Archive for the ‘Dr. Taylor Marshall and Timothy Gordon’ Category

Can the Faithful recognize and resist the pope? I dealt with this question in a 2015 article. However, I recently stumbled upon some teachings from Pope Pius XI that castigates the recognize and resist theology. I highlighted the relevant parts within the context that’s contra R&R-ism.

In Mortalium animos Jan. 6, 1928, Pope Pius XI declared, “#5 Admonished, therefore, by the consciousness of Our Apostolic office that We should not permit the flock of the Lord to be cheated by dangerous fallacies, We invoke, Venerable Brethren, your zeal in avoiding this evil; for We are confident that by the writings and words of each one of you the people will more easily get to know and understand those principles and arguments which We are about to set forth, and from which Catholics will learn how they are to think and act when there is question of those undertakings which have for their end the union in one body, whatsoever be the manner, of all who call themselves Christians…

#7…There are some, indeed, who recognize and affirm that Protestantism, as they call it, has rejected, with a great lack of consideration, certain articles of faith and some external ceremonies, which are, in fact, pleasing and useful, and which the Roman Church still retains. They soon, however, go on to say that that Church also has erred, and corrupted the original religion by adding and proposing for belief certain doctrines which are not only alien to the Gospel, but even repugnant to it.”

#11…Furthermore, in this one Church of Christ no man can be or remain who does not accept, recognize and obey the authority and supremacy of Peter and his legitimate successors. Did not the ancestors of those who are now entangled in the errors of Photius and the reformers, obey the Bishop of Rome, the chief shepherd of souls?

The words “recognize and obey” are exactly opposite to “recognize and resist.”  The R&R crowd doesn’t obey those they call the legitimate successors of Peter. They ignore him, resist him, and reject his teachings. They are most certainly trying to stand in the way of the Vatican 2 popes and implementing Vatican 2 and the novus ordo. Of course, the R&R crowd is correct in rejecting the modernism of the Vatican 2 popes, but their reasoning for doing so is heretical, blasphemous, and just plain stupid.

The underlying principle of Mortalium animos is rejected by the R&R crowd. But then again, every papal document is the Roman Pontiff putting forth his papal authority for the faithful to obey, not to resist.

On Dec. 31, 1929, Pope Pius XI declared in Divini Illius Magistri – On Christian Education: “18. Hence it is that in this proper object of her mission, that is, “in faith and morals, God Himself has made the Church sharer in the divine magisterium and, by a special privilege, granted her immunity from error; hence she is the mistress of men, supreme and absolutely sure, and she has inherent in herself an inviolable right to freedom in teaching.'[10] …20.The Church does not say that morality belongs purely, in the sense of exclusively, to her; but that it belongs wholly to her. …25. The extent of the Church’s mission in the field of education is such as to embrace every nation, without exception, according to the command of Christ: “Teach ye all nations;”[17] and there is no power on earth that may lawfully oppose her or stand in her way. In the first place, it extends over all the Faithful, of whom she has anxious care as a tender mother.”

The whole document is about the importance of getting a good, holy, and true Christian education, which can only come about by following and obeying the teachings of the Roman Pontiff and following his rules for this education. What’s the point if the Catholic Church is propagating error like every other religion as the R&R claim?

The proposition of the R&R crowd makes the Catholic Church out to be the biggest hypocritical organization in the world. It would mean that only the Catholic Church can lead people astray with error while all other religions are condemned by the Catholic Church for doing so. It would mean only the Catholic Church can be heretical while Protestantism and Eastern Orthodoxy are condemned by the Catholic Church as false religions when they do so.

That’s why the R&R position is blasphemous.

On Dec. 31, 1930, Pope Pius XI promulgated Casti Connubii – On Christian Marriage.

Once again, the pope is implementing his supreme authority over the faithful. He declares in #104:

Wherefore, let the faithful also be on their guard against the overrated independence of private judgment and that false autonomy of human reason. For it is quite foreign to everyone bearing the name of a Christian to trust his own mental powers with such pride as to agree only with those things which he can examine from their inner nature, and to imagine that the Church, sent by God to teach and guide all nations, is not conversant with present affairs and circumstances; or even that they must obey only in those matters which she has decreed by solemn definition as though her other decisions might be presumed to be false or putting forward insufficient motive for truth and honesty. Quite to the contrary, a characteristic of all true followers of Christ, lettered or unlettered, is to suffer themselves to be guided and led in all things that touch upon faith or morals by the Holy Church of God through its Supreme Pastor the Roman Pontiff, who is himself guided by Jesus Christ Our Lord.

