out, "Pope Francis pulled me up on more than one occasion when I used the expression coming home to the Catholic Church. He said, don't use this term, no one is coming home, you are journeying toward us and we are journeying toward you and we will meet in the middle." Quite another position altogether from that of a very recent pope as late as 1928. A good Catholic with solicitude for the soul of this person would ask, meet in the middle of what? Are we bound by this type of ecumenism and endless dialogue? Catholics must be forgiven if they have concerns that is has had unintended consequences for conversion. What we have seen instead has been a massive hemorrhaging not something one would consider a great outcome. One could conclude on the basis of the documents themselves, it is not fair to draw that conclusion. But I struggle to see a previous council where its implementation was so massively misinterpreted and abused and continues to be so under the "Spirit of Vat 2" -- which is a novelty itself. I know the documents themselves speak of no such spirit. In Nostra Aetate, we read, "this sacred synod urges all to forget the past and to work sincerely for mutual understanding and to preserve as well as to promote together for the benefit of all mankind social justice and moral welfare, as well as peace and freedom." No doubt putting away the past is critical if we are not to stop killing each other (although this has been terribly one-sided in recent history). But the second half has given the impression that our duty to them is to dance around their real conversion, wish them well on Ramadan, pretend that they do not deny the trinity & give them the impression that we can work on social justice issues while never proclaiming Christ crucified? Yes the documents speak of the great commission but it is not inserted emphatically here in the documents in that place and as a result, the outcome has been a completely soft stance on converting the Muslims or the other main religions for that matter. Just think of it, when Pope St. John Paul II had his ecumenical prayer service in Assisi with other religions in the Basilica of St. Francis, Archbishop Lefebvre, a champion of the missions said, "That's the end of the missions". That service was a natural development of Vat 2 from one of its contributors. We read, "Though they do not acknowledge Jesus as God, they revere Him as a prophet. They also honor Mary, His virgin Mother; at times they even call on her with devotion." This juxtaposition is curious. One could easily get the impression that devotion to Mary (something highly "esteemed" by Catholics and encouraged) somehow exonerates their denial of Jesus' divinity? They should be esteemed in other words because at least they revere him as a prophet. There are no admonitions or corrections, just observations. How are these binding? You mention Moses had no conception of the Trinity. Naturally, Christ had not come yet and even the Church took years to even give it a name "Trinity" which we don't find in Scripture but see its essence. However, not so for Mohammed. We are talking 600 years after Christ, and a religion that claims that Christians falsified the scriptures to their own end. Why does Nostra Aetate not instruct the faithful in telling them this most important belief upon which hinges all of Mohammed's doctrines and gave him free reign to make up his own religion? You may say, that was not the intention of this document. While it may not have been, its fruits have been indifferentism to a large degree, and much of it practiced by our very own bishops. When a prominent bishop fails to seize the opportunity to proclaim how we are to be saved to a Jew who is sincerely asking the question, and gets into semantics regarding the privileged way, would that have been possible before Vatican II, with a completely different pastoral approach? Theologically we know the distinctions, the Nulla Salus and the invincible ignorance arguments as well, but would have used them in that moment, or would we have said, to be saved, believe in Jesus Christ, repent and be baptized for the forgiveness of your sins. Did Vat 2 produce cowardice trying to be non-offensive? You reference Acts 17, but St. Paul also says as early as the 1st century, " The times of ignorance God overlooked, but now he commands all people everywhere to repent, 31 because he has fixed a day on which he will judge the world in righteousness by a man whom he has appointed; and of this he has given assurance to all by raising him from the dead.” While St. Paul was admiring the natural virtue of religion in the gentiles, 2000 years ago, he said enough is enough, your ignorance (not very conciliatory in my mind and something a person would esteem) can no longer be overlooked. Here is the issue, it is not what the document is necessarily saying, it is what it is implying by using such words as "esteem". It is an apologia, it has the impression of more of a surrender, an apology for the past - which can be good in itself regarding past abuses of coercion -- practiced by both sides. But it fails to be directly forceful at precisely the perfect moment. After all, the prime audience for these documents is the Catholic faithful themselves. By its conciliatory nature and outright praise (you quote St. Thomas often but it is hard to imagine him heaping esteem on Islam in his Summa Contra Gentiles), it effectively sucked the wind out of the Church's missionary zeal, and why today we have a Pope who signs the Abu Dhabi document and says that God has willed all religions confusing the faithful by at least not insisting that this means He wills it in His permissive will -- if that is in fact what he actually believes. On a separate note, I am confused regarding your defense of Dignitatis Humanae. As I understand it, Vat 2 is presenting a negative right-a right to not be coerced. I believe your argument was hinging on whether the Church finds Herself in pre-Christian Rome, full Christendom, or now in what you refer to be the secular age? Perhaps I misunderstood your argument here. Thank you for making this video and making the effort to clear the controversy. We all have a great love for Christ, His Church, and especially souls. God love you. Oremus pro invicem.
Your video proves how difficult VII documents are to interpret. Mr. Baseball theologian said to go straight to the VII documents as the main source. Look where it as gotten us. I have a degree in philosophy and theology and hearing both of you made me more confused. TM does not claim to know all, but does want clarification. (See Canon law 212, in its entirety). As do many other faithful Catholics and clergy. I don't see many books by Catholics on issues with Vatican I or even Trent. Much less the other 20 Holy Councils. Protestants may have issue with them, but not many Catholics. The fact that you need a doctorate level theology degree to interpret the letter of Vatican II speaks volumes. Unfortunately, to many so called experts are Modernist and have created a hermeneutic of rupture. The Diocese that I belong to, teach that we are a Vatican II Church...what does that mean? I have asked them, with no response of course. Lastly, you state TM should not have said what he said in a video. Well, I say to you, if you felt he was wrong, you should have addressed the issue with him in private first. This is the biblical way of doing things. Could write more but know my comment will be taken lightly as I only hold a masters level theology degree and a BA in philosophy. Peace and all good!
No, what you say is false.He and Schneider both claim that Vatican II "contains error". That is what they say. Not that there are some things that need to be clarified. They say it contains error. When asked which things precisely are error, we get a gobbldegook list of things they falsely interpret as being troublesome. But no one else thinks this is so. Look, anything that was unclear or needed clarification has already been cleared up - JP II and Benedict both issued clarifications, explanations etc. that cleared all the questions up. You just need to read their stuff. They were Popes - they give the official interpretations of things. NOT youtube guys who are making money the more trouble they cause by claiming only they can interpret church documents.
@@tomthx5804 You might want to go look at the title of the video we are discussing. I've read the explanations by St. JP2 and Benedict. Their explanations are not ex cathedra, but simply trying to explain how to interpret V2 documents according to the letter. TM' main thrust and those other 50 priests, scholars, journalists who wrote to Vigano and Schneider want further evaluation and correctiom of some statements in the documents. In fact, if you actually heard his video you will hear TM speak of the goodness of the rest of the documents. If you feel that TM or these gentlemen are just trying to get your money, might want to stop listening to them.
@@billybriceno8161 Their explanations do not need to be 'ex cathedra". There are two groups that demand that papal pronouncements must be ex cathedra before they must be followed: Progressives like James Martin, and SSPX types. Their explanations are authoritative teaching of the church. Only a person bent on rebellion against the catholic church would say they could ignore authentic magisterial teachings by claiming they are not 'ex cathedra". Yes, there are 50 goofballs who wrote to Vigano and Schneider asking for something. Guess what? They are all the usual nutty suspects. They are losers who have been rebelling against the church for some time. They are the usual SSPX supporters. Big deal. You can find 50 people to write about anything. I did hear TM say a word or two about there being some good things in Vatican II. But who cares what Taylor Marshal lthinks? He is just a guy with a youtube channel. He has not taught theology or philosophy at a high level for 20 years. He is just an overly passionate guy who, as the good protestant he is, thinks that it is entirely up to him to decide what is good or bad with the documents. What a joke. I take every guy who tries to teach false things about the Catholic church seriously. No, I will not simply ignore them trying to undercut the one true holy church.
@@tomthx5804 Well, Tom take it up with TM. Recommend you see video with Gordon, DeClue and Chris. Great video and in my opinion very charitable. As a faithful son of the Church, I submit my self to all the teachings of the Church, but does not mean that I dont see some ambiguities in the Documents of Vatican 2 that were discussed. Even TM states that most of the documents are good. However, as I have stated elsewhere, because of some ambiguities in the documents discussed, some within the Church hierarchy and laity, avoiding the hermeneutic of continuity (proposed by Pope Benedict), go in a path contrary to the perennial teachings of the Church (example: James Martin). Peace and all good!
What I don't understand is...why do the Assisi meeting? Why give the impression that the other religions are worshipping God "imperfectly" but still in a way acceptable to God? Even if there are "rays of truth" in them, as a whole they are wrong. Their being wrong is more important here, because we are talking about salvation. And then, why change the liturgy to make it more generic and acceptable to protestants? Why? What does that have to do with helping them come back to the Church? Also how can there be degrees of "communion"? I thought you were in or out. I thought rejecting one single dogma of the Catholic Faith was enough to exclude you from Communion with the Church. Also, a high degree of respect for muslims? That is unacceptable. Their holy book says that the Trinity is an excramental idea. I do not respect any muslim AS SUCH, I can respect individual people because they are in the image of God and as potential Christians, but their muslim faith deserves zero respect, it is a false and odious religion that imprisons the mind of its adherents. In fact, Islam is a force opposed to evangelization because it puts the death penalty on those who leave It, making it that much more difficult for well-intentioned muslims to convert in peace. The idea that in civil society men cannot be "coerced" in matters of religion also seems to me to deny the reign of Christ the King. Secular power does have an obligation to repress the spreading of false doctrines in the public sphere because this is conducive to the common good. Individuals cannot be coerced to believe but that doesn't mean they should be allowed to do whatever they want (i.e. proselitize) in the public sphere nor can their religions be recognized as having the same rights by Law. The fact we live in a secular society is an unfortunate fact, temporal powers are rejecting their duties before God but that doesn't make their actions acceptable. If the temporal powers were to use their authority to repress the true religion they would simply be using their power incorrectly because they have a duty to repress the spreading of error, not Truth!
The Assisi meeting was a nice gesture. It did not IN ANY WAY contradict any Catholic doctrine. The kooks get hung up on this. Their main thing is pretending that everything is sacrilege, when it was not. NO ONE, and I mean NO ONE in the world, took this to be saying that all religions are the same. It did not give that impression to anyone, except these fringe extremists that like to distort the event. All the pope did was encourage all religions to come to one place and pray for peace and understanding. That's all they did. But of course, the conspiracy nuts claim that he gave the impression that all religions are the same. That is just a lie they made up.
@@tomthx5804 I never said that the pope necessarily gave the impression that all religions are the same, what he did was give the impression that other religious rites are somehow valid expressions of worship. You must remember that God is gravely offended, objectively speaking, by every religious act that is not Catholic, because the Catholic worship is the only kind of worship allowed and pleasing to God. By encouraging false priests of false (and sometimes rather horrid) religions to pray publically this encouraged the idea that their religious expressions are in some way "good" even if they are not Catholic. This is wrong and harmful to souls. Even if we presume, as we should, that the Pope had the best intentions and his only desire was to promote the idea that God listens to the prayers of all sincere souls who don't know any better, even if they are objectively worshipping in a false way, this is a rather subtle theological idea and would easily be lost on normal people looking at the television screen. The whole event could easily be confused for a legitimization of false religions and that alone made it simply imprudent at the very least.
@@icyangel13 I am pretty sure that JP II, Benedict and every other serious theologian in the world, all of whom had NO PROBLEM with Assisi, know better than you or I what God is offended by. Now, you can say that the message of Assisi was "all religions are valid expressions of worship", but that would be just you making something up. Assisi did not "encourage" false priest to pray. Any sane person viewing this event would have said "Oh, isn't that nice that people of different faiths can get together and be peaceful " But it is just an evil false exaggeration to say that Assisi's message was "If you allow someone to pray in his own religion, that means YOU SAY HIS RELIGION IS CORRECT" But that is a weird, strained, false interpretation. And you see this is what the SSPX cultists do - they take fairly innocuous things done entirely within Catholic law and doctrine, and they PRETEND it means something else, something evil. I can assure you, literally NO ONE IN THE HISTORY OF THE WORLD every looked at the TV screen during Assisi,and said. "Wow, this tells me that all religions are equal" it just did not happen.
@@tomthx5804 Archbishop Lefebvre also had a doctorate in theology you know, and he clearly wasn't on board with the meetings. More recently, Archbishop Viganò has also denounced the meetings. He is also more than qualified to speak on the matter. There are many who do not endorse the Assisi meetings or who find them at the very least problematic, including erudite scholars and prelates. To think that there is complete consensus on the matter except for those "SSPX cultists" is just not true. You must also consider the fact that religious indifferentism is literally one of the most widespread errors in our modern day; you ask an average person on the street what he thinks of all the different religions and there is a good chance he will tell you that "they're just different paths to God" or "everyone's got a little piece of the puzzle", if he believes in God at all. In such a dangerous and toxic climate, I don't see how the Pope's actions were prudent. Again, I am not the only one to raise such concerns, many people much greater than I in terms of authority and learning have done so already.
You can tell he just forgot , he took it off at the end. But then for my part I gave him the benefit of the doubt. It only takes a fingernails worth of mercy, you should try it, it's a good practice.
@@fragwagon So he knew he was doing a video which would be watched - hopefully - by many people, but he forgot. Right. Lack of awareness at this level equals big loss of credibility right from the start.
I am willing to accept that criticism. And while it isn't an excuse, have you watched his shows? He does that to a much greater degree. He doesn't pull any punches and takes many more unnecessary jabs than we did. And I think any honest comparison would confirm that. But perhaps you're right. At a couple moments, we could have phrased things more charitably. Point taken. God bless!
@@decluesviews2740 Has Taylor ever treated you the way you're treating him? Why not respond to his claims alone and not malign his supposed mannerisms, those "grins and chuckles." Take his claims to task if you like'd too, please, but know that your subjective criticism of his intentions and mannerisms, which your video *started* with, detracts from your factual rebuttals.
@@augustinejones1908 Actually I think it's an important observation that could be helpful to him. Being gleeful about the possibility of the magisterium teaching error is not a laughing matter. It isn't just an academic exercise: it is also a spiritual issue. I have to check that with myself as well. It isn't done out of spite. It is a serious concern that I have.
How do you know that Dr. Marshall didn't pray about his video before publishing it? If your attitude is 'theology is for theologians', why should any layman watch your video?
I don't know if he prayed beforehand or not. I just don't think even that is sufficient justification for a Catholic to publicly proclaim that a magisterial text is in error, especially when grossly misrepresenting the actual text. I am a theologian with multiple ecclesiastical degrees, but I never said theology is only for theologians. I clarified what his doctorate was in. But when the "theology" your presenting is both bad from an academic perspective and detrimental to the faith of others, it needs to be addressed.
@@decluesviews2740 Why do you use the term "magisterial text", since Pope Paul VI reportedly stated that Vatican II was solely a pastoral council, and not doctrinal at all.
@@djg585 I'm not trying to be quip, but I am starting to wonder if you watched the video, because you're making claims that I said things I did not say, and now you're asking me a question we already explicitly addressed more than once in the video. And it isn't true that he said it didn't contain any doctrines. He said there were no new formal Dogmatic definitions. There is a distinction. Again, this was addressed in the video.
@@decluesviews2740 But you have no problem with you, a mere layman, pretending that others who are your spiritual superiors who hold the same view as TM are by association sophomoric and mischaracterizing VII. You are a degreed layman trained up in a modernist school of thought. NOTHING MORE. And it shows. Try engaging those who disagree with you by doing more than touting your so-called credentials. The university system is so not what it used to be, deClue. Have you any idea? Schools of thought go in and out of fashion. So while you're eager to tout what your masters taught you, think. You're often only parroting the line of thought you've been programmed to accept. Not the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. That goes for ascribing a pure intention to yourself while trashing others with such hypocritical zeal. Truly disturbing if, as I believe, you have a wife and children. A horrific example that may come to bite you in the future. But by that time it will be too late. The seeds of pomposity will already have taken deep root.
I just came upon T. Marshall's TH-cam Channel and although it sounds like he knows what he's talking about, I just knew there where errors in what he was putting out there...thanks for responding to his teaching?
The whole problem, I believe, is what the critics call “weaponized ambiguity.” There is a kind of “flight from clarity” whenever the official defense is faced with POLITICALLY UNCOMFORTABLE issues. This is a human defect which does not help apologetics. There is PRIDE on all sides. Bottom line: too much avoidance of embarrassing questions and the need to IMPROVE AND COMPLETE doctrine on: sexuality, comparative religion, and grace in particular. We need a classical dogmatic Council to overcome the crisis, with real definitions, not rambling “pastoral reflections” which potentially lend themselves to ANY interpretation. We can do better with the help of inspiration.
No need for a council. The Catholic position is totally clear on everything you mention. Nothing in Vatican II altered those classic dogmatic definitions in the least. Why do you need a council when the Catholic position is clear? Now, if you say that Catholics are often mistaught, or did not learn Catholic doctrine, you would be right. But that is an entirely different subject. No need for a council to get Catholics to teach Catholic doctrine.
@@tomthx5804 Thank you for replying! A response would have to be too long. But, just to cite one aspect, the Church needs to define more clearly how grace as divine action behaves in us distinctively to form the Mystical Body in a way which differentiates us from other spiritual states in humanity. By the same token, it is necessary to clarify what degree of union with God non-Catholics can receive and its relation to salvation. I believe a more complete dogmatic formulation and lexicon will enable us to make Catholics more aware of their state and mission in a mystical or supernatural sense at the same time as they understand better what the position of non-Catholics is. Sanctifying and actual grace are concepts which provide a start, but they can be taken much further on a dogmatic level to assist the awareness of the Church, both internally and externally. It is a complex field, but can be explained in ways that are comprehensible to ordinary people. This is just one of many aspects which would enormously benefit the Church in a time of great cultural confusion. Mystagogy, the basic explanation of union with the Trinity, is the key to the future of the Church because we have been endowed with the richest mystical tradition in the world.
