Taylor Marshall is just another conciliarist posing as a trad-wannabe.

His book is a joke (and betrays his conciliarism).

It even features an introduction by +Schneider deploring the infiltration of subversives, without recognizing that +Schneider himself is one of them.

Perhaps one day, Marshall will go further along the road than Michael Matt did, but this far, he has not.

I wonder if those on here trying to get Catholics not to vote for Trump are paid trolls working for the communists. This should be a no brainer for Catholics, but they sow the seed of dissension to cloud the issue and are getting Catholics to sit home on Election Day, effectually giving the presidency to Joe Biden who is a puppet for the communists and enemy to all real Catholics.  

You have a great point. To get the most bang for their buck, the paid anti-Trump trolls would in all likelihood, have a secondary goal. In regard to a site like this one, what might that be?
IMHO, the secondary goal would be to smear Cath Info and smear traditional Catholicism by white supremacist statements and repeated use of the "n" word.
This is known as a "fαℓѕє fℓαg." Pretending to be a traditional Catholic while actually being an enemy of traditional Catholicism.
I can just see the next report of the hate group which pretends to opposed hate, the SPLC. They will print the repeated use of the "n" word and other examples FROM THIS WEBSITE of white hatred against blacks as proof that traditional Catholics in general and Cath Info specifically are racist.
Their paid shills will have helped them docuмent it.

Taylor Marshall is just another conciliarist posing as a trad-wannabe.

His book is a joke (and betrays his conciliarism).

It even features an introduction by +Schneider deploring the infiltration of subversives, without recognizing that +Schneider himself is one of them.

Perhaps one day, Marshall will go further along the road than Michael Matt did, but this far, he has not.

Listen to the link someone provided, and you will see that he is already further along the road than Michael Matt. He calls the concilliar hierarchy "wolves in sheeps clothing."

Your post is music to the ears of the commie-Democrats who want to keep Blue states Blue.  

And I'll say it again ...the few Catholics you're speaking to aren't going to change the blue states to red.  But you keep wagging your finger if that makes you feel better.

From: http://www.catholicapologetics.info/morality/general/voting.htm 

"The specter of apathy and undesirable disinterestedness is rising more and more upon the country’s horizon. Many American citizens are not interested in their role as citizens; they clamor for their rights, but forget their duties; they insist upon what is owed them, but forget what they owe others. Thus the popular author, Fulton Oursler, observes the situation as neither healthy or happy.

Today’s curse upon political life is not so much what is unlawful as what is unscrupulous. At the root of our decay is sickness of conscience. Moral obtuseness is a national plague over free government. This decline in national character is a serious danger, because if we lose our standards, all our liberties may be lost through abuses, corruption, and chaos…. “That is politics,” we say. As if politics needed to be a sinkhole. Without a vision the people are perishing; they are even finding something to admire in the slickness, the tricky deceitfulness by which the taxpayers are bilked. They smile at scoundrels in office as if they were only amusing scalawags. [13]

Nor is such an attitude of unwarranted pessimism. For the number of United States citizens who voted in the presidential election of 1948 was a scandal. According to statistics only about fifty-two percent of the eligible voters used their vote- a sad commentary upon the civic conscience of the average citizen. If the trend continues it may well be that the words of Christopher Dawson about Europe may be fulfilled in the United States.

To vote in an election or plebiscite today has ceased to be purely political action. It has become an affirmation of faith in a particular social philosophy and theory of history; a decision between two or three mutually exclusive forms of civilization. I do not say this is a good thing; or: the contrary, it means that history and social philosophy are being distorted and debased by political propaganda and party feeling. [14]

The Catholic Church is not interested in voting as a purely political activity any more than she is interested in the purely political form of government. But she is interested in voting as moral activity with duties and obligations to which are conjoined important consequences for good or evil. On this matter Pope Pius XII has laid down this principle:

The Church, indeed does not claim to interfere without reason in the direction of temporal or purely political affairs; nevertheless of her full right, she claims that the civil power must not allege this as an excuse for placing obstacles in the way of those higher goods on which the eternal salvation of man depends, for inflicting loss and injury through unjust laws and decrees, for impairing the divine constitution of the Church itself, or for trampling underfoot the sacred rights of God in civil society. [15]

Through her interest in the rights of God and in the rights and duties of men, the Church declares in the Code of Canon Law that “…by her power and exclusive right the Church takes cognizance …of all matters in which is to be found a ratio peccati.” [16] These words, used by Pope Boniface VIII and Innocent III, do not refer exclusively to theological matters, but to all that pertains to the good of religion, either positively or negatively; positively, as they are necessary for the good of religion as the end of the Church; negatively, as they are obstacles to that end and must be eliminated.

