We know that Pope Francis believes traditionalists to be mentally compromised and rigid and therefore need psychological therapy in order to be accompanied to the synodal Church of what’s happening now.
That’s a stereotype of the pope, but with all stereotypes, there is an element of truth in it.
But, the blog, “Where Peter is” is making an incredible claim that Pope Francis clamped down on the TLM because of Taylor Marshall. WPI thinks that he conspired with the man who stole the pachamama statute in a Roman Church and threw it into the Tiber River and had it videotaped. This happened during the Amazon Synod.
We all know that this illegal and immoral act was condemned by the Vatican and made Pope Francis furious. But who knew that Taylor Marshall is the reason for Pope Francis clamping down on the TLM?!?
Let’s be clear here. The German bishops are calling for a new Church that allows for sexual immorality such as homosexual sex freely experienced, same sex and non-binary sexual partners receiving Church blessings and marriage and that Scripture and Tradition are wrong about abortion, homosexuality and chastity.
They want all of these things recognized by the Church, things that are illegal in some places and historically considered immoral by the Church.
I don’t condone breaking into Church and stealing statues to destroy them, but if immorality is to be considered moral now, by the Germans, it doesn’t take a leap to say that vandalism and theft can be seen moral too.
Btw, I believe theft and vandalism are immoral as well as what the German Church is promoting.
Read the incredible “Where Peter is” commentary on Taylor Marshall. Btw, I never read or watch Taylor Marshall—it’s a waste of time:
47 comments:
This post begs a number of questions and I will ask them in sincerity.
1) Except for one of the delusionary people who post here, it is generally agreed and certainly a matter of record that the "Pachman Mama" is a false god of indigenous people from the Amazon.
2) My religion teachers generally agreed that false gods are actually demons.
3) Whether or not they ARE demons, it is generally agreed that false gods have NO PLACE in the Catholic sanctuary, home, prayer life or anything else that we live as Catholics.
4) If something is evil or inimical to our faith to this degree, do we not have a responsibility to obey the higher law of God and remove it from a place where we worship the Son of God, who came to free us from false belief?
5) St. Nicholas, St. Patrick, St. Olaf, St. Benedict, St. Francis Xavier and many other saints DESTROYED idols of false gods. We admire and praise them for their integrity and courage, yet if we imitate them we are somehow to blame because the code of civil law and tolerance somehow supersedes all of this?
6) It seems to be part of the zeitgeist of our time that the Catholic Church, which was a civilizing force in the Americas (and everywhere else) somehow "violated" the indigenous pagans by introducing Christianity to them. While I am not an expert, could this not possibly be a type of "heresy"--especially the current fad of apologizing all over our selves for stopping barbaric tribes from continuing their bloody rituals?
I am not being sarcastic, but sincere in asking, am I missing something? I would hope that Father McDonald or one of the other priests here (except Father Kavanaugh--no, thank you) could provide an answer.
Father McDonald, Rorate Caeli had initiated that claim a few days ago. You may have missed New Catholic's claim in question as he initiated the claim on twitter, rather than his blog.
New Catholic's charge against Taylor Marshall had created a stir the other day among many trads.
Rorate Caeli's denunciation of Taylor Marshall is not new. Example: On September 8, 2021 A.D., Rorate Caeli had denounced Taylor Marshall as a "grifter":
https://twitter.com/roratecaeli/status/1435494989656637442
=======================================================================================
Actually, on July 19, 2022 A.D., Robert Nugent released a youtube video in which his Vatican sources had informed him that Traditionis Custodes was a response to the horrific right-wing, radtrad extremism that, among others, included Taylor Marshall's, as well as Archbishop Viganò's nonsense...and that Rome had determined that they were compelled finally to confront said nonsense, in regard especially to radtrad extremism.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HcgpMoCYHAo
But, I believe, unlike Robert Nugent's claim in question, New Catholic the other day had claimed their "reliable sources" had reported that Taylor Marshall's horrific involvement with the Our Lady of the Amazon statues is the reason for Traditionis Custodes having been issued.
Taylor Marshall is to blame, according to New Catholic.
