How can you make any comments if you haven't listened to the interview. 

Fair question.  I didn't have time to watch it, so I was basing my comments on what everyone else was saying [they/you watched it, correct?] and the only thing they talked about was the fact that he was drawn to the Latin mass.  Nothing about Vatican II.

Should I watch it? Or is that pretty much the gist of it?

It's worth it just for the disparity between Shia's impressions of the Mass and Barron trying to damage control for the NOM

I saw that in the minute clip.

I don't think Shia is the type of person that would spend the time or care about V2.  What I mean is, he's a super hands-on, feeling person.  All he cares about is the Mass and Christ in real-time; not the intellectual debate of V2.

To some degree there's truth to this because if the only portion of Modernization that happened was V2 docuмents (and not the new mass), the Church would be in a MUCH better spot.  The V2 docuмents only appeal/corrupt the intellectual catholics.  The new mass corrupted the "avg joe".  The new mass was V2 put into practice.  Thus, if you reject the new mass, then you are also rejecting V2 (even if you don't know it).


It is a long video.  I watched on 1.5 speed.  I don't have the time stamps, but the 10 min or so where they talk about the liturgy is great.  The rest of the video is interesting but only if you want to hear Shia's journey to the Faith and his thoughts on Padre Pio.

Hopefully, he will continue down the right path.  Going to the Latin Mass exclusively is the first step.  But if he believes in things taught in Vatican II, then he isn't fully converted to the Catholic Faith. 

He's a Jew, an actor, a method actor with an unusual attention to detail, likes big publicity stunts and "converted" to "Christianity" some years ago. Perhaps Russian Orthodoxy is next when Putin comes to liberate us?

It may be safer to give him a few years before making him another Taylor Marshall 

 But his ignorance is a little hard to defend, given that he did acknowledge at one point that “I don’t want to get too far into this, because then you get into controversy.” There’s another reason it seems LaBeouf knows exactly what side he’s taking: he told the interviewer that he had sought guidance from Mel Gibson in his conversion process. Gibson is not just an unabashed αnтι-ѕємιтє; he is also someone who speaks at traditionalist Catholic events, builds churches for disaffected orthodox Catholics, and makes friends with radical right-wing priests. (His father, Hutton Gibson, was a leading proponent of the idea that all popes since Vatican II have been antipopes.) In fact, in the interview, LaBeouf said that Gibson was the one who had shown him where to find the illicit Latin Masses.

Yes, as you mentioned Josefa, the Jєωs are already on this, given the content of the above article that you posted, and especially since Shia LaBeouf stated that he is quite close with Mel Gibson (he stated this in one of the twitter links), and that Gibson showed him where to find 'illicit masses.' That has put him on their radar for sure.

He's a Jєω, an actor, a method actor with an unusual attention to detail, likes big publicity stunts and "converted" to "Christianity" some years ago. Perhaps Russian Orthodoxy is next when Putin comes to liberate us?

It may be safer to give him a few years before making him another Taylor Marshall

Some of you people are out of control in assuming the worst of everyone ... without even the slightest bit of evidence, when we should be rejoicing that he converted, and even seems to lean Traditional right out of the gate.

I will assume that he's sincere, even as I continue to assume that Taylor Marshall is sincere, until there's some evidence brought forward to demonstrate otherwise.

If the man were to ever stumble upon Cathinfo (say by doing a search on his name + "Traditional Catholic"), he'd rightly be put off by reading this garbage.

There is nothing wrong with caution. Too many trads get duped over and over again. How is it that you always seem to find the side of these people? Moderation is better than credulity in these subversive times.

"Caution" my ass.  What's he going to do to you?  Maybe if someone was a suspected pedophile, you would be "cautious" about letting your children near them.  If you were the rector of a seminary, and a partially-Jєωιѕн convert entered the seminary, then you might be "cautious" and keep an eye on him.  Even then, you wouldn't publicly slander them.  IF it were some publicity stunt, the only thing he'd be trying to do would be to revive his career.  If he ends up becoming a Modernist and makes some Modernist statements down the road, then he'd be one of hundreds of millions other Modernists out there.

This has nothing to do with "caution".  You're just a skeptical jerk who tends to see everyone in the worst possible light, and now you're trying to justify your statements and your behavior by pretending it's "caution".  Your statements border on (and IMO actually are) calumny and slander.  Whether he's sincere or not is none of your business, but is between him and God, until it affects you somehow.  Charity requires that we give him every benefit of the doubt and presume sincerity until there's evidence to the contrary.

Who are "these people" that I'm siding with?  Apart from some situations were trads were too trusting of priests who later turned out to be pedophiles, what harm has ever come to anyone by giving the benefit of doubt to someone who posed no potential threat to them if they were wrong about them?  Give some examples of "trads duped over and over again" that resulted in any lasting harm besides perhaps disappointment.  What harm comes to me or anyone else if I or others give Taylor Marshall, +Vigano, or LaBeouf the benefit of the doubt that they're sincere about what they believe?  If they say something we don't agree with, we simply don't accept it ... regardless of whether they are in good faith or bad.  So while their statements or behavior might be objectionable, whether they're in good faith or bad is irrelevant except to him and to God.

Story about St. Thomas:

“Thomas! Thomas!” two snickering friars called, rousing their brother who was bent over his books. “Look out the window—there are pigs flying about in the sky!” Thomas rose at once and bounced to the window incredulously. The friars laughed. Putting the finishing touch on the jest, the saint responded, “I would rather believe that pigs can fly than believe that my brethren could lie.”

St. Thomas was "duped" too, right?

You also tried turn your disgraceful behavior into a virtue, referring to it as "moderation."  Give me a break.

You also betrayed that you weren't motivated by any kind of virtue, moderation, caution when you finished your post with .

It is so funny that (maybe) bp is not able to handle Shia's TLM enthusiasm and NOM criticism (it feels like being a salesman). bp Barron pivots left and right to change the topic to no avail. Truly amazing.

LOL ... yes, you could see Barron squirming.