Outside of Tradition, it speaks to the total vacuum of truth/catholicity. Guys like Marshall or +Vigano come out of nowhere and play Captain Obvious for 5 minutes and they are applauded as the 2nd coming of St Pius X.
There’s no comparison between Marshall and Vigano.I have to agree with Sean here. At least +Vigano is a cleric, and a prelate. He is deserving of Catholics' attention. Also, he knows much more, has said much more, and has done much more good for the Church than Marshall.
And regarding the latter, he has made contributions toward the recovery of the Church which nobody else has done, such as explaining how Vatican II may not even be a true ecuмenical council (the implication being that it could all be flushed down the toilet tomorrow without doing any injury to the corpus of Catholic doctrine).
all the lay talking head personalities in the Blogosphere.I don't know, nor do I care, who these people are.
Outside of Tradition, it speaks to the total vacuum of truth/catholicity. Guys like Marshall or +Vigano come out of nowhere and play Captain Obvious for 5 minutes and they are applauded as the 2nd coming of St Pius X.
I believe what Dr. Marshall, Steve Skojec at 1P5, John Henry Westem at LifeSiteNews etc, are doing is a very good service to the Faith.
Quote from: josefamenendez (https://www.cathinfo.com/index.php?topic=62175.msg752660#msg752660) on Sun Jun 13 2021 08:11:02 GMT-0500 (Central Daylight Time)
"Just because the world is so messed-up that choosing not to kill your baby seems heroic, doesn't make you a real hero"
I disagree. When a woman changes her mind not to abort, she changes her way of thinking, her "culture" her support system, her lifestyle, respect in the eyes of her community, her income, her living arrangements and many times loses her friends and family in the process, including the baby's father. It's a lot more heroic than what most people consider heroic these days (Dancing CÖVÌD nurses?). Even more important, it there might actually be a miraculous conversion taking place.
The culture is so damaged and imprisoning that when someone breaks free of it is truly heroic; it can only come from God.
(I'm not saying she is a Saint however)
I believe what Dr. Marshall, Steve Skojec at 1P5, John Henry Westem at LifeSiteNews etc, are doing is a very good service to the Faith.
There's more to +Vigano than captain obvious. We had +Fellay claiming that 95% of Vatican II is acceptable, and +Vigano (coming from the Conciliar Church) CREDIBLY argues that the entire thing is contaminated and unacceptable. Apart from the Resistance and SVs, he's the only voice out there asserting that V2 is radically defective. And he makes a compelling case. He's articulated that case better than anyone else I've read in the Traditional movement. He's also in a unique position of being able to do a lot of good because of his perceived authority and his credibility. He's being persuasive even to the conservative wing of the Novus Ordo because of his unique position. Those types will not listen to a Bishop Williamson or the Resistance priests, much less the sedevacantists, but +Vigano has gotten their attention. Perhaps he can help shake them out of their "hermeneutic of continuity" mindset regarding Vatican II. That approach is actually the chief obstacle to people becoming Traditional Catholic.My thoughts exactly.
If the Faith were their primary motivation, then they'd work for free. I'm not saying they are fake catholics, but there's just something uncatholic about selling the Faith through books, speaker fees, news stories, etc.
Most sports heroes are actually freaks, genetic outliers.Agreed wholeheartedly, at least where the "power sports" --- probably basketball prime among these --- are involved.
I've coached and marshalled a lot of sports over the last 30 years, it is almost a second career. I've done track and field, soccer, basketball, professional cycling and seen talented children and young adults work hard, practice, make the team, win local, regional and national competition and then at international level get beaten by a person who has not worked harder and sometimes worked less hard, but is a genetic freak and has some physical attribute that gives them an advantage. Sometimes, not just beaten either but completely humiliated and the freak wins by an embarrassing margin or victory.
At the level of the Olympics we are really talking for MOST sports about the freakiest of the freaks. They are all freaks from their country competing with other freaks to find the biggest freak of all.
More recently of course they might even be a man instead of a woman and this usually overcomes even the freakiest genetics of very masculine, tall, strong women.
There are a few sports and pastimes where practice and hard work can get you to the top levels. Golf and Pole Vault for example where learned technique really matters. But whether you are dealing with drugged athletes, TranssɛҳuąƖs or just people with freakish bio-chemistry, most sports automatically favour people who have freakishless, long, light, short, tall, large, small, flexible limbs, hearts, lungs.
I have a friend for example who is an OK swimmer on the surface but can swim underwater like a fish. He can hold his breath for a stupidly long time and always could since our child hood. I can swim perhaps 100 feet underwater, he can swim well over 300 feet. He does not practice it is just some natural freakish attribute he has. If they had underwater swimming completion, no matter how much 99.9% of people practiced they could never beat him.
We should acknowledge sports as a freak show and a form of entertainment.
Xavier, that attitude of letting error thrive and combatting it with “truth” is one of the biggest problems with Religious Liberty. ... Error must be actively suppressed.
Ladislaus, who should actively suppress error?
Anyone who is in a position to do so. So, the father of a family in the family, secular officials in society, and the Catholic hierarchy among Catholics.
Okay, let's just stick with the secular officials in society for now. Who in the Bıdɛn administration would you select to be in charge of suppressing religious errors?:facepalm: We're talking about a catholic country, with catholic politicians or even a Catholic King. Obviously, an anti-catholic society won't defend Catholic truth.