A further instance of the Church’s role of moral guidance in political affairs comes from the following statement of Pope Pius XII.
The moral order and God’s commandments have a force equally in all fields of human activity. As far as the fields stretch, so far extends the mission of the Church, and also her teachings, warnings, and the counsel of the priest to the faithful confided to his care….The Catholic Church will never allow herself to be shut up within the four walls of the temple. The separation between religion and life, between the Church and the world is contrary to the Christian and Catholic idea. [17]

Finally, as a concluding proof that politics is within the sphere of the Church’s interest and judgment insofar as moral issues are involved, we may quote Pope Pius X who declared in his first consistorial allocution November 9, 1903: “We do not conceal the fact that We shall shock some people by saying that We must necessarily concern ourselves with politics. But anyone forming an equitable judgment clearly sees that the Supreme Pontiff can in no wise violently withdraw the category of politics from subjection to the supreme control of faith and morals confided to him.” [18]

This work of the moral obligation of voting in civil elections is divided into three parts. The first deals with nature, the concept, and the kinds of voting, with a brief history to show its development during the centuries. The second part deals with the general and specific principles that should guide citizens in the exercise of the franchise with particular stress given to the statements of the Supreme Pontiffs and the members of the hierarchy. The third part considers the duties that flow from the obligation to vote, viz., a knowledge of the principles, of the candidates, of the issues at stake, and the use of the means to promote wise and intelligent voting; it also considers the role of the priest in directing the faithful in the proper discharge of their duty. Finally there is an appendix of important pastorals on the obligation of voting from prominent members of the hierarchy."

IMPRIMI POTEST:
Angelus F. Delahaunt, S.A.
Pater Generalis

NIHIL OBSTAT:
Francis J. Connell, C.Ss.R., S.T.D.
Censor Deputatis

IMPRIMATUR:
† Patrick A. O’Boyle, D.D.
Archiepiscopus Washingtoniensis
July 24, 1952

From: http://www.catholicapologetics.info/morality/general/voting.htm

"The specter of apathy and undesirable disinterestedness is rising more and more upon the country’s horizon. Many American citizens are not interested in their role as citizens; they clamor for their rights, but forget their duties; they insist upon what is owed them, but forget what they owe others. Thus the popular author, Fulton Oursler, observes the situation as neither healthy or happy.

Today’s curse upon political life is not so much what is unlawful as what is unscrupulous. At the root of our decay is sickness of conscience. Moral obtuseness is a national plague over free government. This decline in national character is a serious danger, because if we lose our standards, all our liberties may be lost through abuses, corruption, and chaos…. “That is politics,” we say. As if politics needed to be a sinkhole. Without a vision the people are perishing; they are even finding something to admire in the slickness, the tricky deceitfulness by which the taxpayers are bilked. They smile at scoundrels in office as if they were only amusing scalawags. [13]

Nor is such an attitude of unwarranted pessimism. For the number of United States citizens who voted in the presidential election of 1948 was a scandal. According to statistics only about fifty-two percent of the eligible voters used their vote- a sad commentary upon the civic conscience of the average citizen. If the trend continues it may well be that the words of Christopher Dawson about Europe may be fulfilled in the United States.

To vote in an election or plebiscite today has ceased to be purely political action. It has become an affirmation of faith in a particular social philosophy and theory of history; a decision between two or three mutually exclusive forms of civilization. I do not say this is a good thing; or: the contrary, it means that history and social philosophy are being distorted and debased by political propaganda and party feeling. [14]

The Catholic Church is not interested in voting as a purely political activity any more than she is interested in the purely political form of government. But she is interested in voting as moral activity with duties and obligations to which are conjoined important consequences for good or evil. On this matter Pope Pius XII has laid down this principle:

The Church, indeed does not claim to interfere without reason in the direction of temporal or purely political affairs; nevertheless of her full right, she claims that the civil power must not allege this as an excuse for placing obstacles in the way of those higher goods on which the eternal salvation of man depends, for inflicting loss and injury through unjust laws and decrees, for impairing the divine constitution of the Church itself, or for trampling underfoot the sacred rights of God in civil society. [15]

Through her interest in the rights of God and in the rights and duties of men, the Church declares in the Code of Canon Law that “…by her power and exclusive right the Church takes cognizance …of all matters in which is to be found a ratio peccati.” [16] These words, used by Pope Boniface VIII and Innocent III, do not refer exclusively to theological matters, but to all that pertains to the good of religion, either positively or negatively; positively, as they are necessary for the good of religion as the end of the Church; negatively, as they are obstacles to that end and must be eliminated.