Thank you. I have been watching Taylor Marshall for some time now. I attend the Novus Ordo Mass, although I love the Latin Mass, too. Recently, I have wondered if I'm a real Catholic since Dr Marshall keeps saying that there are two churches, the one before Vat. 2 and after. It bothers me how he speaks negatively and quite frankly, disrespectfully about Bishop Barron . I am so thankful that you both made this video. It has given me consolation knowing that others are questioning his constant bashing of the Novus Ordo Mass and Vat.2 . God Bless you🙏
Certainly, There is a beige, liberal, Catholicism that will weaken faith, and there is a self devouring, extremist, apocalyptic Catholicism that will weaken the faith. Straight down the middle, with tradition, but also openness to new evangelisation is the best way to go. Bishop Robert Barron understands this, and in my opinion he is the down to Earth, rational voice we need at the moment. God bless
I am not defending Marshall, BUT one of your criticisms runs into small problem..... The Church herself (at least on the Vatican website [which I am sure Marshall used]), does indeed say “the one and merciful God.”
I don't really see that as a problem. The truth is that the rhe tradition does indicate that it's the same God: Pope St. Gregory VII, Catechism of Pius X, & St. Robert Bellarmine all make similar statements to Vatican II and I have not seen any part of the Tradition that upholds Marshall's position. I also think Dr. Ed Feser's article explains it brilliantly from a Thomist perspective.
A note for future episodes: Try to figure out how to put the text of the quote on the screen, like Marshall does. Just listening to a quote being read makes it hard to follow along, especially church document language. Also please include links in the show notes for the documents that Chris read out loud. 1998 and 1985 on subsists.
The words of the Vatican Council II and both Pope John XXIII and especially Paul VI meant for this to be pastoral. I have the utmost respect for Pope Paul VI who had to balance between conservative and progressive views without alienating the faithful and the bishops. It was Paulo Dezza S.J. who said that if Pope Paul VI was not a saint before he became pope he became afterward. Taylor Marshall has criticized both Paul VI and Benedict XVI, both are good and holy men as was John Paul II. As for Joseph Ratzinger, anyone who has read him realizes his writings are Christocentric and was one of the main intellectuals of th 20th century.
1:04:00 "This is where it gets difficult" that points to the ambiguity of the statement. Similar to LG#8 this demands a revision, footnote, clarification etc. and news of it must be widely circulated. Nearly every Catholic these days think we worship the same God as the Muslims and that releases them from conversion to Catholicism thanks to this line in LG#16. What do you make of this line from LG#17? "Through her [the Church's] work, whatever good is in the minds and hearts of men, whatever good lies latent in the religious practices and cultures of diverse peoples, is not only saved from destruction but is also cleansed, raised up and perfected unto the glory of God, the confusion of the devil and the happiness of man."
I remember being part of TM's early subscriber base, really early on when he probably had less than 10k people. Now, I'm saddened by the number of open sedevacantists, toxic language, and extremely one-sided discussion in his channel Of course, the toxicity isn't directly Taylor's fault. But there really is an air of self-righteousness and condescension emanating around his channel. I continue praying for him and all in Catholic online media. If ever things seem bad or foggy, just remember there's a global community of Catholics and Christians praying for you! Not just in the West but elsewhere!
It is anger that we have been lied to, treated like dirt and cast out to wander the earth by those who were supposed to be our 'fathers'. Like children whose dad is an alcoholic, there are different coping mechanisms engaged in by the children. I saw the handwriting on the wall about the Novus Ordo liturgy 15 years and realized that the TLM is the future of the Church. I find it condescending on your part to assume that all Catholics are Bible illiterates. Also, Catholics have been treated abominably by their priests and bishops. Little tidbits of teaching, denigration and continual denial of the Real Presence especially in Holy Mass and instead interference in the lay vocation and in politics by pretending to speak for the Church on political matters. The latest outrage: The USSR,- eh, USCCB just decided for us laity that illegals, non-citizens, should have Congressional representation!!! How unAmerican, unpatriotic and a violation of the 4th Commandment. Again, American citizens are just dirt to the bishops. The are indifferent to the sheep in their flock. This fits the picture of the bishops having lost supernatural faith.
@@MartinvonTours11.11 YES YES YES YES!!! Separation of church, state and politics. Render under to Caesar what is Caesar's; Render unto God that which is God's...
I'm no theologian, but the Lord did say in the Bible that you can judge a tree by its fruit. (Darn, there goes that "do not judge" argument too.). Vatican 2 has failed miserably in evangelizing and bringing more people to the Faith, in fact now we are now contracting and hemorrhaging the Faithful. Vocations have been very low for a long time but they were at their height in the country right before "the Council". You cannot convince me this was a good thing. Even my 6 year old self in 1970 was afraid to go to Mass because maybe I could sense something was wrong? Oh, and the Blessed Mother wanted the Third Secret read in 1960 which Pope John disobeyed right before this assembly began. Coincidence?
It is nice to see someone has finally commented on TM. I can not handle watching TM so negative and he bashes the Pope and the Church to much for my liking.
Who do you recommend for commentary or questions you have? I'm not talking about your parish priest or priests in general, but on radio, youtube, or blogs that you would tell a friend about?
Thank you, I have commented to Dr.Marshall as to my concern and I'm old, faithful Catholic, but after listening to him a couple of times, to be honest, he and those with him scare me. Especially with him never responding to my concerns. I continually pray that the Holy Spirit will bring to light God's TRUTH!!! I have even asked my priest, while in Confession, when he is going to address what is being said on You Tube. I didn't get a very good answer. Spoon, I believe that God has led me here, and I thank you. Not that I think what Dr.Marshall, and those are really doing more harm than good and I don't believe that comes from God. Thank you, I can't believe what I'm hearing from you, AMEN!!!
Thanks for giving the official Church's understanding of terminology that Taylor Marshall seemed to misunderstood or misinterpreted. You should invite Taylor Marshall to have a live discussion with you either on his channel or your channel.
Chris has reached out to him. He acknowledged the message but hadn't seen our video. So the invitation is there. He's obviously a busy guy, though, and our "reach" may be to small for him. But we did reach out and offer dialogue.
I am new to Dr. Taylor Marshall, and now new to this channel, as well. It has become clear that for the most part, the US Bishops have abandoned their flock since the start of the lockdown. I have little to know confidence in them, and I’m not alone. Even without Taylor bringing up all the corruption, I and many others were already well aware of it. It is the Bishops who have failed, and DTM has the platform to call them out on it. I appreciate what he has done and is doing. I do think a gathering of the differing minds in the Church is drastically needed.
I understand and share the frustration of the failures of bishops and theologians. I don't dispute that. What worries me is that DTM has taken that "street cred" and is now spreading errors about Vatican II's documents. It is BECAUSE I agree with him on a lot of things that I worry the most about the very significant and highly consequential things that he gets wrong. This video is about those very specific errors and offers a direct rebuttal to them. It isn't a judgment on everything else he says or does. I hope that's more clear for you.
DeClue's Views I get that. I’m not inclined to study the documents of Vatican II, and I don’t know enough about it to agree or disagree with DTM’s objections to it. But I do know that since V2, the Church has faltered. Is it solely because of V2? I don’t know, but I think it’s at least partly to blame. I appreciate DTM bringing it into the conversation. I think it’s good for the laity to question. I just wish that all “sides” would come together to discuss and sort out the issues. I’m afraid of what will happen if they don’t.
THANK YOU for this video. It is unfortunately a rare thing to hear such glowing and heartfelt analysis of some of the V II documents. Traditionalists often defend their positions with heart and soul, and that is what is infectious to us non-theologians. We desperately need a regular series like this. Any actions contrary to these documents is human error, and not document error. This is very helpful for us confused Catholics. BRAVO!
Thank you! That's why we do these videos. Pray! I work 50 hours a week and the toll of time and mental energy makes it hard to compete with folks who do youtube full time.
@@decluesviews2740 Thanks and yet the ambiguous aspects of VII are still there for Church authority to exploit. DO pray. Discern. And be wary for the devil is a roaring lion. The poster says, "Any actions contrary to these documents is human error, and not document error." How so? Without the clarity within the documents themselves requiring them to be read a certain way--that is clearly--misinterpretations are invited. It may alleviate your sensibilities to believe that because a document "can" be read in an orthodox manner, that it's solid. But take that document to court to prosecute someone who has abused the sheep, killed their souls, and willfully taught error, and you'll be hard-pressed to uphold "your" interpretations and win the case. Winning being the defense and protection of other sheep who will be ravaged using the document you're is orthodox because that's how "you" see it. Why are you so threatened when others point logically to the ambiguity within VII documents? Why when you are supposedly on board with the Dubia? How do you think AL came to be? Serious question. Connect the dots, DeClue. Educate others to the reality that clarity is critical. Not defending ambiguity at all costs because your teachers told you so.
Here is a great resource for information on the background of the councils of both Vatican I and II and Dr. William Marshner covers a lot of the interpretative errors that are put forth by those who like to read the councils with a hermeneutic of discontinuity. It is very informative, and well done. instituteofcatholicculture.org/events/vatican-i-and-vatican-ii Registration is required, but is completely free.
I was born in the late 50s. I experienced the Church before during and after the Second Vatican Council. Saying V2 is anything other than a nasty car wreck is silly.
50:10 LG #8 is very ambiguous, but I do understand what the document is getting across. However, I feel that the clarification for it needs to be inserted into the document as a revision. This way when a person reads it they can see a footnote or an interjection that clarifies it. This one line in LG $8 has led to so much confusion in the Church.
I'm just a layman, but I went to a men's retreat a few months ago and they had the V2 documents in hard copy in the library so I set aside about two hours to have a look through them. I was expecting to see things like 'Thou shalt distribute communion into the hand' and 'Thou shalt not sing any hymns older than 100 years' but I didn't. This was my first casting of doubt into the 'V2 is heresy' narrative, and so I'm glad to hear this talk right now as well as one that EMJ did about two weeks ago.
@@decluesviews2740 LOL I had to break the video into pieces to finish but I'm glad I did. This is the talk I listened to a few weeks ago: th-cam.com/video/Y3mr9OPbNCY/w-d-xo.html
You got it. Vatican II called for Latin to be used at mass, and gregorian chant. E Michael Jones, if that is what you mean, is a weird dude who has an animus against jews.
I’m not a theologian but see the declining metrics in the developed west, scandal, ambiguity and subsequent confusion so say it’s time to reassess. Christ prayed for unity but warned the sheep to beware of wolves in our midst.
Andy - these metrics and effect are undeniable, but does the fault lay at the feet of Vatican II or in the modenism, secularism, and humanism that has been influencing the culture and our Chuch even before Vatican II? I think that's the issue that needs to be considered. It's easy to blame Vatican II because it gives us a specific scapegoat. It's much more difficult to pinpoint the effusive errors that have been shaping the unwary since the Enlightenment.
I am no theologian. I am no philosopher. I am not a biblical scholar. i was raised with Baltimore catechism. We said the rosary at night as a family. We lived through some really tough times. Our faith was strong. We knew who made us, why we are here and what we needed to do to get to Heaven. At my first Communion, i thought I was in Heaven. My Protestant friends were awed with our church and Mass. . Then Vatican II. I have not read the document. I lived it and seen what it has done to the church. To me, the “proof is in the pudding.” Vocations lost, Catholics fallen from the faith, Confessions hardly used, communion lost respect, dismissal of the concept of sin , etc. If Vatican II is binding, then the implementation of it has been less than authentic. And now we have all these lay people going on You Tube with views and attacks. Growing in faith should not be with lay You Tube videos. Pachamama, 2 popes, bishops supporting Biden, priests Kneeling with BLM signs, We need ONE pope and one dogmatic and authentic direction. I cant be told not to vote for abortion candidate and then that bishops support that candidate. So sick of it. Get one Pope, get bishops in line to start, then we won’t have to have this Yo Tube nonsense.
Obviously you should listen to a conspiracy theorist who is basically a high school teacher, who truncates quotes to make them say the opposite of what they really said, who uses fake quotes that have been disproven, who misleads you about what Vatican II said. And, by the way, these two dudes did not tell you anything about wolves and sheeps clothing. You made that totally up, just like Marshall totally makes stuff up. No branier is right.
There's a link to the translation on the Vatican Website in the description. You can also click to choose the original Latin or many other languages. Sometimes there translation is better and sometimes Flannery is better. EWTN has it too, but I am not familiar with their translation. I don't know if it follows one or the other or is their own. But here's a link: www.ewtn.com/catholicism/library/16-documents-of-the-second-vatican-council-1509
In indonesia, you can see chinese lion dance or any other dance played in the church before offertory prayer in various occasions. All is done in the name of inculturation. They turn the divine liturgy to a show, thanks to Vatican II.
Two months after the 1986 Assisi interreligious peace meeting (where Buddha idols were placed on the altars of Catholic Churches), in a Christmas speech to his Cardinals published in the Vatican’s L’Osservatore Romano, Pope John Paul said, “The day of Assisi, showing the Catholic Church holding hands with our brothers of other religions, was a visible expression of [the] statements of the Second Vatican Council.” Toward the end of the speech, the Pope urged his Cardinals to continue on the same new path, “Keep always alive the spirit of Assisi as a motive of hope for the future.” Consequently the interfaith event at Assisi was thus described by John Paul II not as a tragic misrepresentation of Vatican II, but as the glorious realization of its teaching so even a V2 cheerleader like JP2 admits that the conciliar teachings leads to the placing of idols on Catholic altars. Last year Francis did the same with the Pachamama fiasco at the Synod in Rome so DeClue is dead wrong when he calls V2 "traditional". “Pope’s Christmas Address to Roman Curia,” L’Osservatore Romano, January 5, 1987, pp. 6-7.
You guys are very honest & gracious about TM. You were quite mannerly towards him but did indeed critique his positions. I agree about the way he laughs & smiles etc - these are not always well timed. I've been listening to him for well over a year and find him interesting but at times OTT; 50% of the time he's too polemical. His form of catholicism is Tridentine only. He appears to completely reject the universality, i.e. the catholicism of Catholicism, if you will, which basically means he's SSPX. TM is a very sincere guy but way too argumentative not unlike some Protestant/Muslim extremists.
Dr marshall has always said pray for Pope Francis. Is it wrong to worship false idols? What are the american bishops supporting a president who supports abortion? What about the Latin Mass not allowed at Rome at st Peter's ? What about the German Bishops blessing gay marriages? I disagree with you.
In appealing to the CDC statements and catechisms, which later help interpret V2 statements, are you not merely emphasizing a hermeneutics of continuity? This is good stuff guys, thank you for your time and effort, you have helped strengthen my faith. I am not trained in such matters and appreciate your expertise. I have problems with some apparent scandals in the Vatican, could you comment on the obvious ones respectfully. Sorry for not being more specific, I'm under pressure where I teach to shut my mouth or face the consequences.
Yeah you're right about that. In my personal life, I do get questions from people about what the ecclesiastical degrees are though, because they don't follow the simple M.A./Ph.D. path that most people are familiar with. And since the S.T.B. has the word bachelor's in the name, I constantly have to explain that it is a Masters degree with tons of course work. Otherwise people don't know what the heck it refers to. It's a point of clarification. I've had multiple comments on my channel asking about my qualifications, so I give them. If you don't care, ignore it and move on.
Dr. Taylor Marshall always carefully weighs his words. He does great research before presenting anything and clearly states when he isn’t sure about an issue. He invites guests who also do their homework. Therefore, I support him in his work because it’s clear he loves our church and wants to help people understand the terrible trouble we are in right now. He continuously encourages people to pray, and to take action respectfully. However, I’m not too impressed with you two.
As much as am uneducated and therefore unqualified on the subject matter, this is my 2 cents opinion; when our lady of Fatima asked that the 3rd secret be revealed in 1960, and Lucia asked why 1960, she said "because it will be clearer then". Does that ring a bell about V2?
I'm at the closing remarks of the video. Here are my thoughts as I watched bit by bit while also looking at the comments: I have found nothing wrong in terms of content with watching this video (besides this one simple point that by Plance that all documents on the end had the formula of Papal affirmation at the end, my own reading has found that about three documents have that formula, but to me, it doesn't retract the magisterial promulgation of the entire Ecumenical Council. I recall this error in an article that defends V2 which I agree with overall, but I have to be honest about it is not entirely true). What's a shame is that much of the comments do not dispute the contents itself or any particular points, most of the negativity is directed towards the appearance of Plance with the backward hat and the prayer or the t-shirt. These accusations of immaturity (or even being "effeminate") that apparently give them a license to dismiss an argument appear to be immature themselves. Quite frankly I do not care if the person giving the argument is as effeminate as a nun or an adolescent 13 year old speaking, truth is truth. The other shame is that many comments also dismisses the entirety of the video's contents because of the starting remarks about Dr. Taylor Marshall. The important takeaways are: It's not comfortable for most people to dismiss a whole chapter of Magisterial content nor foster rebellion against the Church and that Dr. Marshall's doctorate should require or expect a higher standard of an academic approach in regards to analysis. If you disagree, whatever. This part is 15-20 minutes give or take. These two points make up very little content for the entire 2 hours of video. They address nearly all the most controversial parts of V2 using the direct content and text itself and bolster it with previous theological traditions themselves as well with heavy analysis. They also examine St. Pope Paul VI's statements regarding such and CDF statements surrounding clarification and provide context for much of the "problematic" statements. I would've loved to see comprehensive or even succinct comments in response to the vast amount of content they have (including pointing out amateurish mistakes of analysis Dr. Taylor Marshall has, to which they both treat him charitably). But instead, it's mostly about Plance's appearance. It seems apparent, from an objective standpoint, the one with stronger arguments are on DeClue and Plance's side. Attacks regarding the appearance seem like nothing more than cope. But here's some final food for thought: If it turns out that DeClue and Plance are correct and those of you that reject the entirety of their arguments, thus rejecting the Church's Magisterium that we are bound to submit to and you have not judged these claims on a rational basis, how can you guarantee not rendering an account to God on Judgement day for this specific command by Christ: "Do not judge by appearances, but judge with right judgment.” -John 7:24
The opening comments actually go to the core of the matter and it would not surprise me if that is why so many objected to them. People don't mind so much being told they are wrong intellectually, but when you suggest they might be *doing* wrong morally (lack of docility/humility/piety towards the ordinary magisterium etc) they get upset.
When using TH-cam as a learning tool, I find that the comment section often has interesting insight and sometimes links to further interesting information. I was quite surprised to see so many negative comments about the young man from Southern California's T-shirt, hat, and even general demeanor. Have these people been to Southern California? I suppose presenting so regionally can be distracting to people who have not had a chance to leave their bubbles. I also saw comments calling him a perpetual adolescent. This gave me a chuckle. I work with 13-year-olds five days a week. The negative characteristics of adolescence we hope to overcome are not a baseball cap and T-shirt. What we hope to overcome as we mature are thinking everyone has to look and talk like you to fit in, being cruel to people who aren't in your club, creating cliques, and ignoring the substance of what someone says to be able to continue making them someone you can project your hate on.