Pax.
Mark Thomas
Father McDonald, New Catholic the other day had initiated the following claim...in turn, that prompted Mike Lewis' response in question.
New Catholic declared:
"we are free to affirm for sure, from the most reliable sources, that the whole thought process that led to Traditionis Custodes started with Marshall's pachamama grift stunt.
"Francis was not particularly fond of Traditionalists (though he was of the SSPX), but his instinct was to keep a mostly aloof attitude regarding us."
"Just months before the Amazon Synod, he approved additional optional prefaces and saints' days for the 1962 Missal."
"His attitude hardened when he felt personally humiliated by the stunt made up by Taylor Marshall."
"Unfortunately, it was a premeditated stunt with the intent to generate views, clicks, and MONEY."
"Marshall was presented to Francis as the prototypical Trad."
"Videos of Marshall were actually shown to him, with all his outlandish behavior, and our enemies in Francis' circle smelled blood. They had the drafts of Traditionis custodes ready and all they needed was for Francis to change from aloofness to hatred."
"Marshall managed that."
Pax.
Mark Thomas
Mark, you seem to confirm my point—that a “wing nut” in the neo-trad community, influenced the sitting Pope of the Catholic Church took away from normal Catholics who are in full communion with the pope and the Church, a form of the liturgy given to them by two successors of Saint Peter, one still living, an emeritus pope who showed true pastoral love for these Catholics and had the smell of them (these sheep) on him. The reigning pope, Pope Francis turned from aloofness from all Catholics who love and celebrate the TLM to hatred for them because of one Catholic with nefarious plans.
If that isn’t shocking, then I don’t know what is! It is beyond shocking to downright scandalous. You would think that a reigning pope would be above this sort of thing, to say the least and it portrays Pope Francis as very thin skinned to say the least.
But worse, the Germans, including high ranking bishops and cardinals, have humiliated this pope in a way that Taylor Marshall and his antics never could and they have done so by ignoring and flaunting Pope Francis’ letter to them, weak, btw, compared to TC, and most recently when they came to the Vatican had had a talking to by the pope and two high ranking cardinals in the Vatican Curia.
Yet, the pope has yet to crack down on the Germans. I would recommend to the pope he ask for the resignation or every heterodox bishop in Germany and place the Church under censure and designate a high ranking cardinal to be the overseers of accompanying the Church in Germany back to full Communion with the perennial Magisterium of the Church.
In other words, Taylor Marshall does not deserve any recognition from the pope let alone a negative influence, whereas Pope Francis’ brother bishops in Germany should truly concern and alarm the Holy Father and far beyond any alarm Taylor created.
And Mark, I must correct you idea that Pachamama is a Christian symbol, even the Vatican stated shortly after the stunt of throwing it into the Tiber river that it. Is NOT A CHRISTIAN SYMBOL. This from Catholic News Service in 2020:
According to the transcript provided by the Vatican, the pope referred to the statues as "Pachamama," the name traditionally given to an Andean fertility goddess, which can be roughly translated as "Mother Earth."
While it is unclear whether he was using it colloquially, the pope's use of the term "Pachamama" will likely further ongoing debate regarding the exact nature of the statutes, and what they represent.
They had been described as representing "Our Lady of the Amazon," and some journalists initially suggested they represented the Blessed Virgin Mary. Vatican spokesmen have said that they represent "life," and are not religious symbols, but some journalists and commentators have raised questions about the origins of the symbols, and whether they were religious symbols of Amazonian indigenous groups.
Paolo Ruffini, head of the Vatican's communications office, said last week that "fundamentally, it represents life. And enough. I believe to try and see pagan symbols or to see... evil, it is not," he said, adding that "it represents life through a woman."
He equated the image to that of a tree, saying "a tree is a sacred symbol."
Father McDonald, what I confirmed is that New Catholic claimed that his supposed "reliable sources" had informed him that Taylor Marshall's horrific behind-the-scenes involvement in the situation in question is responsible for Traditionis Custodes.
We do not have any proof that New Catholic's claim in question is valid.
