Here is a really lovely video with the Saintly and Learned Dr Ralph Martin. He directly addresses the question which some Church commentators have raised about the question of Pope Francis being an anti Pope or Heretic. He does not seem to shrink from agreeing that Pope Francis is a very, very bad Pope indeed and causing all sorts of terrible problems. However he removes any fears that the Holy Father is an actual heretic or anti Pope. One thing strikes me about Ralph Martin is how very, very patient , kind and charitable he is in all this. He does not break the bruised reed. He is so clearly a man of very,very deep prayer and it shows. On the other hand he does not shrink from calling a spade a spade.
Yes, he gets it right on all accounts. I’m glad he is a respected voice for the faithful. Thank you for posting this. I’m still waiting for the pope to correct Marx… if he’s doesn’t, his silence will be taken as consent. He absolutely can not remain silent. Many, many soul’s eternity is at risk and the pope will be held accountable before God. Think of the number of souls who look at his silence as a free pass to continue to live a lifestyle that could devour their soul. God help him….and yes, pray for his conversion.
Thanks @padraig , this is an excellent way to address these controversies recently raised by Patrick Coffin and Taylor Marshall et al.
I always liked Dr Taylor Marshall. An exemplary Catholic. I am astonished he has fallen astray into this. A Warning to us all. What terrible, terrible times. Ralph Martin is so kind and charitable and humble about all. He reminds me of St Francis De Sales or St Phillip Neri, The kind , light , humble touch. Sweet man. But no more watching Taylor or Patrick on utube for me.
Thank you for posting this. Such an excellent careful charitable response to the chaos of this papacy. Ralph Martin is an apostle for our times. And God bless Matt Fradd for doing the interview.
It was a great interview! I learned soooo much from Ralph Martin. What a good man. Yes, to Matt Fradd too!
Ralph Martin said many things are true. But one thing he said is truest of all, that we Catholics need really to brush up on our Faith so that we know what is true and what is not true. I am afraid even many Cardinals and Bishops are heretics at the moment and shamelessly pedalling their lies (and getting away with it..Rome being silent), so we really need to know the truth of things ourselves. I notice one thing they are wildly enthusiastic to promote at the moment and that is that homosexuality as being alright. Probably because they are at it themselves. Another thing I think we need to be aware of is the difference between Formal Heresy and Material Heresy. https://acatholiclife.blogspot.com/2019/10/formal-vs-material-heresy.html Formal vs. Material Heresy By Matthew Heresy is a mortal sin. As stated by the Baltimore Catechism: "The denial of only one article of faith will make a person a heretic and guilty of mortal sin, because the Holy Scripture says: 'Whosoever shall keep the whole law but offend in one point is become guilty of all'" (Q. 1171). Sadly, there are many in the Church today who are heretics - many in the hierarchy who are formal heretics and many of faithful lay Catholics in the pews who are led astray into material heresy. The Catholic Church rightfully asserts and teaches that its doctrines are the authoritative understandings of the Faith taught by our Savior Jesus Christ and that the Holy Ghost protects the Church from falling into error when teaching these doctrines. To deny one or more of those doctrines, therefore, is to deny the faith of Christ entirely. Heresy is both the non-orthodox belief itself, and the act of holding to that belief. However, the Church makes several distinctions as to the seriousness of an individual heterodoxy and its closeness to true heresy. Only a belief that directly contravenes an Article of Faith, or that has been explicitly rejected by the Church, is labelled as actual "heresy." An important distinction is that between formal and material heresy. The difference is one of the heretic's subjective belief about his opinion. The heretic who is aware that his belief is at odds with Catholic teaching and yet continues to cling to his belief pertinaciously is a formal heretic. This sort of heresy is sinful because in this case the heretic knowingly holds an opinion that, in the words of the first edition of the Catholic Encyclopedia, "is destructive of the virtue of Christian faith ... disturbs the unity, and challenges the Divine authority, of the Church" and "strikes at the very source of faith." Material heresy, on the other hand, means that the individual is unaware that his heretical opinion denies, in the words of Canon 751, "some truth which is to be believed by divine and Catholic faith." The opinion of a material heretic may produce the same objective results as formal heresy, but because of his ignorance he commits no sin by holding it. The penalty for a baptised Catholic above the age of 18 who obstinately, publicly, and voluntarily manifests his or her adherence to an objective heresy is automatic excommunication ("latae sententiae") according to Can. 1364 par.1 CIC. A belief that the church has not directly rejected, or that is at variance with less important church teachings, is given the label, sententia haeresi proxima, meaning "opinion approaching heresy." A theological argument, belief, or theory that does not constitute heresy in itself, but which leads to conclusions which might be held to do so, is termed propositio theologice erronea, or "erroneous theological proposition". Finally, if the theological position only suggests but does not necessarily lead to a doctrinal conflict, it might be given the even milder label of sententia de haeresi suspecta, haeresim sapiens, meaning "opinion suspected, or savoring, of heresy." Source: Heresy in the Catholic Church
I like Brian Holdsworth. He comes across as an honest, faithful Catholic. His approach strikes me as the most honest because it has been the most consistent. I like Matt Fradd and Ralph Martin too. But I also like Taylor Marshall, Patrick Coffin Michael Matt and others who are more open about their problems with Pope Francis. I see them all as good Catholics and I prefer not to denounce them for being on the right or wrong side of the "Pope Francis good/Pope Francis bad" issue. Some great saints of the Church have been on the wrong side in similar situations. That those saints didn't have access to social media is irrelevant because I'm sure they used whatever medium was available to them and would be using YouTube, etc. were they living in our time. People who adopted the "nothing to see here" approach to Amoris Laetitia or, worse, promoted it as a great gift to the Church, are less convincing to me. Now that they can no longer deny that there is very much to be seen here, modifying their approach to "yes, something's not quite right but let's all keep the lid on it and condemn Taylor Marshall instead", I'm very reluctant to jump on what appears to me to be an orchestrated bandwagon. Not only does it appear orchestrated, I get the impression that the conductors are the same as the conductors of the "nothing to see" orchestra. Sadly, the people being condemned now are the same people who highlighted the likelihood that Amoris Laetitia wasn't so much about men and women who, having returned to the faith, are struggling in second unions not in conformity with Church teaching on marriage. Rather, it was more about knocking a brick out of the wall of Church teaching against all types of sexual degeneracy. The document they hailed as a testament to Catholic teaching on marriage and the family was actually the opening blow in an ongoing full frontal assault on that teaching. Patrick Coffin and Taylor Marshall are wrong about Pope Francis being a formal heretic/invalid Pope. Maybe they're hypocrites and maybe they aren't. If they are hypocrites, they're surely not alone and they are most definitely not the worst "professional Catholic" hypocrites using social media, some of whom are on first name terms with Bishops. Coffin and Marshall didn't suddenly become devils incarnate any more than their loudest critics are living saints. I prefer to take the good and leave the rest where they all are concerned.
