Send CathInfo's owner Matthew a gift from his Amazon wish list:
https://www.amazon.com/hz/wishlist/ls/25M2B8RERL1UO

Author Topic: Taylor Marshall: Grifter or Deceiver?  (Read 9470 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Ladislaus

  • Supporter
  • *****
  • Posts: 48015
  • Reputation: +28374/-5309
  • Gender: Male
Re: Taylor Marshall: Grifter or Deceiver?
« Reply #60 on: February 03, 2023, 11:46:40 PM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
  • So what happened to the binding and loosing?

    Now we pick and choose what we obey and what we don't?

    Doesn't that make us "little popes"?

    Isn't that how Protestantism got started?

    Correct.  Some articulations of R&R, such as those made by SeanJohnson and Stubborn, are nothing more than a very thinly veiled repackaging of Old Catholicism.

    Offline Stubborn

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 15249
    • Reputation: +6249/-924
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Taylor Marshall: Grifter or Deceiver?
    « Reply #61 on: February 04, 2023, 05:24:16 AM »
  • Thanks!3
  • No Thanks!0
  • So what happened to the binding and loosing?

    Now we pick and choose what we obey and what we don't?

    Doesn't that make us "little popes"?

    Isn't that how Protestantism got started?
    God is not going to bind in heaven errors preached on earth from His vicar. 

    Here you demonstrate the sedes' self imposed problem, which is that they believe the same error as the NO popes - and in the process demonstrate that you do not understand the difference between blind obedience and true obedience. Well, I posted a video for you to watch to have it explained to you from a learned trad priest, you choose not to listen, nothing new about this.

    No, we do not pick and choose, we know he's wrong so we do not listen. It's just that simple, that's really all there is to it. If it was "an angel from heaven" saying the same thing that PPVI said, we still would not listen - we learn this from Scripture as little children, or should have.

    "It is therefore absurd to talk about obedience in any other context, but obedience to God first" is the most basic, most fundamental, most easily understood or "the Church's highest principle" as Fr. Hesse calls it, of Catholicism we learned as little children.
    "But Peter and the apostles answering, said: We ought to obey God, rather than men." - Acts 5:29

    The Highest Principle in the Church: "We are first of all under obedience to God, and only then under obedience to man" - Fr. Hesse


    Offline Meg

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 6794
    • Reputation: +3471/-2999
    • Gender: Female
    Re: Taylor Marshall: Grifter or Deceiver?
    « Reply #62 on: February 04, 2023, 08:48:07 AM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
  • Correct.  Some articulations of R&R, such as those made by SeanJohnson and Stubborn, are nothing more than a very thinly veiled repackaging of Old Catholicism.

    Old Catholics celebrate mass in the vernacular; its priests can marry, and they ordain women and are in communion with Anglicanism. I'm pretty sure that they have nothing whatsoever to do with Rome, and do not pray for the Pope, who is nothing to them.

    At least we (R&R) pray for the Pope, and consider him to be the true Pope. R&R do not ordain women, do not allow their priests to marry, do not celebrate mass in the vernacular, and are not in communion with Anglicanism. Old Catholicism is more like sedevacantism than R&R, when it comes to the Pope anyway.

    Here's an article from ten years ago. It explains about those who are Catholic, but pope-free.

    Those who are Catholic but without a Pope, according to the article, are: benevacantists, sedevacantists, and Old Catholics. It does not list those who attend SSPX chapels, or who basically hold the same view as those who attend SSPX chapels. The article does not mention Archbishop Lefebvre (R&R).

    Catholics without popes | The Christian Century

    "It is licit to resist a Sovereign Pontiff who is trying to destroy the Church. I say it is licit to resist him in not following his orders and in preventing the execution of his will. It is not licit to Judge him, to punish him, or to depose him, for these are acts proper to a superior."

    ~St. Robert Bellarmine
    De Romano Pontifice, Lib.II, c.29

    Offline SimpleMan

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 5191
    • Reputation: +2034/-248
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Taylor Marshall: Grifter or Deceiver?
    « Reply #63 on: February 04, 2023, 09:25:26 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Old Catholics celebrate mass in the vernacular; its priests can marry, and they ordain women and are in communion with Anglicanism. I'm pretty sure that they have nothing whatsoever to do with Rome, and do not pray for the Pope, who is nothing to them.

    At least we (R&R) pray for the Pope, and consider him to be the true Pope. R&R do not ordain women, do not allow their priests to marry, do not celebrate mass in the vernacular, and are not in communion with Anglicanism. Old Catholicism is more like sedevacantism than R&R, when it comes to the Pope anyway.