Is New Catholic a reliable source?
Example: On January 19, 2022 A.D., New Catholic had claimed:
"Francis is very sick with cancer, including the Pancreas.”
"Source: our most trustworthy sources. It explains the violent attacks against Tradition, that will only grow stronger, as it always happens as the death of a tyrant draws near."
For what it's worth, even Peter Kwasniewski, who has a strong link to New Catholic, declared:
"I have written for Rorate Caeli for many years now."
"I would like to go on the record as saying that the idea that Taylor Marshall's YouTube channel or the tossing of Pachamama statues into the Tiber is responsible for Traditionis Custodes is not one that can be taken seriously."
[ADDENDUM. "If I could see concrete evidence that TM+Tschugguel was the "trigger" for TC, I would of course accept it. It's just that I've been around long enough to know that "unnamed high sources" in Rome can actually be... wrong."]
Pax.
Mark Thomas
Father McDonald, I consider the following as a key takeaway in regard to New Catholic/Taylor Marshall issue:
New Catholic the other day issued a monumental flip-flop in regard to Pope Francis' supposed mistreatment of "traditionalists."
From the dawn of Pope Francis' Pontificate, New Catholic, as well as one trad after another, had claimed that Pope Francis hated trads, and worked regularly to destroy trads/the Traditional Catholic Movement/TLM.
Now, New Catholic has portrayed Pope Francis as follows:
Until Taylor Marshall's Tiber River horrific stunt, Pope Francis, had maintained an "aloof," but favorable approach to "traditionalists."
Examples of Pope Francis' positive interactions with trads that New Catholic had cited:
New Catholic stated that "Just months before the Amazon Synod, he (Pope Francis) approved additional optional prefaces and saints' days for the 1962 Missal."
New Catholic also declared that Pope Francis is "fond" of the SSPX.
New Catholic's latest, far more favorable assessment of Pope Francis' relationship with "traditionalists" has constituted a monumental flip-flop on New Catholic's part.
New Catholic has shattered his former narrative — a narrative that has long been popular among "traditionalists" — that, for years, Pope Francis had hated trads...and had worked to destroy trads.
Pax.
Mark Thomas
Let’s call a spade a spade. PF is a mean spirited old man lacking in commonsense and decency. He has been an unmitigated disaster that only a toady could adore.
We may have confounded this discussion by allowing two independent points to compete for attention. 1 Was it wrong to remove a pagan idol from the altar of God and cast it into a river? 2) Did it motivate Pope Francis to strike out at adherents of the Old form of the Mass?
1) Medieval literature is full of stories of Christians overcoming demons and various spirits in various ways. They could be banished, bound, and even converted. Did Pope Francis think to pray for the Pacha mama to at least render it inert? I am concerned that Pope Francis may have allowed blasphemy blinded by his own contempt of the Pacha mama, and the culture that brought it in the spirit of ecumenism. This risks at least offensive to the real God if not dangerously exposing us to the powers of that evil spirit.
2) Pope Francis appears to be a vindictive man, so it is possible that he could have reacted this way. However, the distance between the events makes me doubt they are related. Rather, I think the Pope recklessly relies on the faithfulness of adherents to the TLM (sic) to keep them in the Church while he continues to make allowances for progressives in hopes that the progressives will, in Jesuit fashion, talk themselves out of their heresies and remain in the fold.
Mark, disjointed quotes do not an argument make. Pachmama is a fertility goddess symbol and Francis called it by name. Period.
I am unaware of any breaking and entering inyolved in its removal.Last I heard, the guy who took it just walked in.
And, I have a hard time calling someone, who removed a pagan fertility goddess statue from a consecrated church, a thief. By those lights, the guy who overturned moneychanger tables was a vandal.
If anyone should have blame affixed, it is the guy who allowed a controversial figurine to be placed in a church.
The theft did not prevent that same responsible guy from later placing offering bowls to that figure upon or in front of the very altar on which the sacrifice of the Mass was offered.
Make all the excuses you wish, Mark, with three entries of expanded quotes, but this was a real or perceived sacrilege, and was hound to provoke reaction, the only suprise being the reaction was as muted as it was.