@@ingridskousgard Very well articulated! And let’s be honest, if someone from their “side” did the same thing, they wouldn’t have had any complaints. It’s just a cheap shot meant to poison the well.
These guys, bless them, never mentioned about a background in Philosophy the lack of which becomes apparent as they coast along. As they said their expertise is in Theology. But Philosophy has always been referred to as Ancilla Theologiae. Theology without Philosophy is hollow. But, it is not a case of Philosophy determining Theology but rather as providing explanation, clarification, and amplification of theological matters. The value of a statement, even a theological statement for that matter, is not determined by WHO said it but WHAT is said. For them , especially Chris, to say that what came out of the council must be accepted because it is Fathers of the Council who said so and confirmed by a Pope, who is a Saint is untenable, to say the least. They might have been ignorant or unknowledgeable that philosophical thoughts are all written in Vatican II what with the presence of Rahner and Congar in the thick of discussions. And Benedict admitted that the philosophy of St Thomas had had its heyday and that it was time to discard it for something that is apt to the times. Like Kant and Heidegger who molded Rahner's and Congar's philosophy which made possible the destruction of the traditional Latin Mass, fostered Liberation Theology, and brought prominence to the Pachama enthroned in an altar at the Vatican. In the main, the philosophy is the relativism of Truth. Even a Pope who says truth is relative or special magisterium must be disobeyed. For the Truth is Permanent and Absolute. It is not the WHO; it is the WHAT. The errors of Vatican ii sprang from the erroneous philosophy that animated it.
You make some grand assumptions. I studied philosophy as well, including two semesters of metaphysics with Msgr. John Wippel, one of the most world-renowned Thomist philosophers, and I studied ethics/moral Theology with Fr. Romanus Cessario. I am well aware of the role of philosophy in Theology, and I am huge proponent of it. My philosophical leanings are Scholastic: St. Thomas (especially in metaphysics and epistemology) and St. Bonaventure.
@@decluesviews2740 That was not an assumption as you should know why being steeped in Philosophy yourself. But it is strange that you make pronouncements without the traces of Philosophy in them. I know what I am talking about. I got a Ph. L degree from the Pontifical University of St. Thomas, Summa cum Laude. That award is not a fluke; I graduated also valedictorian from high school. So I know trash when I see one. You created the thrash in your video because you failed to show the causal principles of the entities you forwarded. Those are the principles of essence and existence as taught by St. Thomas, remember? With a better understanding of the philosophy that run the Vatican II should tell you that the hermeneutics of continuity propounded by Benedict is unacceptable for the simple reason that it runs counter to metaphysical concept of identity and unity: two different specific entities are not identified and not in unity. A word of advice for you guys: put a little of logic in your talk with a sprinkling of metaphysics for coherence and unity. Good day ang God bless you.
@@chrisbernal5164 I graduated college with a 4.0 including courses in organic chemistry, pre-veterinary science, calculus, multiple philosophy courses, theology, and several other disciplines, and continued to get consistently 3.8-4.0s through three graduate degrees and published in two peer review journals. I've taught theology at two colleges, German to Bosch employees, and have certification to teach high school science after passing my certification exams with distinction in both professional teaching knowledge and my subject area. I don't need a lecture about academic credentials, as impressive as a Ph.L. is, and for which I congratulate you. You've made a generic syllogistic argument with no content. You don't specify what specific entities you are referring to. You just state the form of an argument without the specification. That doesn't serve as a rebuttal of anything.
@@decluesviews2740 Space prevents me from going into specific. But then go back to Metaphysics of St. Thomas and ask him if genus does not have a content. Too, ask him whether specific difference can be content in itself without a genus. Generic syllogistic arguments always have content. But then, maybe, you haven't heard that being is the highest genus.
Genuinely interested in y'alls thoughts on Dietrich Von Hildebrand's letter to Michael Davies on V2 (below). I recognize that this is a personal correspondence and the DVH is not a Pope, council, etc. [Perhaps of significant note: DVH’s “Trojan Horse in the City of God” was written in 1970. The letter below was dated April 22,1976]. ”Dear Friend in Christ: I was delighted in reading your letter to Bishop Donohue of Fresno in "The Remnant." This letter is a masterpiece. The repetition of "My Lord" is delightful. Thank you for writing it. I was very pleased about your words concerning my position toward the documents of Vatican Council II. I consider the Council-notwithstanding the fact that it brought some ameliorations-as a great misfortune. And I stress time and again in lectures and articles that fortunately no word of the Council-unless it is a repetition of former definitions de fide-is binding de fide. We need not approve; on the contrary we should disapprove. Unfortunately Maritain said in his last book: the two great manifestations of the Holy Spirit in our times are Vatican Council II and the foundation of the state of Israel. I read the chapter of your book and I am completely satisfied. Hoping to meet you some day, I am united with you in caritate Christi and in the fight against Modernism. Yours affectionately, Dietrich von Hildebrand”
Von Hildebrand was right on point. He realized that something had gone wrong with things after the council. But Von Hildebrand never denounced the council. Not at all. Since this letter is not an actual explication of his entire thought on the council, we are left wondering what he meant by that. Did he mean it was a "misfortune" because some bishops were falsely using Vatican II to make changes the council did not demand? Probably. Notice he did not denounce the council as having said anything wrong. He merely indicates that the council was a "misfortune" - he did not say it was heretical, that it was wrong, that it was in error. Misfortune is a much softer word, that could mean a lot of things, including that the IMPLEMENTATION of the council was being screwed up. Which we all agree on. He notes that no word of the council is binding "de fide". Of course, since the council was primarily non dogmatic, he is right, because "de fide" has a precise definition, in that things that are de fide must be believed. However, Catholics are not allowed to disregard documents of a council if they are not de fide. After the council, Paul VI explicitly noted that while the council was not dogmatic, It still contained things that catholics were bound to obey. www.catholicculture.org/commentary/pope-paul-vi-on-vatican-ii/ At best, Von Hildebrands letter is open to a lot of interpretations, and is a very poor source for basing action. He might have spent five minutes on it and not given it much thought. He might have been tired. Best to rely on his official writings for his true feelings on things.
Vatican II is not infallible because: God does not “trick” us. The Holy Ghost would not allow any infallible teachings which were unreasonable and unjust, as would be any infallible teaching which we could not clearly recognize as such. Vatican II was (deliberately) made ambiguous and contradictory and cannot be infallible because the human mind cannot hold opposites about the same thing at the same time and also cannot hold a statement which is ambiguous and so whose infallible meaning cannot be discerned. Vatican II cannot be infallible because its teachings are new (and new teachings cannot be infallible). The popes and council fathers repeatedly assure us that Vatican II is not infallible.
I definitely should've taken off my hat during the opening prayer. Extremely rude and disrespectful when I'm calling on the name of the Lord. My fault. Thanks for your comments, everyone. Appreciate the passion that some have and the care that others took to write thoughtful responses. Taylor is a good man. He deserves to be engaged directly. He's also a busy man, so it wouldn't surprise me if he doesn't have the time to engage us on his show or elsewhere. The Lord is good and He will see these things through on His own terms and at the proper time. The sovereign hand of the Lord is ever upon us. Thanks again for your feedback. Declue and I are hoping to address some of the more pointed comments in a follow up video. Good looking out brothers and sisters. Iron sharpens iron.
Yes, but what does that say about your innate beliefs, spirituality.
Don't forget this guy reaches "theology", not sure what kind of theology.
Taking your hat off during prayer? Sure, I mean great, but it's no sin and no disrespect, for a woman nor even a man, to have a hat on during private prayer outside of the Liturgy. (Paul's exhortation is culturally contextual, even then, if one takes it as a binding discipline, it applies during Public Prayer). God bless those tight wads who spread stink instead of Christ's joy. Hahaha.
Not only that, by wearing a cap backwards and a t-shirt , you immediately lose all credibility with me . Perpetual adolescence.
Please do more shows on this topic
Thankful for Taylor Marshall. We need to hear these truths in order to bring us closer to the roots of our faith. Continual denial of the evil and corruption creates way too much doubt and loss of faith. Again, thank you Taylor Marshall and Archbishop Vigano!!
He's a conspiracy nut. The devil has the power to assume a pleasing shape, and Taylor Marshall is that shape. He seems earnest. He seems like he cares. But he basically distorts many things to make it sound like he is the only person in the world who understand the secrets that conspiracies are controlling everything.
Well spoken, Nicolette. See how others react to your reaction: they right away come up with personal insults, name calling and satanizing. That is how people 'take care' of the issue...
@@tomthx5804 Nothing but more name-calling and personal attack. At this point, Tom, you are standing in your own way. Nobody can take you seriously. Same false generalizations. Over and over. And over.
Taylor Marshal is a fruit loop, does not speak for the Catholic Magisterium, has no authority to interpret documents int eh and of the Church, and increasingly is rejecting the eccumenical counsels and documents from those councils, which is schismatic, and increasingly seems to question whether the Pope is legitimate.
None of these are marks of catholicity.
@@michaelspeyrer1264 Taylor Marshall does not claim to speak for the Catholic Magisterium. As he makes clear repeatedly. Taylor Marshall does not claim to have any authority to "interpret documents," but. He can read. As for his "increasingly rejection the ecumenical councils and documents" (plural) etc? Back this up with an actual.... fact. Otherwise I'll believe the real fruit loop, Michael, is you.
I just want to receive my Precious Lord reverently and devoutly on the tongue, I should not be denied!
I absolutely agree!
@@decluesviews2740 pray for the consecration of Russia by the Pope and all catholic bishops as requested by Our Lady of Fatima, all this madness will stop and her Immaculate Heart will reign! Why do you think Our Lady of Fatima wanted the 3rd secret revealed prior to the onset of Vatican II???
Of course, it never happened.....hmmm, I wonder why???
@@deluge848 I do pray for the consecration of Russia, regularly, and I find it baffling that it hasn't been done when it would be so simple. I'm with you there.
@@decluesviews2740 AMEN!!! we go back and forth about this and that and the other thing, when we've been given the remedy by OUR BLESSED MOTHER!! we need to concentrate on that.
You are entitled to do so under church law. So what is your complaint?
TM has tried on several occasions to speak with Bp. Baron and he has will not make the effort to enter into dialogue. You need to also consider Abp. Vigano’s and Bishop Schneider’s thoughts/concerns about V-2. No question that there are issues with V-2 and when you start to recognize the state the church is currently in, you have to wonder if the errors of the past are to blame. Just saying.
👍
There are no issues with Vatican II. All the "issues" that Vigano (he appears to have gone crazy) and Schneider (the pro SSPX man) bring up are jokes. They are not real problems. Sorry, but you simply believe what Taylor Marshall says. Ask yourself: Why does Taylor Marshall never have anyone who disagrees with him on his show. I will tell you why - he would soon be exposed as a fraud. So all you see on his show are cult members exchanging thoughts.
This was the best explanation of the "subsistit in" controversy that I've ever come across. I don't know why you're getting downvoted so much - people seem to want to stubbornly hold on to their schismatic beliefs. It's not Catholic, at all. Thank you for this video.
Abp. Vigano's letters makes point to point challenges to the intentional AMBIGUITY contained in V-II documents. It's not only Dr. Marshall. Speak to Abp. Vigano and Bishop Schneider's objections which have led Cardinals and the Pope to participate in pagan Pachamama rituals last October.
Exactly!
Joanne Mercier all Catholics make errors, coming down on your catholic brothers is not the way to keep the church. You must not be catholic but if you are this is no way to treat Gods kids
Vigano has gone crazy. He thinks that the Covid 19 is a plot by one world government to take over, and he thinks freemasons infiltrated the church etc. He has lost his marbles, which is a shame, because he seemed so good at first. Schneider seemed good, but now he thinks he is the pope and the greatest theologian of all time wrapped into one. He says strange things like communion in the hand is a denial of catholic doctrine, which is crazy. They he babbles about Vatican II and he points out things as 'errors" that are not errors at all, just things that he does not like. Let us go back to Pius XII in Casti Connubi to expose Schneiders arrogance and how wrong it is:
" 104. Wherefore, let the faithful also be on their guard against the overrated independence of private judgment and that false autonomy of human reason. For it is quite foreign to everyone bearing the name of a Christian to trust his own mental powers with such pride as to agree only with those things which he can examine from their inner nature, and to imagine that the Church, sent by God to teach and guide all nations, is not conversant with present affairs and circumstances; or even that they must obey only in those matters which she has decreed by solemn definition as though her other decisions might be presumed to be false or putting forward insufficient motive for truth and honesty. Quite to the contrary, a characteristic of all true followers of Christ, lettered or unlettered, is to suffer themselves to be guided and led in all things that touch upon faith or morals by the Holy Church of God through its Supreme Pastor the Roman Pontiff, who is himself guided by Jesus Christ Our Lord."
Schneider, Marshall and Vigano are perilously close to being schismatics, in that they "trust their own mental powers" to decide what is good Catholic doctrine and what is not. Also, you will never see Marshall have someone on his show who knows enough to show his many errors. All three are very close to rejecting the church.
@John Citizen The simple fact is that every papal doc from the beginning of time has ambiguity in it, if you want ambiguity to be there. Rad trads simply make the false claim that Vatican II was ambiguous and things before Vatican II were not ambiguous. This is a totally false assertion.
@@tomthx5804 seriously, THANK YOU for this very important response - probably the best I've read anywhere on any site. I was pulled in all sorts of ways by the Marshalls/Gordon/Voris/Coffin discourse and not once did I feel I was enriched or experienced any kind of Catholic spirituality through their shared thoughts on this and that. Always an attack on someone or something. I also went to Bishop Barron's channel and found it enriching, enlightening, diverse, steeped in church history and biblical foundation. There have been a few times I didn't like what he said, but so what? Who am I anyway? The good thing is that I have come away knowing I must pray, read, study and ask God's help for understanding and wisdom, guidance and direction - and not base my compass on any of these TH-cam influencers. Many are drawn away by them, probably for the same reason I am - poorly catechised. Still, no excuse for being lazy and not doing the hard work myself. With your response here based on Pius XII in Casti Connubi, you've helped me a great deal. God Bless and thank you again!
Why don’t you go on Dr Marshalls show. I’m sure he would like to discuss his views, just saying.👍
The rhetorical question is an interesting one, but I have not been invited to go on his show. So that would be the first reason.
@@decluesviews2740 invite him and give us his response
@@decluesviews2740 we know he wants bishop barron to debate but bishop refuses
@@lawmaker22 That is true. Technically, while an open dialogue between both of them is ideal, I think it could have caused more drama/damage than intended if it went thru (i.e. the wounds are still fresh). Esp with noisy, one-sided Catholics online from all sides wanting to rock the boat
At least now, His Excellency has posted several videos on Vatican II and gave a response to all the faithful, including TM. When tensions are less high, maybe then there can be more productive dialogue
I don't think Marshall would want to discuss live online these issues.
He seems to be one sided against Vatican II
As a consequence of Nostra Aetate, St. Pope John Paul II invited Buddhists etc into the Assisi Church where they placed their "deities" on the Holy tabernacle in the Church.
As a consequence of Nostra Aetate and Lumen Gentium, we have Pachamama earth gods in the Vatican and also documents like the Abhu dabi document, "God wills the plurality of all religions", just like He does for sex race etc.
The ambiguities of those docs n others have led to misinterpretions and hence errors. Catholic teaching shouldn't be ambiguous. It should be crystal clear, as the words of Our Blessed Lord, as the previous councils etc.
If the council is being debated, that is the clearest sign that it has ambiguities. Such debates have not been there for other previous Councils.
By the time the CDF issues documents later on to clarify those in VII, it means that VII had ambiguities,.
The ambiguities have led to errors in misinterpretions and these ambiguities, by that fact of lack of clarity, end up as errors.
It's true, that VII docs can be interpreted in an Orthodox way, as you guys have done. And this is a good thing. If only all bishops n priests could take that path.
But the problem is that the docs can also be interpreted in a purely liberal way, hence the consequences of Pachamama, Assisi scandal, Communion in the hand and extraordinary ministers of the Holy Eucharist, "plurality of all religions", lessening of the zeal in religious communities, etc and the combined effect of this liberal interpretation has led to the many novelties priests are inventing day n night in the Novus Ordo, making it similar to protestant worship (thsnks to Card. Annibale Bugnini), and hence à decrease in the faith, decrease in the Real Presence, priests leaving the ministry etc.
St. Pope Pius VI himself said that [paraphrasing] - we expected a new springtime of the Church prior to the Council but after the Council, we got more confusion and conflict etc.
I agree with everything you said. To sow confusion is the work of the evil one.
You are sadly misinformed by the fake youtube guys who pretend to know things. They are, for the most part, exaggerating and distorting things, which is evil in itself. First, all JP II did was set aside a room for the Buddhists to pray. He left it to the monk underlings to do all the necessary preparations. Your claim is based on ONE newspaper article printed in the NY Times, which claims that they did so and so. No one has ever verified that the Buddhists actually did this, nor has anyone bothered to ask the monks precisely went on at that time. Why? Because fake traditionalists WANT to use this supposed incident and exaggerate it. Presumably, when they allowed this chapel to be used, they removed the blessed sacrament etc. So all that was left was a table and what MIGHT have been a tabernacle box, which would have been empty. So all your youtube buddies are doing is spreading false allegations. Note they have never contacted the monks to find out exactly what happened. NO, Pachamama had NOTHING to do with Nostra Aetate and Lumen Gentium, and whoever told you it did is purposely making stuff up out of thin air. IF your youtube masters bothered to deal in reality, they would have discovered that Pope Francis told a visiting bishop that the Abu Dhabi document really meant the permissive will of God, which squares it with Catholic doctrine, so they always leave that out. No doubt the Abu Dhabi document was flaky and weak and the explanation is shaky, and more careful people would not have done it. But at least Francis tried to square it with Catholic doctrine. But when there is youtube hay to be made, why get these stories straight when telling exaggerations can build you a youtube empire?
@@tomthx5804 Surely you aren't saying the Pachamana incident and all those disgusting images of topless women breastfeeding animals being displayed in churches is acceptable? No "TH-camr Master" made up or exaggerated all that...it was an abomination.