    Here's an article from ten years ago. It explains about those who are Catholic, but pope-free.

    Those who are Catholic but without a Pope, according to the article, are: benevacantists, sedevacantists, and Old Catholics. It does not list those who attend SSPX chapels, or who basically hold the same view as those who attend SSPX chapels. The article does not mention Archbishop Lefebvre (R&R).

    Catholics without popes | The Christian Century


    This was a halfway-decent article (considering where it came from) until the very end, where the writer started talking some mush about Hispanic Catholics supposedly preferring Our Lady of Guadalupe to the pope.  It makes no sense whatsoever.  I don't think they make that kind of dichotomy.

    I imagine that the vast bulk of Hispanic Catholics are very, very pleased that they finally have a pope who speaks their language and has a militant preference for the "peripheries" --- kind of like an ecclesiastical Che Guevara (think about it) ---  where they generally perceive themselves to be.  

    Offline Meg

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 6794
    • Reputation: +3471/-2999
    • Gender: Female
    Re: Taylor Marshall: Grifter or Deceiver?
    « Reply #64 on: February 04, 2023, 02:46:08 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • This was a halfway-decent article (considering where it came from) until the very end, where the writer started talking some mush about Hispanic Catholics supposedly preferring Our Lady of Guadalupe to the pope.  It makes no sense whatsoever.  I don't think they make that kind of dichotomy.

    I imagine that the vast bulk of Hispanic Catholics are very, very pleased that they finally have a pope who speaks their language and has a militant preference for the "peripheries" --- kind of like an ecclesiastical Che Guevara (think about it) ---  where they generally perceive themselves to be. 

    I agree. The idea of Hispanic Catholics preferring our Lady of Guadalupe over the Pope does seem very odd. I've not heard of it before. Maybe the author of the article personally knows of a few Hispanic Catholics who think this way. Wouldn't think it's all that prevalent though. And yes, I too would think that most Hispanic Catholics are happy with Francis, given that they seem to mostly be about social justice causes. 
    "It is licit to resist a Sovereign Pontiff who is trying to destroy the Church. I say it is licit to resist him in not following his orders and in preventing the execution of his will. It is not licit to Judge him, to punish him, or to depose him, for these are acts proper to a superior."

    ~St. Robert Bellarmine
    De Romano Pontifice, Lib.II, c.29


    Offline LaramieHirsch

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 2759
    • Reputation: +971/-252
    • Gender: Male
      • h
    Re: Taylor Marshall: Grifter or Deceiver?
    « Reply #65 on: February 04, 2023, 04:29:12 PM »
  • Thanks!2
  • No Thanks!0
  • “Taylor Marshall: Grifter or deceiver?”

    It embarrasses me how worked up and “played” he was, talking about the stupid China balloon.

    The whole fiasco exposes just how stupid everyone is.

    The balloon is nothing.  I’m sure it happens all the time.  It’s the hysteria of everyone that the State wants.  

    Everyone is so easily manipulated.
    .........................

    Before some audiences not even the possession of the exactest knowledge will make it easy for what we say to produce conviction. For argument based on knowledge implies instruction, and there are people whom one cannot instruct.  - Aristotle

    Offline Drolo

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 498
    • Reputation: +287/-17
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Taylor Marshall: Grifter or Deceiver?
    « Reply #66 on: February 04, 2023, 04:59:03 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • I agree. The idea of Hispanic Catholics preferring our Lady of Guadalupe over the Pope does seem very odd. I've not heard of it before. Maybe the author of the article personally knows of a few Hispanic Catholics who think this way. Wouldn't think it's all that prevalent though. And yes, I too would think that most Hispanic Catholics are happy with Francis, given that they seem to mostly be about social justice causes.
    Francis is associated with Peronism (in the leftist version) and the left in general in Hispanic America. Perón was not left-wing or right-wing, but third position fascist style, but his movement degenerated into that and today Peronism is from the left.

    Leftists Catholics  like Francis, conservatives not so much.

    Offline Miser Peccator

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 4351
    • Reputation: +2041/-458
    • Gender: Female
    Re: Taylor Marshall: Grifter or Deceiver?
    « Reply #67 on: February 05, 2023, 02:15:36 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • And....cue tradcaster creepy Garabandal apparition promotion:

    Scripted reality

    ohn-Henry Westen (x2), Taylor Marshall and Kennedy Hall all put out videos focusing on the alleged apparition of Garabandal in the past few days.