A further instance of the Church’s role of moral guidance in political affairs comes from the following statement of Pope Pius XII.
The moral order and God’s commandments have a force equally in all fields of human activity. As far as the fields stretch, so far extends the mission of the Church, and also her teachings, warnings, and the counsel of the priest to the faithful confided to his care….The Catholic Church will never allow herself to be shut up within the four walls of the temple. The separation between religion and life, between the Church and the world is contrary to the Christian and Catholic idea. [17]

Finally, as a concluding proof that politics is within the sphere of the Church’s interest and judgment insofar as moral issues are involved, we may quote Pope Pius X who declared in his first consistorial allocution November 9, 1903: “We do not conceal the fact that We shall shock some people by saying that We must necessarily concern ourselves with politics. But anyone forming an equitable judgment clearly sees that the Supreme Pontiff can in no wise violently withdraw the category of politics from subjection to the supreme control of faith and morals confided to him.” [18]

This work of the moral obligation of voting in civil elections is divided into three parts. The first deals with nature, the concept, and the kinds of voting, with a brief history to show its development during the centuries. The second part deals with the general and specific principles that should guide citizens in the exercise of the franchise with particular stress given to the statements of the Supreme Pontiffs and the members of the hierarchy. The third part considers the duties that flow from the obligation to vote, viz., a knowledge of the principles, of the candidates, of the issues at stake, and the use of the means to promote wise and intelligent voting; it also considers the role of the priest in directing the faithful in the proper discharge of their duty. Finally there is an appendix of important pastorals on the obligation of voting from prominent members of the hierarchy."

IMPRIMI POTEST:
Angelus F. Delahaunt, S.A.
Pater Generalis

NIHIL OBSTAT:
Francis J. Connell, C.Ss.R., S.T.D.
Censor Deputatis

IMPRIMATUR:
† Patrick A. O’Boyle, D.D.
Archiepiscopus Washingtoniensis
July 24, 1952

Let's try this again Xavier (from the same link):

When unworthy candidates are running for office, ordinarily a citizen does not have the obligation for voting for them. Indeed he would not be permitted to vote for them if there were any reasonable way of electing a worthy man, either by organizing another party, by using the “write in” method, or by any other lawful means. On the other hand, it would be licit to vote for an unworthy man if the choice were only between or among unworthy candidates; and it might even be necessary to vote for such an unworthy candidate (if the voting were limited to such personalities) and even for one who would render harm to the Church, provided the election were only a choice from among unworthy men and the voting for the less unworthy would prevent the election of another more unworthy.

http://www.catholicapologetics.info/morality/general/voting.htm

Note that there is no "obligation".  It may be "licit" or "necessary" to vote for an unworthy man, but there is no "moral obligation". I find it interesting that this link mentions a section where there are "conditions that may relieve one of the obligation to vote", but it doesn't seem to include the text for it.

Let's try this again Xavier (from the same link):

When unworthy candidates are running for office, ordinarily a citizen does not have the obligation for voting for them. Indeed he would not be permitted to vote for them if there were any reasonable way of electing a worthy man, either by organizing another party, by using the “write in” method, or by any other lawful means. On the other hand, it would be licit to vote for an unworthy man if the choice were only between or among unworthy candidates; and it might even be necessary to vote for such an unworthy candidate (if the voting were limited to such personalities) and even for one who would render harm to the Church, provided the election were only a choice from among unworthy men and the voting for the less unworthy would prevent the election of another more unworthy. [underlining mine]

http://www.catholicapologetics.info/morality/general/voting.htm

Note that there is no "obligation".  It may be "licit" or "necessary" to vote for an unworthy man, but there is no "moral obligation". I find it interesting that this link mentions a section where there are "conditions that may relieve one of the obligation to vote", but it doesn't seem to include the text for it.

Hi 2 Vermont. I wasn't aware a question was directed at me. As to the excerpt above, agreed. Ordinarily, there would be a right but not a duty, i.e. it would be legitimate but not necessary to vote for such a person. But I find it interesting that in the portion I have underlined, it is said that even someone who harms the Church (and I think we can agree President Trump is not harming the Church; indeed, in one of the videos earlier, I think the pro-life speech, he mentions that he's helped the Little Sisters of the Poor, who were being harmed under the Obama administration, with forced contraceptives/abortifacients etc being required at Catholic hospitals) may in some cases be necessary to vote for. A fortiori, I would submit for your consideration, it is more than legitimate to support President Trump; and can arguably be said to be necessary, in order to prevent the election of the other more unworthy candidate, namely Joe Biden, to vote for President Trump, on the basis of the above.

God Bless.