None of what you have said is an accurate understanding of Nostra Aetate.
And at odds with what Pope Benedict said is a keeping with a proper understanding of the documents of the council.
@@michaelspeyrer1264 Well maybe these things should be made crystal clear so there can be no misunderstandings or abuses by anyone on either side of the fence...then we wouldn't have such in fighting and divisions. You can't blame or judge anyone for having serious questions and concerns about these issues..
What about all his interviews with Bishop Athanasius Schneider!
I'm sure Bishop Schneider hasn't listened to most of Marshalls videos.
Bishop Schneider approves of Marshalls book on Infiltrating which there is. The bishop also has a platform to speak online on good practices of Holy Communion on the tongue and show reverence to God.
@@Time2see01 Maybe you misunderstand me, I am asking the above two gentlemen to acknowledge that a learned theologian/bishop (Athanasius Schneider) has been interviewed by Talyor Marshall many times (all on TH-cam). He has personally addressed some of these issues. He is a bishop in full communion and good standing with the RCC. Above they talk about how it would be so great for Talyor to talk to Bishop Barron without acknowledging Bishop Schneider's interviews or expertise at all.
@John Citizen Oh, ok I guess being a faithful successor of the Apostles is no big deal to you (you sound unhinged - friend). Au contraire, he has a very impressive resume; served in South America, Asia, Europe, taught Patristics at the seminary level, Speaks over 7 languages, has written several popular books on theology, but most importantly he has been a faithful priest for 30 years - one that has never taught heresy, a bishop for over 15 years ordained by Cdl. Sodano himself (you probably love him right?). Since even you seem to know so much about his "insignificant" excellency it is obvious that you would benefit from standing corrected by watching some of TM's interviews with Bishop Schneider. Humility we pray, oh Lord.
Schneider is not even a bishop. He's an auxiliary. He appears to be headed for the SSPX. All his complaints were stupid, lame complaints that did not even present Vatican II correctly. He said that communion in the hand was against Catholic dogma, which is clearly false. He does not know what he is talking about. he quotes a few phrases from Vatican II that he does not like. Big deal. One crummy bishop (not even a bishop) from Kazakhstan is supposed to know more than every pope we have had, more than the 2000 bishops who voted by votes like 2000 to 5 in favor of those documents? More than all the theologians who have endlessly poured over Vatican II for 50 years. They found no "erros". But this SSPX supporting bishop from Kazakhastan is suddenly the only guy who noticed this stuff? Get real.
@@tomthx5804 Are you stating auxiliary bishops are not valid bishops in the true sense of the sacrament? Sounds like it to me - that is a canonically invalid position (and arguably heresy), Tom. Auxilary (which just means assistant really) or not, he is a member of episcopacy and deserves respect as being elevated as a Successor to the Apostles and not to be referred to as "crummy". I think your attitude sounds crummy but I would never call you a crummy person. Do you think Christ likes you calling his priest crummy? Bishop Schnieder is NOT associated in any authoritative/canonical way with the SSPX (like that even matters). Please point out one heresy that "Auxilary" Bishop Athanasius has supported. Back it with evidence, not your boisterous opinion (give me sources). Just google search him to see that he is respected, teaches well, and is as learned (if not more) than all those Vat. II authors/clerics you are pseudo-idolizing. Bishop Schneider may have some invalid opinions (I am sure he does) But my original post was addressed to the authors of the above video asking them to recognize/discuss Bishop Schnieder's views on Vat. II that is all. Now, relax, take off your mask and breathe easier, before you go around tearing people down next time.
Why don’t you debate Taylor Marshals since you seem to know Vatican 2
@Apostolic Nuncio to Kekistan - seem like Marshall really rubs off of your immature mind (soy boy idiotic comments ).
They wouldn't have the nerve to go toe-to-toe with him. He speaks far too frankly and truthfully. He would slice them up. Without breaking a sweat.
Apostolic Nuncio to Kekistan respectful discourse plz toward those that don’t agree with you and invite them to know truth
@Apostolic Nuncio to Kekistan It is His Holiness Pope Saint Taylor Marshall the Infinite that refuses to have anyone on the show that disagrees with him. He is a weak sister, not interested in truth. He has blocked everyone on twitter that disagrees with him. Marshall never allows anyone on his show who can show he is full of it. Rule number one of conspiracy theorists is NEVER have someone on your show that can really debate you.
@Apostolic Nuncio to Kekistan Standard demon possessed Taylor Marshall follower comment
There comes a point in every boy's life when he must retire his backwards cap.
awreckingball I have doubts about your knowledge. Why don’t you debat Taylor I’m sure he would be up for that. Your making yourselfs look really bad.
@@denismiller7516 I would, if he agrees not to turn his mic volume up twice as loud as mine and talk over me! (Something DeClue seems to like doing as well.)
Hahaha
You're listening too, Jackie? Lol
@@TDTimma yup
Wow! As a Cradle Catholic, I'm only 10 minutes in and already am grateful to hear clear, smart Catholic perspective, with humility and charity, and without all the drama, offence & dark agendas. Michael Voris/Taylor Marshall disturb my soul and I've chosen to stop listening to them, pray, become better catechised (be willing to be taught). God Bless & THANK YOU!
Don't worry, your common sense seems to be winning out. A tree is judged by it's fruit, and a daily diet of rumors, bad news, a dash of calumny and lack of charity will turn your faith cold. Stick with the Saints, and good teaching without all the Mean Girls drama. I highly recommend the Thomistic Institute podcasts and this channel of course. Ascension Presents is good too, with more of an accent on practical Catholic spirituality.
Curious how M. Boris disturbs your soul. Most of his content deals with church corruption, all of which, from what I’ve heard, is very well documented. How does this disturb you and how is evidence a dark agenda? If you have evidence of your claim I’d like to hear it because I am open to the truth.
@@fragwagon Thanks alot for your supportive comments and guidance. I'm one of those Cradle Catholics that became lukewarm, was always poorly catechised, and as I started to wade into TH-cam looking for help/instruction, I tripped across Taylor Marshall etc and I just knew not to go down that rabbit hole. I feel with these guys - a real breath of fresh air, and yes - reading the Saints and good teaching without the Mean Girls drama (love that!) is my intention. Better late than never - but these guys have me excited now instead of discouraged. So much to learn - feels overwhelming - but 1 foot in front of the other.
@@mikazoftstrom2343 It's the sheer approach and tone toward his content presentations that put me off....and includes the constant put down of Pope Francis, corruption of the Catholic Church - making everything sound like the sky is falling - a whole lot of constant drama, and the biggest of all is a huge lack of charity and name-calling/disparaging of others characters - all in the name of Holy Mother Church - as he'd say - with an enormous air of self-righteousness and judgement.....and who is he? Michael Voris? What authority has he been given by the Catholic Church to judge and condemn her people? None of that to me is Catholic Spirituality - and I have no interest to get anywhere near that kind of spirit. In contrast, these 2 men are wholly charitable, with sound knowledge and respect for others, not intent on tearing people down but generously instructive.
Mark M. I understand but disagree to a point. When speaking of blatant corruption and attempts to change doctrine that is against the teachings of the church, he should hit hard and bring truth to the public and those in the Vatican that have authority. In cases where there is only speculation, I could not agree with you more. But fighting for the truth can not always be sunshine, lollipops, and spiritual bliss. Jesus was quite aggressive with those who denigrated the temple and was harder on hypocrites. I don’t see greater hypocrisy than those who blatantly hide rapists and thieves and those who would try and change the doctrine of the church to suit their own lifestyles.
Thank you Taylor for representing the Catholic Church teachings throughout the centuries. Thank you for questioning the current ethics and teachings of this pontificate and today's bishops.
Amen.
Where are the ethics incorrect?
@@tomgreene2282 men with lil boys or just men with men is highly UN ETHICAL.
@@tomgreene2282 The pope's failure to speak out against the abortion of our precious babies. The pope's failure to correct himself when it comes to dealing with corrupt politicians. More recently the pope saying ALL are part of The Church - Acta non verba.
What my heart tells me is to tread with caution on everything, seek God's will in everything.
The videos where DeClue's Views critiques Taylor Marshall always sound like a guy micro-obsessing/parting hairs looking for something to critique and 'have an opinion on'. He wants to show that he theologically astute. There's no 'meat' or main thrust with him-because there is none to really be had. I don't think anyone is attacking his desire to find a 'hermaneutic of continuity' with Vatican II documents. Taylor Marshall, Bishop Schneider, and others are and have been making the following points: That there are documents which have been taken (incorrectly or correctly intended as the case may or may not be) and used to advance modernist and novel practices, belief's, etc and for what clearly has been dissent, heresy, demolition of the Catholic Church. The last 50+ years have shown this demonstrably. That is the main thrust of the argument. So, the question begs, why bother with this hair-splitting about the documents when it's painfully obvious what has happened since the council? That's the point man. Everybody recognizes your degrees and knowledge base. . . but this is like a bunch of academics arguing about the finer points of something insignificant while there is a Elephant in the room clear as day. It's a waste of their time and the listeners. I won't give this guy a listen again when he decides to critique Marshall anymore and that is not meant as blanket endorsement of all that Marshall says, either. Taylor makes solid, practical points that have a main thrust. This guy is just trying to create clickbait by critiquing TM. Plance, first thing that stood out is the backwards hat for me too. Points for not having it in some moronic 'gangsta-sideway's' style, but yeah, it's time to retire that backwards hat.
I agree entirely, for us Catholic peasants, we look at the fruit of the tree. Things are happening after Vatican 2 that are making us confused and disenchanted. Our masses are now becoming like variety shows, the priests are saying green jokes and corny ones too during their homilies. I saw a video of a man denied the holy communion because he knelt down and opened his mouth to receive the Body of Christ. The Pope kissing the Koran. Our Pope lying about his knowledge about Macarrick's pedophilia. Priests who are cozing up with homosexuality. So many weird things, I am getting dizzy.
The point is that Marshall and his few buddies have NO reason to believe that ANY of the problems of the church actually stem from Vatican II or anything it really taught. They have never been able to show how ANY of the stuff they complain about came from Vatican II or any of its documents. At most, they seek to distort what Vatican II said, and they find an occasional phrase that they do not like. But that phrase is only a problem if one has a distorted understanding of what it means. For example. Taylor Marshall said that Vatican II said that through Buddhism, you can achieve "perfect liberation". But Vatican II did not say that at all. When you go read the document, all it is really doing is making a list of things that Buddhists believe. So you are being led down the garden path by a goof like Marshall who does not even understand what he is reading. All of your allegations against DeClue come about simplly because you believe the conspiracy goof Taylor Marshall, and you think he is basically on point. But when people like Declue come about, who actually know this stuff, you reject it because you prefer a conspiracy theory . NONE of the criticism that Schneider and Marshall make about Vatican II have the least substance. Do you think it is possible for something like Vatican II to teach error, and be around for 50 years, and nobody notice it until now. Finally, look at the guest Marshall has on his show. He NEVER has on anyone who really knows the documents and can debate him. He is a conspiracy nut, and conspiracy nut rule number one is never debate with anyone who really knows this stuff. Just have other conspiracy goofs on your show.
@@tomthx5804 If one has already been the proof for decades/centuries? of homosexual rape and paedophilia, raping Nuns; A little Chy-nese cash getting rinsed out thru the Vatican Bank, and the Good Lord only knows what else, I can most assuredly pay very close attention to Dr. Marshall. Y'all are following after the Sheep in Wolf's clothing bait. God is calling His people to get things cleaned up.
@@tomthx5804 You are correct Vat II said nothing of the kind about Buddhism...a very poor reading for a Ph D in any field.
I was confirmed last month. Without Dr. Marshall having addressed many of the issues that were holding me back, it never would have happened. Thanks Dr. Marshall.
God bless you, Dr. Taylor Marshall!
He is going to need a lot of blessing, if he is going to avoid hell.
Dr Taylor Marshall is a refugee for many abandoned by their pastors...
God bless him.
@John Citizen are you a God that can see one's soul for you to decide whether he is in the grace or not?
@John Citizen
Until the word radtrad I thought you were speaking of the "No one goes to hell" Bp Barron, or the "99 baby" Cd Tobin, and other friends...
This person is a religious brother. Have some respect
Richard, @24:24 you refer to Taylor's frustration with V II ambiguities. Then you point to parallels. This is my frustration w V II-----can you name one other council than V II that SOUGHT to be ambiguous? to blur rather than to clarify?
I don't accept the narrative that it sought to be ambiguous. I don't use one heretic peritus's supposed but undocumented comment as the interpretive key for the Council when it is counter-factual to the explicit statements of the popes and documents themselves.
OK, little bro, I'm honored by your reply. But you can make me feel a lot better by citing one or two things V II clarified😊. Maybe 'extra ecclesia...' ? What an anonymous Christian is? Throw me a bone, please!
@@kneelingcatholic Anonymous Christian was Rahner's, not the Council's term. Although, I did do a video about that. As far as the Church and salvation, it is in Lumen gentium. I am at work right now, but we did quote at least part of it in the video.
Richard,
V II seems to be a case of what they reiterated of old dogma was good, and the new items they hinted at , e.g. like other Faiths saving people thru faithful observance of false doctrines ---- were not good....feel free the correct me if they did not push in that direction!
Have a look at Dominus Iesus on other faiths.
I love Taylor Marshall. He is correct.
Listen to whom you like ..but I would back these fellows before the CDF any day rather than TM.
How much money have you sent him so far?
@@markm.5756 Why do you care? FYI...I have very little money so I have sent him $0. I am retired and disabled so go pick on someone else.
Linda Fowler you sound bitter & negative. I’m retired as well - glad to know you weren’t talked out of your savings, as many of these internet celebrities manage to do. I wish you well with your disability & hope you feel better or can cope well enough.
@@markm.5756 I have been coping fine for nearly 30 years. I am not bitter at all. I accept my pain as a kiss from the Cross. J have deep joy even through the pain.
@20 mins, I have never heard TM flout his doctorate. He lists his title, Dr. Taylor Marshall, just as all people with titles do. He earned it, why wouldn't he use it? I know lots of people with doctorates and they list their title on videos and publications. Your comments sound like sour grapes.
Read his book infiltration, the forward was written by bishop Schnieder who admits there is no evidence to back up any of the claims in his book. Should both the bishop and Dr. Marshall know this is a sin? Bless ya mate.
@@themoderncatholicwarrior7216 I do have his book Infiltration and I did read it though I need to go back to check the forward. I watch every single video that TM publishes and order all of his books. I think he is a force for good in the world. Let's not argue about personalities. Do you honestly believe that Vatican II is *not* in error? The RCC has been bleeding members since the Novus Ordo. Entire parishes are closing down. Meanwhile, the Traditional Latin Mass folks are growing in leaps and bounds. Have you attended a TLM? They are packed, children everywhere. I believe trads like TM represent a revitalization of the faith.
@@npickard4218 Hey, ok first a bit of my background. I grew up in a Novus Ordo Catholic High School, St. James in East Bentleigh Melbourne, Australia. I was persecuted for being a follower of the SSPX and only attending the Latin mass. Then the SSPX opened St. Thomas High School in Tynong, Victoria. I was one of the first students.
Ok, so my fellow students from St. James don't know or understand the Vatican 2 story. Some of them have had a struggle with their faith and left but most still believe. Student of the SSPX can tell you all about Vatican 2 and they love to talk conspiracies about the church and Freemason but they have almost all lost the faith. They all had the Latin mass growing up. Also, the writers of Vatican 2 also said the Latin mass daily while at the council. Sorry but this is fake news. It has been reported here in Australia that the fastest growing religion is the Catholic faith, not the traditional Catholic movement which is dying. I have noticed at Latin mass centers in Victoria, they are shrinking. This is both SSPX and mainstream church.
In fact in my church that I go to, when I left the SSPX in 2011 and went there I came across a priest who I grew up within the SSPX. He brought in the Latin mass. From 2011 to early this year mass attendance shrank. People started going to other churches. At midnight mass back in 2012 I mad to park far from the church and the church was crowded outside bec there was no room inside. I would literally be standing on the footpath which is nowhere near the front door. But then this priest decided to make midnight mass Latin and last Christmas the church was not even half full. Sorry but this thing about people in the church losing their faith while Latin mass goers are growing is fake news. In Melbourne Australia, if you look up all the Latin mass centers and attend them all a different one each week, you will notice the same people are circulation the different centers to try and keep numbers up.
@@npickard4218 Part 2. Some things I think you should know and go and research is the fact that the pre-Vatican 2 church wanted the Novus Ordo Mass. When I first left the SSPX in 2011 I studied as much as I could and had an impressive list of notes and references, one of them was a quote from St. Pius X stating that he didn't want mass to be in Latin in the future church. My computer crashed and I lost all the notes and could never find this quote again. However, I did find out that Pope Benedict went to seminary in the late 1940s and he learned then that the church wanted a revised mass that took the tradition of the Roman Rite of noble simplicity. This is the Novus Ordo Mass.
Additionally, Marcel Lefebvre started this entire movement. But Padre Pio warned him not to. Lefebvre started the SSPX saying the Novus Ordo mass. the Latin mass was brought in 2 years later as a gimmick along with a dress code of the 1950s style. This was to trick people into thinking this was the mass you grew up in. But he was against Vatican 2. He was also one of the bishops of Vatican 2 who wrote up and signed off on all documents to be authentically Catholic. The SSPX originally denied this back in the 90s. Then they accepted this but claimed he didn't sign 2 of the 16 documents and now they acknowledge he signed all documents but changed his mind after even though there is no evidence of this.
Now it has been released he elevated a predator priest to the priesthood after that man was found out. Be became close friends with him and that man went on to abuse people as a priest. He got in trouble with the church not for saying Latin mass but for wanting to ordain priest in secret, why? I think we know now. At the school, they hired a known sex offender who defended the man claiming he was innocent. This is Fr. Todd Angele the first headmaster of St. Thomas. He is now accused of covering up for another sex offender at St. Mary's in the US.