    Does a false apparition help to 'sell' false popes and a false church?

    ICYMI, link below...

    https://twitter.com/charleybrown77/status/1621621736008552448
    I exposed AB Vigano's public meetings with Crowleyan Satanist Dugin so I ask protection on myself family friends priest, under the Blood of Jesus Christ and mantle of the Blessed Virgin Mary! If harm comes to any of us may that embolden the faithful to speak out all the more so Catholics are not deceived.



    [fon


    Offline alaric

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 3415
    • Reputation: +2510/-439
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Taylor Marshall: Grifter or Deceiver?
    « Reply #68 on: February 05, 2023, 06:03:18 AM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
  • “Taylor Marshall: Grifter or deceiver?”

    It embarrasses me how worked up and “played” he was, talking about the stupid China balloon.

    The whole fiasco exposes just how stupid everyone is.

    The balloon is nothing.  I’m sure it happens all the time.  It’s the hysteria of everyone that the State wants. 

    Everyone is so easily manipulated.
    I caught that one as well.


    All worked up over the "chinese balloon".

    Really Taylor?

    More like the pentagon balloon you idiot.

    He just lost a whole lot of credibility with that one.::)

    Offline Miser Peccator

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 4351
    • Reputation: +2041/-458
    • Gender: Female
    Re: Taylor Marshall: Grifter or Deceiver?
    « Reply #69 on: March 20, 2023, 06:14:38 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • On his book The Crucified Rabbi:

    (p. 64) Tay pushes the 'Association of Hebrew Catholics' and 'Remnant of Israel' as groups approved of by the church. “these two Jєωιѕн Catholic apostolates seeks to preserve Jєωιѕн identity and promote... heritage of Judaism within the Catholic Church.”

    "(pp. 71-2) Tevilah in a mikveh = Baptism

    Before conflating the Feast of Dedication with Hanukkah, Marshall equates baptism with the insane man made rabbinical rules of what is impure and in need of a ritual bath."


    "(pp. 175-8) Purim & Hanukkah.

    Marshall informs readers that Purim is similar to Holy Days dedicated to the Blessed Virgin Mary and that Jesus the Christ attended Hanukkah festivities even though Hanukkah originates from 600 years after the events recorded in Book of Maccabees."


    See full thread here:

    https://twitter.com/2022moshiachnow/status/1615217340643266561
    I exposed AB Vigano's public meetings with Crowleyan Satanist Dugin so I ask protection on myself family friends priest, under the Blood of Jesus Christ and mantle of the Blessed Virgin Mary! If harm comes to any of us may that embolden the faithful to speak out all the more so Catholics are not deceived.



    [fon

    Offline Cornelius

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 460
    • Reputation: +263/-266
    • Gender: Male
    • Some Catholic Guy.
    Re: Taylor Marshall: Grifter or Deceiver?
    « Reply #70 on: March 20, 2023, 09:24:33 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • What Pope Pius XI says is of course the truth, but what Pope Paul VI said is not.

    We Catholics certainly are obligated to "accept, recognize and obey the authority and supremacy of Peter and his legitimate successors" but this obligation of our obedience to the pope is not "blind obedience," it's "true obedience" or we can call it "holy obedience."

    This simply means that we have to obey him as the pope in all those religious matters which fall within the ambit of his authority unless he should teach or command something which is sinful. Obedience to God always comes first in everything no matter what. This principle is inherent in absolutely everything, PPXI's teaching you quoted is no exception.

    Check out the video below from Fr. Hesse, it's an excellent talk, mostly about true obedience. Well worth watching the whole thing.

    He starts this video with what I put in my sig, and at 7:30, Fr. Hesse puts it like this: "It is therefore absurd to talk about obedience in any other context, but obedience to God first."



    I have listened to many of his talks and one thing I noticed is that he never actually says sedevacantists are wrong. He said things like "they must be careful," or "we do not know for certain if he is a true pope." Father Hesse also used the form of the Mass from before Roncalli, and I think he accepted the Holy Week reforms of Pius XII. He supported the SSPX but he was not a member and his refusal to have conformed to the 1962 rite seems to suggest he saw shortcomings with the Society. Listening to his material again, I wonder if he would be a sedevacantist if were alive now under Bergoglio. I suspect he would be, same as Archbishop Lefebvre. 
    One day at a time.