The approach of the R&R crowd is to be able to resist, dismiss, and disdain every papal teaching that they think comes short of proclaiming in an extraordinary manner dogmas affected by the mark of infallibility. In principle, the R&R crowd is really no different than the liberals who also reject the teaching of Casti Connubii against contraception. [1]

The pick and choose mentality of the R&R crowd is what makes them the worst of hypocrites. They profess to be obedient and faithful Catholics but are neither.

Jesus told us where the hypocrites go in Matt. 24:51 and it’s not paradise.



[1] 54. But no reason, however grave, may be put forward by which anything intrinsically against nature may become conformable to nature and morally good. Since, therefore, the conjugal act is destined primarily by nature for the begetting of children, those who in exercising it deliberately frustrate its natural power and purpose sin against nature and commit a deed which is shameful and intrinsically vicious. (Casti Connubii)


Read Full Post »

Dr. Taylor Marshall recently posted a video on the late Fr. Malachi Martin and sedevacantism. [1]

Besides the subject of Fr. Malachi, Dr. Marshall and Gordon give reasons why they aren’t sedevacantists. However, they innocently (I believe) present a false narrative of sedevacantism. Their misgiving in accepting sedevacantism is the result of misunderstanding the position and the facts about the Church.

Both of these men seem like fine gentlemen. Hopefully, this post will encourage them and others to take a closer look into the issues and reconsider the possibility that sedevacantism is the correct position.

There are 7 main misconceptions about sedevacantism that’s implied in their video:

1.      Gordon’s words, “There is no papacy. The papacy ended” at 1:18:18 and Dr. Marshall’s reference to Vatican I on perpetual successors (implying perhaps that sedevacantism doesn’t fit.)

Sedevacantism is a position that there’s no current pope. It’s not a position that the papacy or perpetual successors has ended. A long interregnum is the proper way of understanding the situation. Vatican I didn’t say nor could it say that there must at all times be a pope. As long as the principle of perpetuity is present (and it is), all is needed to fulfill the declaration of Vatican I.

2.      Sedes are counter-factual on Fatima.

This objection is more about opinions of sedevacantists rather than sedevacantism. However, I have presented all the necessary answers concerning Fatima here:

Our Lady’s Fatima Message and the Consecration of Russia

and here:

The Hidden Message of Fatima

3.      The Gates of hell have prevailed if sedevacantism is true.

This objection is answered here: The Gates of Hell and Sedevacantism

4.      All the world’s cardinals, bishops, priests, and laymen follow an antipope, which is impossible.

Rev. Francis X Doyle, S.J. explains: “The Church is a visible society with a visible Ruler. If there can be any doubt about who that visible Ruler is, he is not visible, and hence, where there is any doubt about whether a person has been legitimately elected Pope, that doubt must be removed before he can become the visible head of Christ’s Church. Blessed Bellarmine, S.J., says: ‘A doubtful Pope must be considered as not Pope’; and Suarez, S.J., says: ‘At the time of the Council of Constance there were three men claiming to be Pope…. Hence, it could have been that not one of them was the true Pope, and in that case, there was no Pope at all…. (The Defense of the Catholic Church, 1927)

Notice that it is possible that everyone could follow an antipope since everyone followed one of the 3 so-called popes during the Great Western Schism.

5.      Communion with a false pope makes one a non-Catholic.

As was shown in the previous objection, this is not necessarily so.

6.      There were no sedes until the 1970’s.

This objection has no bearing on the question because Catholics can be mistaken on the issue. However, there were sedevacantists in 1958. Vatican insider Dr. Elizabeth Gerstner didn’t recognize Roncalli. I’m sure there were others. Jesuit Father Joaquin Saenz Y Arriaga was a doctor of Theology, Church History, and Canon Law. He was one of the first sedevacantists recognizing it in the mid to late 1960’s, perhaps earlier. He was a highly educated and courageous priest. He wrote a devastating critique of Paul VI in “The New Montinian Church” published in 1971. One of his followers, Fr. Moises Carmona would later become a sedevacantist bishop. He was killed in a tragic car accident in 1991. His body was later to be found incorrupt.

7.      There’s no documentation that Roncalli and Montini were Freemasons.

First, I’m happy to hear that they acknowledge that a pope can’t be a Freemason. Now if a document was presented that Roncalli and Montini were initiated into Freemasonry, would it be accepted? Not only is there documentation that they were Freemasons, but their words and actions corresponded to the beliefs of the secret societies. I suggest reading the facts about Roncalli and Montini below:

Pope St. John XXIII or Antipope John XXIII?

Pope St. Paul VI or Antipope Paul VI?

I invite Dr. Marshall and Timothy Gordon to contact me by email or phone (which I’ll provide by email) to discuss these topics or other aspects of sedevacantism.


[1] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z0SiRVsrO84

Read Full Post »