@@themoderncatholicwarrior7216 Thank you for your long reply. I am interested in Victoria since I follow a guy on Bitchute who reports and the draconian lockdowns by the provincial government (not sure if you have states or provinces.) I live in California though I was raised at the Canadian border in Michigan. I wonder how much of our experiences are about living in different countries. Hm. I am not Catholic but I am starting the conversion process after the Nov 3rd election (because I'm spending all of my energy organizing Trump rallies.) I am going to a Latin Mass about a half hour from where I live and it is bustling with activity and enthusiasm. I tried going to Novus Ordo and they are have empty ... a lot of women but not many men attend. It seems to be a feminized mass. Men don't like all the handholding, touchy-feely stuff that transpires at these Novus Order masses. That's what I noticed. I would not want to be Catholic if I had to go to NO. It's the TLM that attracts me to the faith and the "trad movement." I think Pope Francis' newest encyclical called Fratelli tutti is creepy. It's just his personal opinion so I can criticize it. He states that there are many paths to God. Why would I convert to Catholocism if there are "many paths?" It feels like New Age nonsense to me. It was a trad who told me, "there is no salvation outside of the Church." Then he showed it to me in the Cathechism. That's is exclusive and beautiful. I guess it's my personality but I am repelled by N.O. yet I am drawn to TLM. I love liturgy and I love eternal languages. I grew up Jewish and learned to daven in Hebrew. Jews all around planet Earth daven (pray) in liturgical Hebrew. It's a universal language for Jews. Latin in the RCC is an exact parallel if that makes sense. Different language, different religion but all the arguments that the trads make for Latin are the same arguments Jews make for Hebrew. I don't want to go into a long letter about the power of liturgies bc I'm sure you've heard those arguments. But, yeah, here in California the Latin Mass is where all the energy is. It's also true in other American states. I know it's true in Texas because I have friends there who tell me TLM is crowded while N.O. is lifeless and not well-attended.
You started the first 30 minutes with ad hominem attacks against TM and already, this became the color of the rest of your podcast. Can you not just focus on the issues and do away with subjective nuances of your discussions? Do you agree with parading the pachamama in the Vatican and placing it in the church? Will you accept women priests as being proposed by the amazon synod? Will you discourage receiving communion by the hand? Are priests right in denying communion to people who advocate abortion? is it right for Father Barron to say that defending the statues and churches from the mobs the job of the lay people? Do you condemn the Pope from kissing the Koran in the Vatican? I am not a theologian but I am more concerned with lay issues which I see everyday. TM was able to connect some of these questionable practices to the Vatican 2 that is why his opinions carry some weight. Whether the clergy has wrongly interpreted Vatican 2 or not, it is apparent there is ambiguity in the wordings which is aptly being exposed by TM.
The church of TM. No thank you.
@@markm.5756 Taylor Marshall doesn't "have" a Church. Nor does he ever claim to so have. Silliness.
Taylor Marshall folllowers are always instructed to call ANY criticism "ad hominem" Even when it is totally not ad hominem at all. And then they pretend that if you disagree with Taylor Marshall, then you agree with everything Pope Francis does. That is not true. And always the baloney about kissing the Koran. And look - although you THINK Taylor Marshall has linked this laundry list of things to Vatican II, that does not mean he actually has. He has not. He just is repeating the same discredited nonsense the SSPX has always told - Just remember, Taylor Marshall says a lot of things that are completely untrue, that are totally made up, that exaggerate, that misinform, etc. You simply cannot rely on the guy.
@@tomthx5804 "Taylor Marshall says a lot of things that are completely untrue, that are totally made up, that exaggerate, that misinform, etc."
A for eg would be useful here, Tom. In your own time. Thanks.
@@markm.5756 The church of the shifting sands facilitated by ad hominems from de Clue. You're welcome to it.
Thank you for this. It is good to get people talking about this rather than just Marshall. It's good to keep our heads on straight and have a meaningful conversation.
Dr. Marshall - please show some respect Father Herge. WWJD?
@@cyndephillipshohbein8232 Having watched a lot of Dr. Marshall, I am fairly certain I have heard him refer to himself as Marshall in the third person freely. As far as the Lord, I suspect He would have said Taylor, but I wouldn't dare be so familiar.
@Andrew Preslar I do tend a bit too literal in my response to comments, but I assure you that I was entirely sincere in what I said with no degree of malice.
@Andrew Preslar No problem.
@@eoinmcg88 My family is the same way. Saying that the event of Vatican II has been a disaster is different from saying the documents teach error.
How did pope Paul v1 get around the decree at the Council of Trent imposed by pope Prius v session 7 canon 13 that the liturgy and sacrament of the mass could not be changed and it’s in the word derogation = the meaning is the suspension or a suppression of a law.
And pope Paul v1 used this to promote the new liturgy and the new mass in Vatican 11
Anyone who gets TM fans ruffled is a friend of mine. Good show gents.
Do they get ruffled ?
Guys thank you so much for this. I was sent this TM video by a friend and I researched it as I watched it. I ended up writing a 12 page paper in response to him (it was largely quotations) but I’m very relieved to see you all bring up the same issues I had while watching it. Thank you guys for this video. It really makes me feel like I’m not alone in questioning TM. God bless you both!
Hard pass on Chris Plance. I love Tim Gordon but chris is the reason I stopped watching R4R. I watched 9 minutes of this video and couldn’t take any more of the ragging on Taylor Marshall. Seems you’ve been ratioed on this. You act like you know whether Taylor has prayerfully discerned this or not and implied he hasn’t. Maybe that’s something you all should have done before this video instead of suggesting he do it. By the way I can decide for myself if I agree with someone or not. I don’t need someone else out there censoring content or suggesting others don’t put their valid ideas/theological discussions out there. And for the record I don’t agree with any one popular catholic lay TH-camr out there 100% of the time bc we don’t have to and should think for ourselves anyways.
Look, Martin Luther "prayerfully discerned" everything. So does James Martin. All these conspiiracy goofs pretend they are prayerfully discerning everything, but they are really just listening to themselves think. Let me remind you, it is not for you, as a lay person who knows virtually nothing about theology to decide that you "agree" with Marshall or any other youtube dude. Your only role is to figure out what the real church teaches, not what some goofball with conspiracy theories thinks. Read my comments above. Quite often, marshall is totally wrong about everything. He gets his facts wrong. He makes things up. If you a a protestant, you think for yourself and ignore what the church teaches. if you are protestant, you decide complex theological questions based on viewing a conspiracy dude on youtube. You have been tricked by Marshall. Real Catholics follow church teaching, not what some youtube dude says.
@@tomthx5804 Just go on and back there BS Truck right now, Bubba. Who in the Hades do you presume to think you are???? Let ME remind YOU, Buffalo Breath (apologies to Buffalos), it is NOT for YOU to tell ME what or HOW to THINK. YOU know LESS than a Rodent's Rotten Rump about what I May or May NOT know about Theology or ANYTHING else!!!! Were you promoted to Pope and I missed it????? May I suggest that you read the book, The Bad Popes. Explain to me why the Mc Carrack dossier is not yet released??? Waiting for him to die to clip that cash flow??? God WILL save His Church; however, many, perhaps such as yourself will be turned away whilst you're screeching "Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in Your name, and in Your name drive out demons and perform many miracles?’…"Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven....
@@cyndephillipshohbein8232 Of course I am not the pope. The one true pope is "His Holiness, Pope Saint Taylor Marshall the Infinite". Peace be upon his holy name. Peace to you sister, you are the quintessential Taylor Marshall fan.
Watch our actual point by point rebuttals to TM's points. Then I'll take the criticism more seriously. We have had a number of people thank us for helping them understand this issue better. So, I will not apologize for putting our perspective out there.
@@decluesviews2740 Have you been mugged by the ''non sequitors''?
And don't disrespect Dr. Marshall. He KNOWS what he is talking about!
Quite frankly, Marshall is a total disaster. Here is another example of his fake information. He POSES as a guy who knows thing, but he really just misleads you. He quoted Bugnini in his Vatican II video. But Bugnini never even said that. Marshall quotes Bugninin as saying "
“We must strip from our Catholic prayers and from the Catholic liturgy everything which can be the shadow of a stumbling block for our separated brethren, that is for the Protestants”.
This is a fake quote that the SSPX has spread for years. It's totally fake. Here is what Bugnini really said - he was quoted in the March 19, 1965 L osservatore Romano,
"“The 7th prayer [of the new rite for Good Friday] bears the title: ‘For the Unity of Christians’ (not ‘of the Church’, which was always one.) No longer used is the pariah ‘heretics’ and ‘schismatics’ but ‘all brethren who believe in Christ…’
Scholars think to shed light on biblical and liturgical sources from which the new texts are derived or inspired, which the Study Groups of the “Council” accomplished by using a chisel. And let’s say that often the work proceeded ‘with fear and trembling’ by sacrificing terms and concepts so dear, and now part of the long family tradition. How not to regret that ‘Mother Church- Holy, Catholic and Apostolic - deigned to revoke’ the seventh prayer? And yet it is the love of souls and the desire to help in any way the road to union of the separated brethren, by removing every stone that could even remotely constitute an obstacle or difficulty, that has driven the Church to make even these painful sacrifices."
So we must face it - lots of stuff you hear from Taylor Marshall is totally made up.
forums.catholic.com/t/what-archbishop-bugnini-really-said-the-article-that-proves-it/267059
@@tomthx5804 Wow! I myself never even saw the full quote before
@@tomthx5804 Bugnini was a Freemason who wrote the Novus Ordo Mass on a napkin in a Roman bar while having drinks. He was a disaster for the
Church - and was later banished to Iran by Paul VI. Louis Boyer said (to paraphrase) that Bugnini was a man as bereft of culture as he was of honesty.
@@jm08050 No, the SSPX says that Bugnini was a freemason. But the only evidence for that is a STORY printed in an Italian conspiracy book. The book cites an anonymous source for a story that runs like this. Bugnini left his briefcase behind one day. They looked through it and found freemasonry documents. But the book never tells us any facts. Who found this briefcase? They dont tell you. In Italy, they write conspiracy books about the church all the time. So no, it was never proven at all, they have found no evidence at all that Bugnini was a freemason
@@jm08050 Prove it. TM failed miserably trying to...
A lot of us have been waiting for a response like this. We love the traditions of the Church but don’t fall in line with everything Marshall says. Hope you guys team up more often.
Well said indeed!
Yes!
Thank you for defending the faith from our fellow Catholics. 🙏🙏🙏
What did Vatican II teach which was not previously taught by the Church?
1:56:30 I have honestly never heard this line from Vatican II UR #3: "Nevertheless, our separated brethren, whether considered as individuals or as Communities and Churches, are not blessed with that unity which Jesus Christ wished to bestow on all those who through Him were born again into one body, and with Him quickened to newness of life - that unity which the Holy Scriptures and the ancient Tradition of the Church proclaim. For it is only through Christ's Catholic Church, which is "the all-embracing means of salvation," that they can benefit fully from the means of salvation. We believe that Our Lord entrusted all the blessings of the New Covenant to the apostolic college alone, of which Peter is the head, in order to establish the one Body of Christ on earth to which all should be fully incorporated who belong in any way to the people of God."
This is a very impressive line and should be spread far and wide.
Amen!
@@decluesviews2740 This has been a huge eye opener for me as I've been struggling with some traditionalist fatigue lately. Question... Taylor's starting point with regards to VII is that the Church has been "infiltrated" and thus Vatican II as a council and its subsequent documents are the result of said infiltration and are therefore malicious in intent. How would you approach this line of reasoning? Thank you.
Nick The protection of the Holy Spirit was placed onto the Church through Peter, the Head, and the successors along with the Apostolic College as said in UR. VI defined Extraordinary Infallibility and begun the Magisterial discussion of Ordinary Magisterial Infallibility. Malice in intent by some of the Bishops does not deny the truth or falsity of the content. Surely not all Ecumenical Councils have been free from malicious intent of the bishops and not all Councils have been free from “bad fruit.” For example, Council of Ephesus that denounced Nestorianism as a heresy was used by heretical bishops from the East as grounds to affirm the heresy of Monophysitism. In fact they (mostly Oriental and Coptic Orthodox now) claim that we, the Catholics, and Eastern subscribe to Nestorianism because we claim Christ has two natures and that we go against the Council of Ephesus! You can’t appease everyone or force everyone to have a consistent interpretation of an Ecumenical Council
Great video and analysis. Loved it!
Great to see this comment here, Mr Vogt. I think I can guess at several reasons why the good Bishop Barron will not engage publicly with TM and I applaud him for it. My guesses in a suggested order of importance are : 1/ he is far, far too busy for it with the rest of his WOF ministry and work as Bishop in a huge diocese-- as attested to by his need to cut back to fortnightly rather than weekly podcasts/videos with you. 2/ it will not serve the Church very well AT ALL to give TM the additional platform and exposure that would come from being on the Bishop’s very broad reaching show. It is possible that TM would subsequently misrepresent such an event - and even more people could then be lead astray. C/ the Bishop would not seek to publicly humiliate another person who is in error, he would use his discretion and sacred authority as a holy priest to minister to them privately first- if they were at all open to the process. ... I am only guessing though. I applaud the Bishop’s approach on this matter so far. His silence on the specifics speaks volumes if it is heard correctly. It is not cowardice - it is ‘the long game’ approach as far as I can see . Many can see that the Word is truly on Fire within the good Bishop, especially now, and it is appreciated. Please let him know , Regards, VC
Hey Brandon! I got my Catholicism DVD series yesterday in the mail. Super excited. Nice to see your comment here. Take care!
@@virginiacharlotte7007 thank you for sharing your thoughts to Brandon - and allowing us to read them. I, for one, have been disturbed and confused by all the "Mean-Girl" approach TM, Voris, Coffin etc take - all this red pill stuff and the constant putting down of Pope Francis and Bishop Barron, among so many others - always creating division and sensational drama that probably increases his follower base and financial gain but pulls those of us less cathecized and seeking instruction into error. I knew to pull back - my spirit was feeling disturbed by TM and the others. Just received B. Barron's Catholicism DVD series and super-excited, but equally as excited to have found these 2 men here. Ready to pull up my sleeves, learn, pray and try to be - FINALLY - a better Catholic. Thanks again.
Mark M. My experience pretty much mimics yours! A lapsed and poorly catechised cradle Catholic who is slowly and rationally finding their way back... When funds allow I will start working through some of the WOF course work too. In the meantime- good introductory commentary and links to church documents via sites like this one will also help a lot. I can also recommend Classical Theist and a few videos from Mathoma who, in conjunction with Bishop Barron’s back catalogue of videos (and some debates I followed involving John Lennox and various low-ball thinking atheists like Dawkins, C.Hitchens etc etc), all set me on the path to realising that this whole Christianity thing has a lot more logic and reason to it than I had allowed myself to believe. I have a long way to go yet... Best wishes, VC
@@virginiacharlotte7007 thanks Virginia - I'm smiling as I read your response here - happy & also relieved to be on this path/journey. Profound patience and Divine Mercy - if it weren't for that I'd have been lost forever. All the best!
If all Christians just stood together and stopped nitpicking eachother we would all be stronger together.
Christians should be united in all that binds them: faith in the Trinity, the Redemption of Christ, the gift of the Holy Spirit, eternal life, a clear vision of what Christ asks us to do in the Gospel-. Of course, LIVING OUT the Gospel in practical terms entails sacrifice, and the realm of behavior is the place where doctrine most comes into conflict with real life and disputes arise, as well as in the existence and use of authority, since none of us like to be told what to do, but God has granted some authority to human beings, The first points are relatively shared--the Sacraments more complicated for non-Catholics--but sexuality and marriage are always a source of tension because faithfulness to our commitments is not easy, and people often look for justification for what they want to do instead of accepting what Christ wants them to do. Christian unity is a divine gift, as St. John Paul II insisted, not a state we can simply will to exist. We have to SEE the same truths and ACCEPT the same commitments. There will otherwise be disagreement and disunity. Unity is the fruit of prayer and the action of the Holy Spirit.
Your proposal exactly begs the question of who is Christian and who is not, which is exactly the item under discussion for 2000 years now. Your message exactly assumes your personal opinion, which is that 'all' are Christian. In short: what you write is nonsense.
Its not nitpicking when you confront a professed Catholic, who is preaching publicly that an Ecumenical Council in union with the Holy Father contains error. This is a major issue.
@@Desert-Father What do you say about Trent then, my friend? Trent taught that Protestants go by the spirit of Satan. Did Trent teach error or not?
@@pierreschiffer3180 Trent does not teach error. Trent also said that if you criticize a mass published by the Holy Catholic Church as unholy or impious you are anathema. Was Trent wrong on that account?
Jesus Christ have mercy. Taylo Marshall has a lot of supporters in this comments section
Brothers, I have been studying this issue for over 7 years, and there are many many many educated faithful and good people that have the same view on this issue. To assume they have not prayerfully discerned these questions is an assumption that lacks charity. These questions are important and they haven't just popped up now. And because their is ample evidence to be critical of these questions does not mean they lack faith or doubt their faith. The problems with the 2nd Vatican council are real. Clarity is lacking in these documents and their are clear shifts away from tradition interpretations of doctrines. Your characterization of criticizing the documents means your dark or that faces change when saying something about the docs is reason for its error is very subjective and sophomoric.
I am not assuming anything of the sort. We offered a detailed reply to the very specific, sophomoric, and often blatant mischaracterizations of the documents that TM presented in his own video. It was a response to that specific video.
@@decluesviews2740 Your specific statement here does nothing to Bri ng about a meeting of the minds. It is unabashedly divisive. Who are you to come down on him like this? What, if any, authority do you have over him?
@@decluesviews2740 "sophomoric"?? Cardinal Ottaviania who was the head of the Holy Office during the second VII which is now the Congregation for the doctrine of the Faith raised the exact same issues with the documents of the council. It in my opinion is sophomoric to characterize criticism of specific portions of the document as sophomoric. I am most assured you have read the Ottaviani intervention, have you not? This intervention came from the one charged with defending the doctrines of the faith. So criticism of these issues i think are not sophomoric. The purpose of the magisterium is to clarify - we have nothing but the opposite over the past 60 years.
Actually, most SSPX conspiracy nuts have studied this for many, many years. The trouble is, by "studying" they usually mean they read conspiracy books, SSPX books etc. Suffice it to say that almost no one in the world has ever found any real error in Vatican II. The whole argument that "clarity" is lacking from these documents is silly. Lack of clarity is found in all documents, and if you do not like a document, it is easy to claim it lacks clarity. if you understood that Vatican II was never meant to pronounce new dogmas, you would realize that the precision required to define dogmas was simply not necessary. Except for the two dogmatic constitutions, the documents of Vatican II were never meant to be phrased in legalist clear language, but rather as the church merely speaking to the world in ordinary language ordinary men can understand. And it does that.
@@tomthx5804 i am not a rad trad - nor an SSPX conspirator. Almost no one has found error??? Thanks for the response, no need to go any further with this conversation.