    Offline Cornelius

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 460
    • Reputation: +263/-266
    • Gender: Male
    • Some Catholic Guy.
    Re: Taylor Marshall: Grifter or Deceiver?
    « Reply #71 on: March 20, 2023, 09:34:12 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • I knew Stalin married a Jєω, but I never thought he was one .interesting.
    is there any way to reference that?

    He was an ethnic Georgian. He might have married that Jєωιѕн woman but was probably just an affair. Similar to Mussolini and his Jєωιѕн lover.
    One day at a time.

    Offline TheRealMcCoy

    • Supporter
    • ***
    • Posts: 1544
    • Reputation: +1165/-242
    • Gender: Female
    • The Thread Killer
    Re: Taylor Marshall: Grifter or Deceiver?
    « Reply #72 on: March 20, 2023, 09:35:13 PM »
  • Thanks!2
  • No Thanks!0
  • On his book The Crucified Rabbi:

    (p. 64) Tay pushes the 'Association of Hebrew Catholics' and 'Remnant of Israel' as groups approved of by the church. “these two Jєωιѕн Catholic apostolates seeks to preserve Jєωιѕн identity and promote... heritage of Judaism within the Catholic Church.”

    "(pp. 71-2) Tevilah in a mikveh = Baptism

    Before conflating the Feast of Dedication with Hanukkah, Marshall equates baptism with the insane man made rabbinical rules of what is impure and in need of a ritual bath."


    "(pp. 175-8) Purim & Hanukkah.

    Marshall informs readers that Purim is similar to Holy Days dedicated to the Blessed Virgin Mary and that Jesus the Christ attended Hanukkah festivities even though Hanukkah originates from 600 years after the events recorded in Book of Maccabees."


    See full thread here:

    https://twitter.com/2022moshiachnow/status/1615217340643266561

    Immersing in the mikvah does not remit sin.  It "washes away" ritual impurity so you don't infect other joos with your impurity.  The Gospels clearly state that John was baptising penitents which is not mikvah, nor was Christ's baptism a mikvah, nor any other baptisms mentioned.  Mikvah doesn't make you born again.

    Marshall is promoting the heresy of ecuмenism.

    Offline Stubborn

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 15249
    • Reputation: +6249/-924
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Taylor Marshall: Grifter or Deceiver?
    « Reply #73 on: March 21, 2023, 04:52:19 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • I have listened to many of his talks and one thing I noticed is that he never actually says sedevacantists are wrong. He said things like "they must be careful," or "we do not know for certain if he is a true pope." Father Hesse also used the form of the Mass from before Roncalli, and I think he accepted the Holy Week reforms of Pius XII. He supported the SSPX but he was not a member and his refusal to have conformed to the 1962 rite seems to suggest he saw shortcomings with the Society. Listening to his material again, I wonder if he would be a sedevacantist if were alive now under Bergoglio. I suspect he would be, same as Archbishop Lefebvre.
    I cannot imagine how you got out of that talk that under the current pope he would be sede since that idea is pretty much contrary to the whole talk. 
    "But Peter and the apostles answering, said: We ought to obey God, rather than men." - Acts 5:29

    The Highest Principle in the Church: "We are first of all under obedience to God, and only then under obedience to man" - Fr. Hesse

    Offline cassini

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 4081
    • Reputation: +3366/-275
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Taylor Marshall: Grifter or Deceiver?
    « Reply #74 on: March 21, 2023, 08:54:32 AM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
  • 12min 3sec

    I watched this video for the first time today.

    In the NOW voice heard on this video, by adding to what Paul VI said not quoted by Taylor Marshall,  the voice puts forward the argument that once a pope decrees something, as it is from the magisterium, all Catholics must adhere to it. Am I right?

    OK then, let us put the NOW voice to the test.

    In 1616, Pope Paul V decreed:
    (1) “That the sun is in the centre of the world and altogether immovable by local movement,” was unanimously declared to be “foolish, philosophically absurd, and formally heretical [denial of a revelation by God] inasmuch as it expressly contradicts the declarations of Holy Scripture in many passages, according to the proper meaning of the language used, and the sense in which they have been expounded and understood by the Fathers and theologians.”

    Now, Trent and Vatican I defined that when all the Fathers hold to a Biblical revelation (that it reveals the sun and stars run a course) then it must be held as irreformable.