Xavier, that attitude of letting error thrive and combatting it with “truth” is one of the biggest problems with Religious Liberty. This notion that truth will prevail when truth and error are both given freedom is incredibly naive.
If the Faith were their primary motivation, then they'd work for free. I'm not saying they are fake catholics, but there's just something uncatholic about selling the Faith through books, speaker fees, news stories, etc.Do you work for free?
Do you work for free?
Taylor has a large family to support. If he cared about money, he could use his PhD to teach at a university. Or he could have remained Episcopalian and been financially comfortable.
At the root of some, not all, of these attacks on Marshall there appears to be a great deal of envy. To those who are green with envy I say, if what he has done is so easy, just do it yourself.
:facepalm: We're talking about a catholic country, with catholic politicians or even a Catholic King. Obviously, an anti-catholic society won't defend Catholic truth.
At the root of some, not all, of these attacks on Marshall there appears to be a great deal of envy. To those who are green with envy I say, if what he has done is so easy, just do it yourself.I don't envy Marshall because I don't think he is the real deal. I think he is chosen for us because I have not seen Marshall step on all the third rails like Bishop Williamson does. He comes across as a normie.
My comment was not a slight towards +Vigano, just an observation on how quickly he rose to stardom in the lack of truth-speakers of indult-land.He had a perfectly reasonable resume before he was catapulted into the limelight. We can only wonder, because 1960-70 is not fresh in any of our memories, how the events leading up to his fame are comparable to the events that led to Lefebvre being a (Catholic) household name. For many of us the first time we heard his name was in the reports of the consecrations and not even the work he was doing the previous +20 years.
If a non-Catholic country, which will almost always be an anti-catholic country, does not have the right to suppress false religions or religious errors, does that not result in the citizens of this anti-Catholic country having a negative civil right not to be prohibited from practicing a false religion and/or spreading religious errors?I don't follow. I don't see how you can mix-match moral obligations with civil rights. Outside of a catholic society, civil rights/laws don't have anything to do with morality.
We all agree that no one has a moral right "to embrace and profess that religion which, guided by the light of reason, he shall considers true," (Syllabus of Pius IX), but if the civil authority in an anti-Catholic country is not permitted to suppress religious errors, it follows logically that the citizens of that non-Catholic country will have the civil right not to be prohibited from committing that particular evil. Do you agree?
At the root of some, not all, of these attacks on Marshall there appears to be a great deal of envy. To those who are green with envy I say, if what he has done is so easy, just do it yourself.
I don't follow. I don't see how you can mix-match moral obligations with civil rights. Outside of a catholic society, civil rights/laws don't have anything to do with morality.
I agree; there’s a bad taste in my mouth from trafficking in the faith which smacks of simony. That’s another reason it should be the domain of clerics, many/most of whom have to abide by certain standards of poverty. We don’t need the Catholic equivalent of those Prot televangelist, most of whom live scandalously opulent lifestyles.I tend to agree that one should not make money off of the Faith; however, I question whether these popular bloggers are the "Catholic equivalent".
But what I meant by a negative civil right, is an evil that the state does not have the coercive power to punish or suppress.In a non-catholic country, morality doesn't exist, so the state has ANY coercive power it can take from its citizens. Any law is possible.
You agreed that an anti-Catholic country cannot suppress false religions and/or religious errors, and you were quite correct to do so.I say they wouldn't, not that they couldn't. The Middle East isn't a catholic country, but they have morality laws. If any state has a lot of power, they can make any laws they want.
Well, what follows from this is that in a non-Catholic country, the citizens necessarily have a negative civil right to "religious liberty" - that is, they cannot be punished or forbidden for committing these evil acts, since the state has no coercive power over such matters.Again, in the absence of catholic social order, a non-catholic country *could* forbid ALL religious liberty (catholic and non). They can do whatever they want...if they have such a degree of power.
Exactly right. Now let's take this one step further.
If a non-Catholic country, which will almost always be an anti-catholic country, does not have the right to suppress false religions or religious errors, does that not result in the citizens of this anti-Catholic country having a negative civil right not to be prohibited from practicing a false religion and/or spreading religious errors?
We all agree that no one has a moral right "to embrace and profess that religion which, guided by the light of reason, he shall considers true," (Syllabus of Pius IX), but if the civil authority in an anti-Catholic country is not permitted to suppress religious errors, it follows logically that the citizens of that non-Catholic country will have the civil right not to be prohibited from committing that particular evil. Do you agree?
If a civil law is just, and especially if it is based on the natural law, it pertains to morality.
But what I meant by a negative civil right, is an evil that the state does not have the coercive power to punish or suppress.
You agreed that an anti-Catholic country cannot suppress false religions and/or religious errors, and you were quite correct to do so. Well, what follows from this is that in a non-Catholic country, the citizens necessarily have a negative civil right to "religious liberty" - that is, they cannot be punished or forbidden for committing these evil acts, since the state has no coercive power over such matters.
Let me know if you agree or disagree.
You've lost me with your double negative. Which evil would these Catholics have the civil right not to be prohibited from committing?
Catholics have a right to profess and practice their faith; non-Catholics do not.