I'm a baby Catholic, not yet confirmed (finishing RCIA) and I found this very helpful. I also like some material Taylor Marshall puts out there, so I have nothing personal against him. And to be fair, I'm pretty sure I have heard him say that he does accept Vatican II as valid. But anyways, this whole thing can get really confusing, especially for people looking into the Catholic faith, so I really appreciate your treatment of this matter. I also didn't think you guys were being rude towards TM, at least no more than he or anyone else on this platform has been to others. I'm seeing a lot of strong reactions in the comments, so I just wanted to let you know that I for one appreciated this conversation :)
Thank you! Look our for upcoming videos via Word on Fire that I’ve recorded
Every time you feel like a "baby catholic" remember the centurion, "“I tell you, not even in Israel have I found such faith.”(Lk 7:9) You are the miracle
@@CadillacBunner Thank you 🙏 for that. I will remember the centurion ❤️
If traditionalists have problems with passages in the documents of Vatican II and the Church has been willing to dialogue, as you say, why hasn’t the CDF issued clarifications in response to those concerns? All of this discussion would be unnecessary.
They have a issued a number of documents, some of which we quoted in this very video. We addressed all of his concerns directly in the video with sources.
DeClue's Views Gottcha. I hadn’t watched the whole video before commenting. Duh. What about the CDF responding to concerns of the SSPX and Vatican II documents? Any public clarifications?
@@dougespinola8496 Dominus Iesus is one.
@@tomgreene2282 Thank You. But, was it promulgated specifically to address concerns of the SSPX?
@@dougespinola8496 I don't know.
Y'all mention Tim Flanders quite a bit. Go check out his article "Debating How to Debate Vatican II". 👌
haha, he didn't give you a heart. guess he doesn't like getting pwn3d.
FTW
Tim Flanders is yet another conspiracy nut. Go look at his website. He has a bizarre theory about how the church was secretly taken over and nobody noticed. But of course, conspiracy theorists flock together and support each other.
@@tomthx5804 Did you actually read the article?
@@emilyfriedl7042 He is either out for an Evening Troll, or on assignment by Lucifer to stir up as much s--t as possible ~ or Both...
About the Vatican-2 text on Islam, if that text had to be re-written in Hebrew would the Vatican have used Yachid or Echad?
The Vatican would have to use Echad to be consistent with the Trinitarian understanding of One.
Hence a Hebrew speaking Christian who read the same text would be absolutely sure that the One (Echad) God which Christians understand is categorically different from the One (Yachid) God of Islam.
The English translation when it uses One, does not convey readily or immediately whether Muslims hold to the Echadness or the Yachidness of God. Herein lies the problem which has sparked so much debate.
Which one do jews use?
You have done a great job addressing this. I hope TM will admit his intellectual dishonesty in his scandalous treatment of the documents of Vatican II. Thank you, kind sirs. Your humility, clarity and service of the Truth is quite edifying! Cheers!
1:27:50 Why would the council say this in NA#3: "The Church regards with esteem also the Moslems." Why are they holding them in esteem? They are the main enemy of Christians even to this day. I sense a "peace-times" message in Nostra Aetate with disregard to the conversion to Catholicism. World Peace > Conversion to the Truth Faith. This leads to grave confusion among people of all religions. This also makes it difficult even for lay people or religious to convert peoples of other religions. Pope Francis has even been against "proselytism" .
Brothers, that kind of attitude is the reason many of our leaders (pastors and bishops) have been emboldened to behave badly. nobody is holding to them to account. The church is bleeding badly. Docility is good but only up to a point. I have been catholic all 48 years of my life. And I am disgusted by what is happening in our church. I love our church, I love being catholic.
But the reality of the matter is there are ambiguities. Just look at what is happening around us. Fr. James Martin, the irreverence in the many masses.
Yes, and actually Taylor Marshall and his freak show are keeping people from addressing the real problems in the church. He is blaming everytihng on conspiracy theories, because he is one terribly confused man. Sure, bishops should be held accountable. And we are kept from really addressing the real problems in the church by this anti Vatican II nutjob circus that Marshall is putting on. I wonder if McCarrick is paying Marshall to do this, because those harming the church are getting away while Marshall diverts attention with his goofy conspiracy theories.
James Greiner's parents told him to be docile to McCarrick. They would not believe him and instead believed McCarrick. Docility to erring authority is dangerous for the body and the soul! That attitutde is enabling abusers since there are so many homopredator priests and bishops!!!
@@tomthx5804 I've not read a single comment of yours in these many comments that is sensible. I'm ready for the swamp to be drained. I'm willing for there to be a faithful remnant remaining after the smoke clears. It's necessary for the salvation of souls.
I am so very grateful for this excellent commentary. I appreciate your honesty and desire to 'set the record straight' about the comments that have been made. I have been terribly upset about all of the fighting--I feel that we are so fortunate to have our Catholic faith, and the ability to worship in either TLM or Novus Ordo. That's a great gift to us! And I appreciate your keeping the focus on our faith in God and keeping our eyes fixed on that. Too often egos and personalities can obscure our vision. Keep up the great work! I look forward to watching more videos and learning more about the Vatican II documents. Thanks be to God!
Thank you so much for this!!! Our Church needs more men like you two! God bless you both You are my prayers.
AWESOME VIDEO, this cleared up so much confusion I’ve had as a recent convert trying to learn about the faith. I’d love to see a series with you guys addressing more of Vatican 2 and more traditionalist arguments such as Quo Primum and the changing of the rites.
Adrian Yañez ?
@Adrian Yañez Your data comes from where??? I am most vexed at the two hate mongers running the particular video. I went thru RCIA 27 years ago - still have my Catholic membership card... And I love Dr Taylor Marshall's presentations.
I appreciate this video very much. Thank you.
Thank you, Taylor Marshall, for teaching us authentic Catholicism. God bless you!
Dear brothers in Christ,
Thank you for taking the time to clarify from your understanding the arguments raised by TM. It is good we are having these discussions. You are quiet right that we should approach all that the Church proposes with humility recognizing that we are not the successors to the apostles. Docility always involves the appreciation for treating all viewpoints with respect and an open mind.
I don't want to get into an argument regarding accepting or rejecting all or parts of Vat 2. I have read all the documents as early as 5 years after they were promulgated and have re-read them several times. While there is no excuse for not reading the documents themselves, I would be concerned that the books that TM cites somehow could not be read as a means of understanding the ongoing controversy we have experienced post Vat II. Forgive me if I got the impression that these were dismissed outright as if they should have never been considered.
Having read them, as early as 1970, many interior alarms went up with some of the statements -- especially in light of the statements made by recent previous popes. Most of these arose from portions of Nostra Aetate, Dignitatis Humanae, & Unitatis Redintegratio. I attributed this to an entirely different pastoral approach and have tried to do so ever since. (as an analogy, consider the language of Pius XI in Moratalium Animos where he uses the word "Bewail" with reference to the separation of the Protestants and the word "esteem" used by Vat 2 to refer to the Muslims).
I do not reject Vat II especially regarding those statements that are clearly dogmatic and are obvious restatements of what has always been believed by the Church -- many of which you emphasize by citing those quotations with comments like "bing bam boom". However, I fail to see what Vat II teaches dogmatically that has not already been defined nor what it further develops that was not clear in previous councils that would now bind me to greater degree?
Perhaps you could shed more light on this.
Those very clear statements you emphasized that were not cited by TM clearly are part of the Depositum Fidei & would bind all Catholics. I get that, but when the Church is making an observation of what it believes to be a fact regarding false religions, why am I bound to that? In Evangelii Gaudium, Pope Francis says that with a true interpretation of "authentic" Islam, one would conclude that it is a religion of peace. Whether one personally believes that or not, what authority does a pope have to bind a Catholic on what is authentic regarding a non-Catholic religion? Am I bound to believe that? This is an example where faithful Catholics have questioned presumably the pastoral intentions of many of these statements when they seem to have produced these subsequent remarks using the documents themselves as their authority. One might also make the same conclusion regarding Ecumenism.
Should Catholics be cynical when they read this from the late Bishop Tony Palmer of the Communion of Evangelical Episcopal Churches, who regarded Pope Francis his spiritual father. The late bishop Palmer was careful to point out, "Pope Francis pulled me up on more than one occasion when I used the expression coming home to the Catholic Church. He said, don't use this term, no one is coming home, you are journeying toward us and we are journeying toward you and we will meet in the middle." Quite another position altogether from that of a very recent pope as late as 1928.
A good Catholic with solicitude for the soul of this person would ask, meet in the middle of what? Are we bound by this type of ecumenism and endless dialogue? Catholics must be forgiven if they have concerns that is has had unintended consequences for conversion. What we have seen instead has been a massive hemorrhaging not something one would consider a great outcome. One could conclude on the basis of the documents themselves, it is not fair to draw that conclusion. But I struggle to see a previous council where its implementation was so massively misinterpreted and abused and continues to be so under the "Spirit of Vat 2" -- which is a novelty itself. I know the documents themselves speak of no such spirit.
In Nostra Aetate, we read, "this sacred synod urges all to forget the past and to work sincerely for mutual understanding and to preserve as well as to promote together for the benefit of all mankind social justice and moral welfare, as well as peace and freedom." No doubt putting away the past is critical if we are not to stop killing each other (although this has been terribly one-sided in recent history). But the second half has given the impression that our duty to them is to dance around their real conversion, wish them well on Ramadan, pretend that they do not deny the trinity & give them the impression that we can work on social justice issues while never proclaiming Christ crucified? Yes the documents speak of the great commission but it is not inserted emphatically here in the documents in that place and as a result, the outcome has been a completely soft stance on converting the Muslims or the other main religions for that matter. Just think of it, when Pope St. John Paul II had his ecumenical prayer service in Assisi with other religions in the Basilica of St. Francis, Archbishop Lefebvre, a champion of the missions said, "That's the end of the missions". That service was a natural development of Vat 2 from one of its contributors.
We read, "Though they do not acknowledge Jesus as God, they revere Him as a prophet. They also honor Mary, His virgin Mother; at times they even call on her with devotion." This juxtaposition is curious. One could easily get the impression that devotion to Mary (something highly "esteemed" by Catholics and encouraged) somehow exonerates their denial of Jesus' divinity? They should be esteemed in other words because at least they revere him as a prophet.
There are no admonitions or corrections, just observations. How are these binding?
You mention Moses had no conception of the Trinity. Naturally, Christ had not come yet and even the Church took years to even give it a name "Trinity" which we don't find in Scripture but see its essence. However, not so for Mohammed. We are talking 600 years after Christ, and a religion that claims that Christians falsified the scriptures to their own end. Why does Nostra Aetate not instruct the faithful in telling them this most important belief upon which hinges all of Mohammed's doctrines and gave him free reign to make up his own religion?
You may say, that was not the intention of this document. While it may not have been, its fruits have been indifferentism to a large degree, and much of it practiced by our very own bishops. When a prominent bishop fails to seize the opportunity to proclaim how we are to be saved to a Jew who is sincerely asking the question, and gets into semantics regarding the privileged way, would that have been possible before Vatican II, with a completely different pastoral approach? Theologically we know the distinctions, the Nulla Salus and the invincible ignorance arguments as well, but would have used them in that moment, or would we have said, to be saved, believe in Jesus Christ, repent and be baptized for the forgiveness of your sins. Did Vat 2 produce cowardice trying to be non-offensive?
You reference Acts 17, but St. Paul also says as early as the 1st century, " The times of ignorance God overlooked, but now he commands all people everywhere to repent, 31 because he has fixed a day on which he will judge the world in righteousness by a man whom he has appointed; and of this he has given assurance to all by raising him from the dead.” While St. Paul was admiring the natural virtue of religion in the gentiles, 2000 years ago, he said enough is enough, your ignorance (not very conciliatory in my mind and something a person would esteem) can no longer be overlooked.
Here is the issue, it is not what the document is necessarily saying, it is what it is implying by using such words as "esteem". It is an apologia, it has the impression of more of a surrender, an apology for the past - which can be good in itself regarding past abuses of coercion -- practiced by both sides. But it fails to be directly forceful at precisely the perfect moment. After all, the prime audience for these documents is the Catholic faithful themselves. By its conciliatory nature and outright praise (you quote St. Thomas often but it is hard to imagine him heaping esteem on Islam in his Summa Contra Gentiles), it effectively sucked the wind out of the Church's missionary zeal, and why today we have a Pope who signs the Abu Dhabi document and says that God has willed all religions confusing the faithful by at least not insisting that this means He wills it in His permissive will -- if that is in fact what he actually believes.
On a separate note, I am confused regarding your defense of Dignitatis Humanae. As I understand it, Vat 2 is presenting a negative right-a right to not be coerced. I believe your argument was hinging on whether the Church finds Herself in pre-Christian Rome, full Christendom, or now in what you refer to be the secular age? Perhaps I misunderstood your argument here.
Thank you for making this video and making the effort to clear the controversy. We all have a great love for Christ, His Church, and especially souls. God love you. Oremus pro invicem.
Your video proves how difficult VII documents are to interpret. Mr. Baseball theologian said to go straight to the VII documents as the main source. Look where it as gotten us. I have a degree in philosophy and theology and hearing both of you made me more confused. TM does not claim to know all, but does want clarification. (See Canon law 212, in its entirety). As do many other faithful Catholics and clergy. I don't see many books by Catholics on issues with Vatican I or even Trent. Much less the other 20 Holy Councils. Protestants may have issue with them, but not many Catholics. The fact that you need a doctorate level theology degree to interpret the letter of Vatican II speaks volumes. Unfortunately, to many so called experts are Modernist and have created a hermeneutic of rupture. The Diocese that I belong to, teach that we are a Vatican II Church...what does that mean? I have asked them, with no response of course. Lastly, you state TM should not have said what he said in a video. Well, I say to you, if you felt he was wrong, you should have addressed the issue with him in private first. This is the biblical way of doing things. Could write more but know my comment will be taken lightly as I only hold a masters level theology degree and a BA in philosophy. Peace and all good!
No, what you say is false.He and Schneider both claim that Vatican II "contains error". That is what they say. Not that there are some things that need to be clarified. They say it contains error. When asked which things precisely are error, we get a gobbldegook list of things they falsely interpret as being troublesome. But no one else thinks this is so. Look, anything that was unclear or needed clarification has already been cleared up - JP II and Benedict both issued clarifications, explanations etc. that cleared all the questions up. You just need to read their stuff. They were Popes - they give the official interpretations of things. NOT youtube guys who are making money the more trouble they cause by claiming only they can interpret church documents.
@@tomthx5804 You might want to go look at the title of the video we are discussing. I've read the explanations by St. JP2 and Benedict. Their explanations are not ex cathedra, but simply trying to explain how to interpret V2 documents according to the letter. TM' main thrust and those other 50 priests, scholars, journalists who wrote to Vigano and Schneider want further evaluation and correctiom of some statements in the documents. In fact, if you actually heard his video you will hear TM speak of the goodness of the rest of the documents. If you feel that TM or these gentlemen are just trying to get your money, might want to stop listening to them.
@@billybriceno8161 Their explanations do not need to be 'ex cathedra". There are two groups that demand that papal pronouncements must be ex cathedra before they must be followed: Progressives like James Martin, and SSPX types. Their explanations are authoritative teaching of the church. Only a person bent on rebellion against the catholic church would say they could ignore authentic magisterial teachings by claiming they are not 'ex cathedra".
Yes, there are 50 goofballs who wrote to Vigano and Schneider asking for something. Guess what? They are all the usual nutty suspects. They are losers who have been rebelling against the church for some time. They are the usual SSPX supporters. Big deal. You can find 50 people to write about anything. I did hear TM say a word or two about there being some good things in Vatican II. But who cares what Taylor Marshal lthinks? He is just a guy with a youtube channel. He has not taught theology or philosophy at a high level for 20 years. He is just an overly passionate guy who, as the good protestant he is, thinks that it is entirely up to him to decide what is good or bad with the documents. What a joke. I take every guy who tries to teach false things about the Catholic church seriously. No, I will not simply ignore them trying to undercut the one true holy church.
@@tomthx5804 Well, Tom take it up with TM. Recommend you see video with Gordon, DeClue and Chris. Great video and in my opinion very charitable. As a faithful son of the Church, I submit my self to all the teachings of the Church, but does not mean that I dont see some ambiguities in the Documents of Vatican 2 that were discussed. Even TM states that most of the documents are good. However, as I have stated elsewhere, because of some ambiguities in the documents discussed, some within the Church hierarchy and laity, avoiding the hermeneutic of continuity (proposed by Pope Benedict), go in a path contrary to the perennial teachings of the Church (example: James Martin). Peace and all good!
@@billybriceno8161 Of course they are not ''Ex Cathedra'' any theology buff should know that.
FYI, Dr Marshall speaks fluent Latin...
@OrganicOrganist Would you also like a saucer of cream? Your point......???
We love Dr Marshal, nothing you can do
What I don't understand is...why do the Assisi meeting? Why give the impression that the other religions are worshipping God "imperfectly" but still in a way acceptable to God? Even if there are "rays of truth" in them, as a whole they are wrong. Their being wrong is more important here, because we are talking about salvation.
And then, why change the liturgy to make it more generic and acceptable to protestants? Why? What does that have to do with helping them come back to the Church?
Also how can there be degrees of "communion"? I thought you were in or out. I thought rejecting one single dogma of the Catholic Faith was enough to exclude you from Communion with the Church.
Also, a high degree of respect for muslims? That is unacceptable. Their holy book says that the Trinity is an excramental idea. I do not respect any muslim AS SUCH, I can respect individual people because they are in the image of God and as potential Christians, but their muslim faith deserves zero respect, it is a false and odious religion that imprisons the mind of its adherents. In fact, Islam is a force opposed to evangelization because it puts the death penalty on those who leave It, making it that much more difficult for well-intentioned muslims to convert in peace.
The idea that in civil society men cannot be "coerced" in matters of religion also seems to me to deny the reign of Christ the King. Secular power does have an obligation to repress the spreading of false doctrines in the public sphere because this is conducive to the common good. Individuals cannot be coerced to believe but that doesn't mean they should be allowed to do whatever they want (i.e. proselitize) in the public sphere nor can their religions be recognized as having the same rights by Law. The fact we live in a secular society is an unfortunate fact, temporal powers are rejecting their duties before God but that doesn't make their actions acceptable.