    In 1633, the sentence against Galileo said:
    “Invoking, then, the most holy Name of our Lord Jesus Christ, and that of His most glorious Mother Mary ever Virgin, by this our definitive sentence we say, pronounce, judge, and declare, that you, the said Galileo, on account of these things proved against you by docuмentary evidence, and which have been confessed by you as aforesaid, have rendered yourself to this Holy Office vehemently suspected of heresy,  that is, of having believed and held a doctrine which is false and contrary to the sacred and divine Scriptures - to wit, that the sun is in the centre of the world, and that it does not move from east to west, and that the Earth moves, and is not the centre of the universe; and that an opinion can be held and defended as probable after it has been declared and defined to be contrary to Holy Scripture.

    Then, in 1820, pope Pius VII, convinced a solar-system had been proven and that the 1616 and 1633 decrees were wrong, he decreed:
    'His Holiness has decreed that no obstacles exist for those who sustain Copernicus’ affirmation regarding the Earth’s movement in the manner in which it is affirmed today [fixed-sun/moving Earth], even by Catholic authors.

    In 1822 Pope Pius VIII further decreed;
    ‘The most excellent [Holy Office] have decreed that there must be no denial, by the present or by future Masters of the Sacred Apostolic Palace, of permission to print and to publish works which treat of the mobility of the Earth and of the immobility of the sun [the defined heresy in 1616], according to the common opinion of modern astronomers, as long as there are no other contrary indications, on the basis of the decrees of the Sacred Congregation of the Index of 1757 and of this Supreme [Holy Office] of 1820; and that those who would show themselves to be reluctant or would disobey, should be forced under punishments at the choice of [this] Sacred Congregation, with derogation of [their] claimed privileges, where necessary.’

    Then, on 20 May 1833, while deliberating on a new proposed edition of the Index, Pope Gregory XVI decided that it would omit the five [1616 banned] books by Galileo, Copernicus, Kepler, Foscarini and Zúñiga, but that this omission would be made without explicit comment. Gregory XVI is the pope who taught the following:
     
    “Therefore, the Church has, by its divine institution, the power of the magisterium to teach and define matters of faith and morals and to interpret the Holy Scriptures without danger of error.”--- Commissum Divinitus (#4).

    Next Vatican I;
    ‘But since the rules which the holy Synod of Trent salutary decreed concerning on the interpretation of Divine Scripture in order to restrain impetuous minds, are wrongly explained by certain men, We renewing the same decree, declare this to be its intention: that in matters of faith and morals pertaining to the instruction of Christian Doctrine, as must be considered as the true sense of Sacred Scripture which Holy Mother Church has held and holds, whose office it is to judge concerning the true understanding and interpretation of Sacred Scripture; and, for that reason, no one is permitted to interpret Scripture itself contrary to this sense, or even contrary to the unanimous agreement of the Fathers.’--- (Vatican 1, Denz. 1788)

    But along comes Pope Leo XIII' Providissimus deus:
    ‘18: The unshrinking defence of the Holy Scripture, however, does not require that we should equally uphold all the opinions which each of the Fathers or the more recent interpreters have put forth in explaining it; for it may be that, in commenting on passages where physical matters occur, they have sometimes expressed the ideas of their own times [like sunset and sunrise], and thus made statements which in these days have been abandoned as incorrect. Hence, in their interpretations, we must carefully note what they lay down as belonging to faith, or as intimately connected with faith, what they are unanimous in. For “in those things which do not come under the obligation of faith, the saints were at liberty to hold divergent opinions, just as we ourselves are,” according to the saying of St. Thomas Aquinas.’

    Then along came Einstein admitting THE CHURCH OF 1616 AND 1633 HAD NEVER BEEN PROVEN WRONG.

    Two more encyclicals on the interpretation of Scripture by Pope Benedict XV and Pius XII repeated the idea that the Bible was interpreted wrong by Pope Paul V in 1616 and Pope Urban VIII in 1633.

    Finally on to VATICAN II.

    ‘The humble and persevering investigator of the secrets of nature is being led, as it were, by the hand of God in spite of himself, for it is God, the conserver of all things, who made them what they are. We cannot but deplore certain attitudes (not unknown among Christians) deriving from a short-sighted view of the rightful autonomy of science; they have occasioned conflict and controversy and have misled many into opposing faith and science.’ --- Gaudium et spes, # 36.

    So, here we have popes since 1820 contradicting one another and Vatican II accusing its predecessors of making mistakes in their decrees and placing the autonomy of science ABOVE the autonomy of Scripture.

    So much for the NOW voice telling us in this video we must accept everything what popes teach. It was this passage in Vatican II that GUARANTEES it was not a Council any Catholic could take seriously.