I do have a certain sympathy with those like Patrick Coffin and Dr Taylor Marshall. I do understand that the behaviour of our current Holy Father has driven them into a state of exasperation and beyond. He is, in all probability, the most abominable Pope in history. But my sympathy stops short at Schism. To say the Pope is a heretic and thus no longer the Pope is no small thing. 'Ubi Petrus ibi Ecclesia', 'Where Peter is there is the Church', St Ambrose of Milan.. The most basic charity of all is to the truth. Without truth there can be no charity. It is a parting of the ways moment. It is the very definition of Schism to claim that the See Of Peter is Vacant while occupied by The Vicar of Christ.. to declare that you no longer recognise the Pope is to state by definition that you are no longer Catholic. Tu es Petrus. ..and on this Rock..
I must have missed something. I have not heard Dr Taylor Marshall calling for schism. I have heard the opposite. I have not heard him calling The pope an anti pope either. What I did hear was him talking about the archbishops call to an investigation on the validity of Pope Benedict’s resignation. Am I wrong?
What worries me for Taylor Marshall is that his fame and followers are mostly built on his critiques of Pope Francis and what is wrong within the Church, putting him in the prime condition to be used by the devil to unwittingly sow division and further break down the Church. I felt a great unease when he made that video the night before the consecration planting doubt and fear into his followers' minds about that title for Mary included, that it could actually be pachamama. He said he searched high and low to find legitimate Catholic uses of that title but found none.... Yet Bishop Schneider very shortly after confirmed that there have been multiple legitimate uses of that title! I have no doubt Marshall was being sincere, but he failed in his research and caused many people in the comments to be filled with fear and reluctance to join in with their bishops in the consecration. He caused harm and division. I myself felt much darkness and confusion during and after Marshall's video, and from experience I recognized it as diabolical attack. St. Michael and St. Joseph came to the rescue. But it helped me see Taylor Marshall in a new light... I'm sure he's a sincere and concerned Catholic, but what happened that night, if I was Marshall, would have caused me to take a HUGE step back--not just an apology--but a time for deep prayer and asking God if perhaps I need to change the course of what I'm doing. It is a very serious responsibility when you have a large following of people being influenced in matters of Faith and thoughts and obedience to their Church hierarchy based on your words, interpretations and allegations. The devil has worked his way in there because there are many souls at stake. I don't think I'd want that on my conscience. We should keep Taylor Marshall in our prayers.
I wonder if it might be possible that dwelling overmuch on the negative, the bad things in the Church might not make us vulnerable? Certainly there are many very bad things going on, but there are very,very many good things too. It reminds me a little bit of Lord of the Rings when they hit the bad times it nearly dragged them all down. It is not good to dwell too much on the negatives. It reminds me of Lord Boromir who wanted to steal Frodo's Ring. I will be very interested in what people like Cardinal Burke, Cardinal Mueller, Bishop Schneider and Bishop Strickland have to say about all this.
I have felt an unease with Taylor Marshall for many months. He is a leader of the "critique movement." I have been so done with critiques. It was critique overload, and here comes another critique video, which everyone had to watch or they wouldn't know how to respond to the critiques. Yes, we should keep Taylor Marshall in prayer.
You are spot on - Marshall has become far too 'political' in the religious sphere - 'click - bait'. However, there are serious problems with Amoris Laetitia - one can justify same sex relations using the heteredox statements therein contained and through a false 'interpretation' of the document. Watch out for the pink brigade at the upcoming synod justifying abominable lifestyles. AL needs to be clarified - the Holy Father needs to still reply to the Dubia. One day this Pope will be critiqued and his teachings corrected or clarified. I think the Church of the future will not look to kindly or fondly on his pontiicate. As for us in the present we have to endure the confusion that he has created as his modus operandi is to 'create a mess'.