If the temporal powers were to use their authority to repress the true religion they would simply be using their power incorrectly because they have a duty to repress the spreading of error, not Truth!
No reply from the two gentlemen? Are we not after absolute truth, not shades of it?
The Assisi meeting was a nice gesture. It did not IN ANY WAY contradict any Catholic doctrine. The kooks get hung up on this. Their main thing is pretending that everything is sacrilege, when it was not. NO ONE, and I mean NO ONE in the world, took this to be saying that all religions are the same. It did not give that impression to anyone, except these fringe extremists that like to distort the event. All the pope did was encourage all religions to come to one place and pray for peace and understanding. That's all they did. But of course, the conspiracy nuts claim that he gave the impression that all religions are the same. That is just a lie they made up.
@@tomthx5804 I never said that the pope necessarily gave the impression that all religions are the same, what he did was give the impression that other religious rites are somehow valid expressions of worship. You must remember that God is gravely offended, objectively speaking, by every religious act that is not Catholic, because the Catholic worship is the only kind of worship allowed and pleasing to God. By encouraging false priests of false (and sometimes rather horrid) religions to pray publically this encouraged the idea that their religious expressions are in some way "good" even if they are not Catholic. This is wrong and harmful to souls.
Even if we presume, as we should, that the Pope had the best intentions and his only desire was to promote the idea that God listens to the prayers of all sincere souls who don't know any better, even if they are objectively worshipping in a false way, this is a rather subtle theological idea and would easily be lost on normal people looking at the television screen. The whole event could easily be confused for a legitimization of false religions and that alone made it simply imprudent at the very least.
@@icyangel13 I am pretty sure that JP II, Benedict and every other serious theologian in the world, all of whom had NO PROBLEM with Assisi, know better than you or I what God is offended by. Now, you can say that the message of Assisi was "all religions are valid expressions of worship", but that would be just you making something up. Assisi did not "encourage" false priest to pray. Any sane person viewing this event would have said "Oh, isn't that nice that people of different faiths can get together and be peaceful " But it is just an evil false exaggeration to say that Assisi's message was "If you allow someone to pray in his own religion, that means YOU SAY HIS RELIGION IS CORRECT" But that is a weird, strained, false interpretation. And you see this is what the SSPX cultists do - they take fairly innocuous things done entirely within Catholic law and doctrine, and they PRETEND it means something else, something evil. I can assure you, literally NO ONE IN THE HISTORY OF THE WORLD every looked at the TV screen during Assisi,and said. "Wow, this tells me that all religions are equal" it just did not happen.
@@tomthx5804 Archbishop Lefebvre also had a doctorate in theology you know, and he clearly wasn't on board with the meetings. More recently, Archbishop Viganò has also denounced the meetings. He is also more than qualified to speak on the matter. There are many who do not endorse the Assisi meetings or who find them at the very least problematic, including erudite scholars and prelates. To think that there is complete consensus on the matter except for those "SSPX cultists" is just not true.
You must also consider the fact that religious indifferentism is literally one of the most widespread errors in our modern day; you ask an average person on the street what he thinks of all the different religions and there is a good chance he will tell you that "they're just different paths to God" or "everyone's got a little piece of the puzzle", if he believes in God at all.
In such a dangerous and toxic climate, I don't see how the Pope's actions were prudent. Again, I am not the only one to raise such concerns, many people much greater than I in terms of authority and learning have done so already.
It is very heartening to see lay Catholics study and teach at this level.
“Every man who prays or prophesies with his head covered dishonors his head” 1 corinthians 11:4 *starts the vid praying with a backwards cap
Wow!! What a great rebuttal, don't forget to let the pope and bishops know about it.
† Μακκαβαίων † I was hoping you were gonna let them know for me
NO RESPECT TO OUR LORD JESUS CHRIST.. EXACTLY...TOO PRIDEFUL.
You can tell he just forgot , he took it off at the end. But then for my part I gave him the benefit of the doubt. It only takes a fingernails worth of mercy, you should try it, it's a good practice.
@@fragwagon So he knew he was doing a video which would be watched - hopefully - by many people, but he forgot. Right. Lack of awareness at this level equals big loss of credibility right from the start.
1:10:00 Trent Horn in a video last week covered the same points. Very informative, thank you.
Appreciate the discussion. But ya'll can respond to TM and still be charitable. Lots of needless jabs
I am willing to accept that criticism. And while it isn't an excuse, have you watched his shows? He does that to a much greater degree. He doesn't pull any punches and takes many more unnecessary jabs than we did. And I think any honest comparison would confirm that. But perhaps you're right. At a couple moments, we could have phrased things more charitably. Point taken. God bless!
I think they are being much more fair than many trads I have heard.
@@decluesviews2740 Has Taylor ever treated you the way you're treating him? Why not respond to his claims alone and not malign his supposed mannerisms, those "grins and chuckles." Take his claims to task if you like'd too, please, but know that your subjective criticism of his intentions and mannerisms, which your video *started* with, detracts from your factual rebuttals.
@@augustinejones1908 Actually I think it's an important observation that could be helpful to him. Being gleeful about the possibility of the magisterium teaching error is not a laughing matter. It isn't just an academic exercise: it is also a spiritual issue. I have to check that with myself as well. It isn't done out of spite. It is a serious concern that I have.
@@decluesviews2740 I sadly think you two sound envious, of Taylor Marshall.You should just focus on your own stuff. Not very Good , judging another.
How do you know that Dr. Marshall didn't pray about his video before publishing it?
If your attitude is 'theology is for theologians', why should any layman watch your video?
I don't know if he prayed beforehand or not. I just don't think even that is sufficient justification for a Catholic to publicly proclaim that a magisterial text is in error, especially when grossly misrepresenting the actual text. I am a theologian with multiple ecclesiastical degrees, but I never said theology is only for theologians. I clarified what his doctorate was in. But when the "theology" your presenting is both bad from an academic perspective and detrimental to the faith of others, it needs to be addressed.
@@decluesviews2740
Why do you use the term "magisterial text", since Pope Paul VI reportedly stated that Vatican II was solely a pastoral council, and not doctrinal at all.
@@djg585 I'm not trying to be quip, but I am starting to wonder if you watched the video, because you're making claims that I said things I did not say, and now you're asking me a question we already explicitly addressed more than once in the video. And it isn't true that he said it didn't contain any doctrines. He said there were no new formal Dogmatic definitions. There is a distinction. Again, this was addressed in the video.
@@decluesviews2740
Where did I make claims that you said things you did not say? If I did, I apologize, but I am not aware that I did.
@@decluesviews2740 But you have no problem with you, a mere layman, pretending that others who are your spiritual superiors who hold the same view as TM are by association sophomoric and mischaracterizing VII. You are a degreed layman trained up in a modernist school of thought. NOTHING MORE. And it shows.
Try engaging those who disagree with you by doing more than touting your so-called credentials. The university system is so not what it used to be, deClue. Have you any idea? Schools of thought go in and out of fashion.
So while you're eager to tout what your masters taught you, think. You're often only parroting the line of thought you've been programmed to accept. Not the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
That goes for ascribing a pure intention to yourself while trashing others with such hypocritical zeal. Truly disturbing if, as I believe, you have a wife and children. A horrific example that may come to bite you in the future. But by that time it will be too late. The seeds of pomposity will already have taken deep root.
I just came upon T. Marshall's TH-cam Channel and although it sounds like he knows what he's talking about, I just knew there where errors in what he was putting out there...thanks for responding to his teaching?
The whole problem, I believe, is what the critics call “weaponized ambiguity.” There is a kind of “flight from clarity” whenever the official defense is faced with POLITICALLY UNCOMFORTABLE issues. This is a human defect which does not help apologetics. There is PRIDE on all sides. Bottom line: too much avoidance of embarrassing questions and the need to IMPROVE AND COMPLETE doctrine on: sexuality, comparative religion, and grace in particular. We need a classical dogmatic Council to overcome the crisis, with real definitions, not rambling “pastoral reflections” which potentially lend themselves to ANY interpretation. We can do better with the help of inspiration.
👍👍
No need for a council. The Catholic position is totally clear on everything you mention. Nothing in Vatican II altered those classic dogmatic definitions in the least. Why do you need a council when the Catholic position is clear? Now, if you say that Catholics are often mistaught, or did not learn Catholic doctrine, you would be right. But that is an entirely different subject. No need for a council to get Catholics to teach Catholic doctrine.
@@tomthx5804 Thank you for replying! A response would have to be too long. But, just to cite one aspect, the Church needs to define more clearly how grace as divine action behaves in us distinctively to form the Mystical Body in a way which differentiates us from other spiritual states in humanity. By the same token, it is necessary to clarify what degree of union with God non-Catholics can receive and its relation to salvation. I believe a more complete dogmatic formulation and lexicon will enable us to make Catholics more aware of their state and mission in a mystical or supernatural sense at the same time as they understand better what the position of non-Catholics is. Sanctifying and actual grace are concepts which provide a start, but they can be taken much further on a dogmatic level to assist the awareness of the Church, both internally and externally. It is a complex field, but can be explained in ways that are comprehensible to ordinary people. This is just one of many aspects which would enormously benefit the Church in a time of great cultural confusion. Mystagogy, the basic explanation of union with the Trinity, is the key to the future of the Church because we have been endowed with the richest mystical tradition in the world.
Thank you. I have been watching Taylor Marshall for some time now. I attend the Novus Ordo Mass, although I love the Latin Mass, too. Recently, I have wondered if I'm a real Catholic since Dr Marshall keeps saying that there are two churches, the one before Vat. 2 and after. It bothers me how he speaks negatively and quite frankly, disrespectfully about Bishop Barron . I am so thankful that you both made this video. It has given me consolation knowing that others are questioning his constant bashing of the Novus Ordo Mass and Vat.2 . God Bless you🙏
That's why we did this video! For folks like you! So glad we could help! God bless you!
Certainly,
There is a beige, liberal, Catholicism that will weaken faith, and there is a self devouring, extremist, apocalyptic Catholicism that will weaken the faith.
Straight down the middle, with tradition, but also openness to new evangelisation is the best way to go.
Bishop Robert Barron understands this, and in my opinion he is the down to Earth, rational voice we need at the moment.
God bless
Church leadership is covering up very serious WAR CRIMES. This is a covert war!!! 🛰️🦠💉
Thank you for this.... more of this, please.
I am not defending Marshall, BUT one of your criticisms runs into small problem.....
The Church herself (at least on the Vatican website [which I am sure Marshall used]), does indeed say “the one and merciful God.”
I don't really see that as a problem. The truth is that the rhe tradition does indicate that it's the same God: Pope St. Gregory VII, Catechism of Pius X, & St. Robert Bellarmine all make similar statements to Vatican II and I have not seen any part of the Tradition that upholds Marshall's position. I also think Dr. Ed Feser's article explains it brilliantly from a Thomist perspective.
I hope he reaches out to you or you decide to contact Dr Marshall yourself, ether way I think it would be an entertaining show.
Taylor is so far superior to these wannabees.
atlas...I hope not, we know where pride leads.
A note for future episodes: Try to figure out how to put the text of the quote on the screen, like Marshall does. Just listening to a quote being read makes it hard to follow along, especially church document language. Also please include links in the show notes for the documents that Chris read out loud. 1998 and 1985 on subsists.
The words of the Vatican Council II and both Pope John XXIII and especially Paul VI meant for this to be pastoral. I have the utmost respect for Pope Paul VI who had to balance between conservative and progressive views without alienating the faithful and the bishops. It was Paulo Dezza S.J. who said that if Pope Paul VI was not a saint before he became pope he became afterward. Taylor Marshall has criticized both Paul VI and Benedict XVI, both are good and holy men as was John Paul II. As for Joseph Ratzinger, anyone who has read him realizes his writings are Christocentric and was one of the main intellectuals of th 20th century.
1:04:00 "This is where it gets difficult" that points to the ambiguity of the statement. Similar to LG#8 this demands a revision, footnote, clarification etc. and news of it must be widely circulated. Nearly every Catholic these days think we worship the same God as the Muslims and that releases them from conversion to Catholicism thanks to this line in LG#16.
What do you make of this line from LG#17? "Through her [the Church's] work, whatever good is in the minds and hearts of men, whatever good lies latent in the religious practices and cultures of diverse peoples, is not only saved from destruction but is also cleansed, raised up and perfected unto the glory of God, the confusion of the devil and the happiness of man."
I remember being part of TM's early subscriber base, really early on when he probably had less than 10k people. Now, I'm saddened by the number of open sedevacantists, toxic language, and extremely one-sided discussion in his channel
Of course, the toxicity isn't directly Taylor's fault. But there really is an air of self-righteousness and condescension emanating around his channel. I continue praying for him and all in Catholic online media.
If ever things seem bad or foggy, just remember there's a global community of Catholics and Christians praying for you! Not just in the West but elsewhere!
The problem is, the sedevacantists are right. That is ultimately what saddens you.
It is anger that we have been lied to, treated like dirt and cast out to wander the earth by those who were supposed to be our 'fathers'. Like children whose dad is an alcoholic, there are different coping mechanisms engaged in by the children. I saw the handwriting on the wall about the Novus Ordo liturgy 15 years and realized that the TLM is the future of the Church. I find it condescending on your part to assume that all Catholics are Bible illiterates. Also, Catholics have been treated abominably by their priests and bishops. Little tidbits of teaching, denigration and continual denial of the Real Presence especially in Holy Mass and instead interference in the lay vocation and in politics by pretending to speak for the Church on political matters. The latest outrage: The USSR,- eh, USCCB just decided for us laity that illegals, non-citizens, should have Congressional representation!!! How unAmerican, unpatriotic and a violation of the 4th Commandment. Again, American citizens are just dirt to the bishops. The are indifferent to the sheep in their flock. This fits the picture of the bishops having lost supernatural faith.
@@MartinvonTours11.11 YES YES YES YES!!! Separation of church, state and politics. Render under to Caesar what is Caesar's; Render unto God that which is God's...
I'm no theologian, but the Lord did say in the Bible that you can judge a tree by its fruit. (Darn, there goes that "do not judge" argument too.).
Vatican 2 has failed miserably in evangelizing and bringing more people to the Faith, in fact now we are now contracting and hemorrhaging the Faithful. Vocations have been very low for a long time but they were at their height in the country right before "the Council". You cannot convince me this was a good thing. Even my 6 year old self in 1970 was afraid to go to Mass because maybe I could sense something was wrong?
Oh, and the Blessed Mother wanted the Third Secret read in 1960 which Pope John disobeyed right before this assembly began. Coincidence?
It is nice to see someone has finally commented on TM. I can not handle watching TM so negative and he bashes the Pope and the Church to much for my liking.
Who do you recommend for commentary or questions you have? I'm not talking about your parish priest or priests in general, but on radio, youtube, or blogs that you would tell a friend about?
Thank you, I have commented to Dr.Marshall as to my concern and I'm old, faithful Catholic, but after listening to him a couple of times, to be honest, he and those with him scare me. Especially with him never responding to my concerns.
I continually pray that the Holy Spirit will bring to light God's TRUTH!!!
I have even asked my priest, while in Confession, when he is going to address what is being said on You Tube. I didn't get a very good answer. Spoon, I believe that God has led me here, and I thank you.
Not that I think what Dr.Marshall, and
those are really doing more harm than good and I don't believe that comes from God.
Thank you, I can't believe what I'm hearing from you, AMEN!!!
This is a covert war!!!
Thanks for giving the official Church's understanding of terminology that Taylor Marshall seemed to misunderstood or misinterpreted. You should invite Taylor Marshall to have a live discussion with you either on his channel or your channel.
Chris has reached out to him. He acknowledged the message but hadn't seen our video. So the invitation is there. He's obviously a busy guy, though, and our "reach" may be to small for him. But we did reach out and offer dialogue.
I am new to Dr. Taylor Marshall, and now new to this channel, as well. It has become clear that for the most part, the US Bishops have abandoned their flock since the start of the lockdown. I have little to know confidence in them, and I’m not alone. Even without Taylor bringing up all the corruption, I and many others were already well aware of it. It is the Bishops who have failed, and DTM has the platform to call them out on it. I appreciate what he has done and is doing. I do think a gathering of the differing minds in the Church is drastically needed.
I understand and share the frustration of the failures of bishops and theologians. I don't dispute that. What worries me is that DTM has taken that "street cred" and is now spreading errors about Vatican II's documents. It is BECAUSE I agree with him on a lot of things that I worry the most about the very significant and highly consequential things that he gets wrong. This video is about those very specific errors and offers a direct rebuttal to them. It isn't a judgment on everything else he says or does. I hope that's more clear for you.
DeClue's Views I get that. I’m not inclined to study the documents of Vatican II, and I don’t know enough about it to agree or disagree with DTM’s objections to it. But I do know that since V2, the Church has faltered. Is it solely because of V2? I don’t know, but I think it’s at least partly to blame. I appreciate DTM bringing it into the conversation. I think it’s good for the laity to question. I just wish that all “sides” would come together to discuss and sort out the issues. I’m afraid of what will happen if they don’t.
THANK YOU for this video. It is unfortunately a rare thing to hear such glowing and heartfelt analysis of some of the V II documents. Traditionalists often defend their positions with heart and soul, and that is what is infectious to us non-theologians. We desperately need a regular series like this. Any actions contrary to these documents is human error, and not document error. This is very helpful for us confused Catholics. BRAVO!
Thank you! That's why we do these videos. Pray! I work 50 hours a week and the toll of time and mental energy makes it hard to compete with folks who do youtube full time.
Agreed ...there may be courses near you or online that might be helpful...some good foundational Theology o the Church can also help.
@@decluesviews2740 Thanks and yet the ambiguous aspects of VII are still there for Church authority to exploit. DO pray. Discern. And be wary for the devil is a roaring lion.
The poster says, "Any actions contrary to these documents is human error, and not document error."
How so?
Without the clarity within the documents themselves requiring them to be read a certain way--that is clearly--misinterpretations are invited.
It may alleviate your sensibilities to believe that because a document "can" be read in an orthodox manner, that it's solid. But take that document to court to prosecute someone who has abused the sheep, killed their souls, and willfully taught error, and you'll be hard-pressed to uphold "your" interpretations and win the case.
Winning being the defense and protection of other sheep who will be ravaged using the document you're is orthodox because that's how "you" see it.
Why are you so threatened when others point logically to the ambiguity within VII documents? Why when you are supposedly on board with the Dubia? How do you think AL came to be?
Serious question.
Connect the dots, DeClue. Educate others to the reality that clarity is critical. Not defending ambiguity at all costs because your teachers told you so.
@@pl6168 You are a true believer.
Here is a great resource for information on the background of the councils of both Vatican I and II and Dr. William Marshner covers a lot of the interpretative errors that are put forth by those who like to read the councils with a hermeneutic of discontinuity. It is very informative, and well done.
instituteofcatholicculture.org/events/vatican-i-and-vatican-ii
Registration is required, but is completely free.
Thank you for this dualogue examining sone of Taylor Marshall's contentious programmes
I was born in the late 50s. I experienced the Church before during and after the Second Vatican Council. Saying V2 is anything other than a nasty car wreck is silly.
50:10 LG #8 is very ambiguous, but I do understand what the document is getting across. However, I feel that the clarification for it needs to be inserted into the document as a revision. This way when a person reads it they can see a footnote or an interjection that clarifies it. This one line in LG $8 has led to so much confusion in the Church.
Thank you so much for this. This is important.
Enjoyed the video. Good balance of the issue.
I'm just a layman, but I went to a men's retreat a few months ago and they had the V2 documents in hard copy in the library so I set aside about two hours to have a look through them. I was expecting to see things like 'Thou shalt distribute communion into the hand' and 'Thou shalt not sing any hymns older than 100 years' but I didn't. This was my first casting of doubt into the 'V2 is heresy' narrative, and so I'm glad to hear this talk right now as well as one that EMJ did about two weeks ago.
Thanks for watching! May I ask: who is EMJ? I hadn't seen that video. I'd like to check it out.
@@decluesviews2740 LOL I had to break the video into pieces to finish but I'm glad I did. This is the talk I listened to a few weeks ago:
th-cam.com/video/Y3mr9OPbNCY/w-d-xo.html
You got it. Vatican II called for Latin to be used at mass, and gregorian chant. E Michael Jones, if that is what you mean, is a weird dude who has an animus against jews.
You couldn't take your hat off for the starting prayers and here you are bashing TM,
See his humble admission of oversight in the pinned comment.
I’m not a theologian but see the declining metrics in the developed west, scandal, ambiguity and subsequent confusion so say it’s time to reassess. Christ prayed for unity but warned the sheep to beware of wolves in our midst.
Great to see a civil non condemnatory comment.
Andy - these metrics and effect are undeniable, but does the fault lay at the feet of Vatican II or in the modenism, secularism, and humanism that has been influencing the culture and our Chuch even before Vatican II? I think that's the issue that needs to be considered. It's easy to blame Vatican II because it gives us a specific scapegoat. It's much more difficult to pinpoint the effusive errors that have been shaping the unwary since the Enlightenment.
A catholic cannot question what he sees as an error and a denial of dogma? He has the DUTY to question.
He can indeed...have a look at Vatican II on conscience...Don't look at Vatican I.
“ .....not all theologians who study God really know God......” Mother Angelica
I agree with that!
She’s referring to you Richard
But maybe some do?
@@mercedesclassicswithpierre1753 I know what she's trying to say. lol But her opinion of whether I know God is meaningless to me.
I am no theologian. I am no philosopher. I am not a biblical scholar. i was raised with Baltimore catechism. We said the rosary at night as a family. We lived through some really tough times. Our faith was strong. We knew who made us, why we are here and what we needed to do to get to Heaven. At my first Communion, i thought I was in Heaven. My Protestant friends were awed with our church and Mass. . Then Vatican II. I have not read the document. I lived it and seen what it has done to the church. To me, the “proof is in the pudding.” Vocations lost, Catholics fallen from the faith, Confessions hardly used, communion lost respect, dismissal of the concept of sin , etc. If Vatican II is binding, then the implementation of it has been less than authentic. And now we have all these lay people going on You Tube with views and attacks. Growing in faith should not be with lay You Tube videos. Pachamama, 2 popes, bishops supporting Biden, priests Kneeling with BLM signs, We need ONE pope and one dogmatic and authentic direction. I cant be told not to vote for abortion candidate and then that bishops support that candidate. So sick of it. Get one Pope, get bishops in line to start, then we won’t have to have this Yo Tube nonsense.
Should I listen to Taylor Marshall or these two dudes, who are telling me to blindly follow the wolves wearing sheep's clothing? No brainier.
Exactly.
What do you think?
Guy didnt even take his hat off in prayer
@Andrew Preslar Effeminate males? Give it a rest.
Obviously you should listen to a conspiracy theorist who is basically a high school teacher, who truncates quotes to make them say the opposite of what they really said, who uses fake quotes that have been disproven, who misleads you about what Vatican II said. And, by the way, these two dudes did not tell you anything about wolves and sheeps clothing. You made that totally up, just like Marshall totally makes stuff up. No branier is right.
does anyone know where to get a good translation of the Vatican 2 documents? please leave a link
There's a link to the translation on the Vatican Website in the description. You can also click to choose the original Latin or many other languages. Sometimes there translation is better and sometimes Flannery is better. EWTN has it too, but I am not familiar with their translation. I don't know if it follows one or the other or is their own. But here's a link: www.ewtn.com/catholicism/library/16-documents-of-the-second-vatican-council-1509
In indonesia, you can see chinese lion dance or any other dance played in the church before offertory prayer in various occasions. All is done in the name of inculturation. They turn the divine liturgy to a show, thanks to Vatican II.
Two months after the 1986 Assisi interreligious peace meeting (where Buddha idols were placed on the altars of Catholic Churches), in a Christmas speech to his Cardinals published in the Vatican’s L’Osservatore Romano, Pope John Paul said, “The day of Assisi, showing the Catholic Church holding hands with our brothers of other religions, was a visible expression of [the] statements of the Second Vatican Council.” Toward the end of the speech, the Pope urged his Cardinals to continue on the same new path, “Keep always alive the spirit of Assisi as a motive of hope for the future.” Consequently the interfaith event at Assisi was thus described by John Paul II not as a tragic misrepresentation of Vatican II, but as the glorious realization of its teaching so even a V2 cheerleader like JP2 admits that the conciliar teachings leads to the placing of idols on Catholic altars. Last year Francis did the same with the Pachamama fiasco at the Synod in Rome so DeClue is dead wrong when he calls V2 "traditional". “Pope’s Christmas Address to Roman Curia,” L’Osservatore Romano, January 5, 1987, pp. 6-7.
You guys are very honest & gracious about TM. You were quite mannerly towards him but did indeed critique his positions. I agree about the way he laughs & smiles etc - these are not always well timed. I've been listening to him for well over a year and find him interesting but at times OTT; 50% of the time he's too polemical. His form of catholicism is Tridentine only. He appears to completely reject the universality, i.e. the catholicism of Catholicism, if you will, which basically means he's SSPX. TM is a very sincere guy but way too argumentative not unlike some Protestant/Muslim extremists.
Dr marshall has always said pray for Pope Francis. Is it wrong to worship false idols? What are the american bishops supporting a president who supports abortion? What about the Latin Mass not allowed at Rome at st Peter's ? What about the German Bishops blessing gay marriages? I disagree with you.
In appealing to the CDC statements and catechisms, which later help interpret V2 statements, are you not merely emphasizing a hermeneutics of continuity? This is good stuff guys, thank you for your time and effort, you have helped strengthen my faith. I am not trained in such matters and appreciate your expertise. I have problems with some apparent scandals in the Vatican, could you comment on the obvious ones respectfully. Sorry for not being more specific, I'm under pressure where I teach to shut my mouth or face the consequences.
@20:20 I refer you to @2:28 as if anyone cares about how many credit hours your weird qualification is.
Yeah you're right about that. In my personal life, I do get questions from people about what the ecclesiastical degrees are though, because they don't follow the simple M.A./Ph.D. path that most people are familiar with. And since the S.T.B. has the word bachelor's in the name, I constantly have to explain that it is a Masters degree with tons of course work. Otherwise people don't know what the heck it refers to. It's a point of clarification. I've had multiple comments on my channel asking about my qualifications, so I give them. If you don't care, ignore it and move on.
Dr. Taylor Marshall always carefully weighs his words. He does great research before presenting anything and clearly states when he isn’t sure about an issue. He invites guests who also do their homework. Therefore, I support him in his work because it’s clear he loves our church and wants to help people understand the terrible trouble we are in right now. He continuously encourages people to pray, and to take action respectfully. However, I’m not too impressed with you two.
As much as am uneducated and therefore unqualified on the subject matter, this is my 2 cents opinion; when our lady of Fatima asked that the 3rd secret be revealed in 1960, and Lucia asked why 1960, she said "because it will be clearer then". Does that ring a bell about V2?
No since Vatican II was '62-65 and has nothing to do with the third secret
I'm at the closing remarks of the video. Here are my thoughts as I watched bit by bit while also looking at the comments:
I have found nothing wrong in terms of content with watching this video (besides this one simple point that by Plance that all documents on the end had the formula of Papal affirmation at the end, my own reading has found that about three documents have that formula, but to me, it doesn't retract the magisterial promulgation of the entire Ecumenical Council. I recall this error in an article that defends V2 which I agree with overall, but I have to be honest about it is not entirely true).
What's a shame is that much of the comments do not dispute the contents itself or any particular points, most of the negativity is directed towards the appearance of Plance with the backward hat and the prayer or the t-shirt. These accusations of immaturity (or even being "effeminate") that apparently give them a license to dismiss an argument appear to be immature themselves. Quite frankly I do not care if the person giving the argument is as effeminate as a nun or an adolescent 13 year old speaking, truth is truth.
The other shame is that many comments also dismisses the entirety of the video's contents because of the starting remarks about Dr. Taylor Marshall. The important takeaways are: It's not comfortable for most people to dismiss a whole chapter of Magisterial content nor foster rebellion against the Church and that Dr. Marshall's doctorate should require or expect a higher standard of an academic approach in regards to analysis. If you disagree, whatever. This part is 15-20 minutes give or take.
These two points make up very little content for the entire 2 hours of video. They address nearly all the most controversial parts of V2 using the direct content and text itself and bolster it with previous theological traditions themselves as well with heavy analysis. They also examine St. Pope Paul VI's statements regarding such and CDF statements surrounding clarification and provide context for much of the "problematic" statements.
I would've loved to see comprehensive or even succinct comments in response to the vast amount of content they have (including pointing out amateurish mistakes of analysis Dr. Taylor Marshall has, to which they both treat him charitably). But instead, it's mostly about Plance's appearance.
It seems apparent, from an objective standpoint, the one with stronger arguments are on DeClue and Plance's side. Attacks regarding the appearance seem like nothing more than cope.
But here's some final food for thought: If it turns out that DeClue and Plance are correct and those of you that reject the entirety of their arguments, thus rejecting the Church's Magisterium that we are bound to submit to and you have not judged these claims on a rational basis, how can you guarantee not rendering an account to God on Judgement day for this specific command by Christ: "Do not judge by appearances, but judge with right judgment.” -John 7:24
The opening comments actually go to the core of the matter and it would not surprise me if that is why so many objected to them. People don't mind so much being told they are wrong intellectually, but when you suggest they might be *doing* wrong morally (lack of docility/humility/piety towards the ordinary magisterium etc) they get upset.
When using TH-cam as a learning tool, I find that the comment section often has interesting insight and sometimes links to further interesting information. I was quite surprised to see so many negative comments about the young man from Southern California's T-shirt, hat, and even general demeanor. Have these people been to Southern California?
I suppose presenting so regionally can be distracting to people who have not had a chance to leave their bubbles. I also saw comments calling him a perpetual adolescent. This gave me a chuckle. I work with 13-year-olds five days a week. The negative characteristics of adolescence we hope to overcome are not a baseball cap and T-shirt. What we hope to overcome as we mature are thinking everyone has to look and talk like you to fit in, being cruel to people who aren't in your club, creating cliques, and ignoring the substance of what someone says to be able to continue making them someone you can project your hate on.
@@ingridskousgard Very well articulated! And let’s be honest, if someone from their “side” did the same thing, they wouldn’t have had any complaints. It’s just a cheap shot meant to poison the well.
These guys, bless them, never mentioned about a background in Philosophy the lack of which becomes apparent as they coast along. As they said their expertise is in Theology. But Philosophy has always been referred to as Ancilla Theologiae. Theology without Philosophy is hollow. But, it is not a case of Philosophy determining Theology but rather as providing explanation, clarification, and amplification of theological matters. The value of a statement, even a theological statement for that matter, is not determined by WHO said it but WHAT is said. For them , especially Chris, to say that what came out of the council must be accepted because it is Fathers of the Council who said so and confirmed by a Pope, who is a Saint is untenable, to say the least. They might have been ignorant or unknowledgeable that philosophical thoughts are all written in Vatican II what with the presence of Rahner and Congar in the thick of discussions. And Benedict admitted that the philosophy of St Thomas had had its heyday and that it was time to discard it for something that is apt to the times. Like Kant and Heidegger who molded Rahner's and Congar's philosophy which made possible the destruction of the traditional Latin Mass, fostered Liberation Theology, and brought prominence to the Pachama enthroned in an altar at the Vatican. In the main, the philosophy is the relativism of Truth. Even a Pope who says truth is relative or special magisterium must be disobeyed. For the Truth is Permanent and Absolute. It is not the WHO; it is the WHAT. The errors of Vatican ii sprang from the erroneous philosophy that animated it.
You make some grand assumptions. I studied philosophy as well, including two semesters of metaphysics with Msgr. John Wippel, one of the most world-renowned Thomist philosophers, and I studied ethics/moral Theology with Fr. Romanus Cessario. I am well aware of the role of philosophy in Theology, and I am huge proponent of it. My philosophical leanings are Scholastic: St. Thomas (especially in metaphysics and epistemology) and St. Bonaventure.
@@decluesviews2740 That was not an assumption as you should know why being steeped in Philosophy yourself. But it is strange that you make pronouncements without the traces of Philosophy in them. I know what I am talking about. I got a Ph. L degree from the Pontifical University of St. Thomas, Summa cum Laude. That award is not a fluke; I graduated also valedictorian from high school. So I know trash when I see one. You created the thrash in your video because you failed to show the causal principles of the entities you forwarded. Those are the principles of essence and existence as taught by St. Thomas, remember? With a better understanding of the philosophy that run the Vatican II should tell you that the hermeneutics of continuity propounded by Benedict is unacceptable for the simple reason that it runs counter to metaphysical concept of identity and unity: two different specific entities are not identified and not in unity. A word of advice for you guys: put a little of logic in your talk with a sprinkling of metaphysics for coherence and unity. Good day ang God bless you.
@@chrisbernal5164 I graduated college with a 4.0 including courses in organic chemistry, pre-veterinary science, calculus, multiple philosophy courses, theology, and several other disciplines, and continued to get consistently 3.8-4.0s through three graduate degrees and published in two peer review journals. I've taught theology at two colleges, German to Bosch employees, and have certification to teach high school science after passing my certification exams with distinction in both professional teaching knowledge and my subject area. I don't need a lecture about academic credentials, as impressive as a Ph.L. is, and for which I congratulate you. You've made a generic syllogistic argument with no content. You don't specify what specific entities you are referring to. You just state the form of an argument without the specification. That doesn't serve as a rebuttal of anything.
@@decluesviews2740 Space prevents me from going into specific. But then go back to Metaphysics of St. Thomas and ask him if genus does not have a content. Too, ask him whether specific difference can be content in itself without a genus. Generic syllogistic arguments always have content. But then, maybe, you haven't heard that being is the highest genus.
@@chrisbernal5164 What I mean is, you haven't linked the syllogism to anything in my content
I'm so glad you all did this video
Genuinely interested in y'alls thoughts on Dietrich Von Hildebrand's letter to Michael Davies on V2 (below). I recognize that this is a personal correspondence and the DVH is not a Pope, council, etc. [Perhaps of significant note: DVH’s “Trojan Horse in the City of God” was written in 1970. The letter below was dated April 22,1976].
”Dear Friend in Christ:
I was delighted in reading your letter to Bishop Donohue of Fresno in "The Remnant." This letter is a masterpiece. The repetition of "My Lord" is delightful. Thank you for writing it.
I was very pleased about your words concerning my position toward the documents of Vatican Council II. I consider the Council-notwithstanding the fact that it brought some ameliorations-as a great misfortune. And I stress time and again in lectures and articles that fortunately no word of the Council-unless it is a repetition of former definitions de fide-is binding de fide. We need not approve; on the contrary we should disapprove. Unfortunately Maritain said in his last book: the two great manifestations of the Holy Spirit in our times are Vatican Council II and the foundation of the state of Israel.
I read the chapter of your book and I am completely satisfied. Hoping to meet you some day, I am united with you in caritate Christi and in the fight against Modernism.
Yours affectionately,
Dietrich von Hildebrand”
Von Hildebrand was right on point. He realized that something had gone wrong with things after the council. But Von Hildebrand never denounced the council. Not at all. Since this letter is not an actual explication of his entire thought on the council, we are left wondering what he meant by that. Did he mean it was a "misfortune" because some bishops were falsely using Vatican II to make changes the council did not demand? Probably. Notice he did not denounce the council as having said anything wrong. He merely indicates that the council was a "misfortune" - he did not say it was heretical, that it was wrong, that it was in error. Misfortune is a much softer word, that could mean a lot of things, including that the IMPLEMENTATION of the council was being screwed up. Which we all agree on. He notes that no word of the council is binding "de fide". Of course, since the council was primarily non dogmatic, he is right, because "de fide" has a precise definition, in that things that are de fide must be believed. However, Catholics are not allowed to disregard documents of a council if they are not de fide. After the council, Paul VI explicitly noted that while the council was not dogmatic, It still contained things that catholics were bound to obey.
www.catholicculture.org/commentary/pope-paul-vi-on-vatican-ii/
At best, Von Hildebrands letter is open to a lot of interpretations, and is a very poor source for basing action. He might have spent five minutes on it and not given it much thought. He might have been tired. Best to rely on his official writings for his true feelings on things.
Vatican II is not infallible because:
God does not “trick” us. The Holy Ghost would not allow any infallible teachings which were unreasonable and unjust, as would be any infallible teaching which we could not clearly recognize as such.
Vatican II was (deliberately) made ambiguous and contradictory and cannot be infallible because the human mind cannot hold opposites about the same thing at the same time and also cannot hold a statement which is ambiguous and so whose infallible meaning cannot be discerned.
Vatican II cannot be infallible because its teachings are new (and new teachings cannot be infallible).
The popes and council fathers repeatedly assure us that Vatican II is not infallible.