"Save your people, O God, and bless your inheritance". From the Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom, derived from Psalms, 29:9
Fr. AJM: "We know that Pope Francis believes traditionalists to be mentally compromised and rigid and therefore need psychological therapy in order to be accompanied to the synodal Church of what’s happening now. That’s a stereotype of the pope, but with all stereotypes, there is an element of truth in it."
How so? The job of the pontiff is to administer the sacraments, preach the gospels, evangelize and protect the tradition as its temporary steward, among other things.
Couldn't one argue that the pontiff's aversion to his "inheritance" also rises to the level of being disordered and contrary to the role he willingly assumed? Imagine if a politician, sworn to uphold the U.S. Constitution tread upon it, slandered it, amended it almost to oblivion and derided its adherents as disordered? There would be civil war. Though secular, isn't there a similarity here? Isn't the framework being laid for a civil war within the Church a.k.a. a schism?
As for the argument tying Marshall and the removal of the figurine to Francis coming down on traditionalists with an iron fist, I find that argument specious,,as he was already quite hostile.
But, given Francis' propensity for for name calling, exiling those who disagree with him, his very public flashes of anger, etc, I would not put it past him to take out his anger at a single person by inflicting punishment on a wide swath of other folk.
It is his self-portrait he has given to posterity, and so such conclusions seem almost inevitable.
Bob said..."Mark, disjointed quotes do not an argument make."
I do not know what you're talking about.
===================================================================================
Bob said..."Pachmama is a fertility goddess symbol and Francis called it by name. Period."
Here is the official response from Rome about that. Period.
Pope Francis' official statement in question had employed the words "pachamama statues."
"Pachamama" was in italics.
The official statement from Rome explained that Pope Francis had employed the word/name "pachamama" as initially that had been the common manner in which the Italian news media had reported the story in question.
Rome's official statement then emphasized that Pope Francis had not referenced the statues as "goddesses."
In turn, such news media outfits as Reuters reported said story accurately.
Example: Reuters, October 25, 2019 A.D.
"In his remarks, the pope used the phrase “the pachamama statues” but in the transcript the word pachamama was in italics."
"Vatican spokesman Matteo Bruni said the pope used the word as a means to identify the statues because that is the way they have become known in the Italian media and not as a reference to the goddess."
Pax.
Mark Thomas
Mark, so, once the poop hit the fan over statements made live, damage control italicizes and decapitalzes the statement in their transcript to give them wiggle room for denial.....the Vatican under Francis is famous for cleaning up what Francis says for the official record in very blatant ways.
All you prove with this is the blather the Vatican spouts to cover his blunders, and your own knee jerk fanboyism utterly devoid of critical thinking skills when it comes to this papacy.
Sophia here: Taylor Marshall himself addresses this report. This is an excellent discussion-from the "horse's mouth" so to speak! Isn't this the best source?
"Did Pope Francis Watch Taylor Marshall's Podcast and Restrict the Latin Mass over Pachamama?"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P2hH9N2Yx3c
Bob, here is undeniable proof that you are wrong.
You believe that Pope Francis had identified the statues as the goddess Pachamama...then Rome went into damage control...covered for Pope Francis by having noted that "pachamama" had been italicized...that it was all to cover for Pope Francis.
Well, here is the first sentence of Pope Francis' original statement/transcript:
“Good afternoon. I want to say a word about the statues of the pachamama that were taken from the church of the Transpontina – which were there without idolatrous intentions – and were thrown into the Tiber."
"Pachamama" was in italics...but it was all a cover story, as Pope Francis had said "pachamama." Really?
In that very first sentence, in which he used the term "pachamama," Pope Francis had declared that there was not anything idolatrous...not any intention...to have linked the statues to idolatry.
If Pope Francis had acknowledged that the statues were actually idols that represented the goddess Pachamama, then it would have been impossible for Pope Francis, in that same sentence, to have declared that statues were not connected to idolatry.
Pope Francis had made it clear from the beginning that the statues were not idols...that the statues could not in any way be linked to paganism.
That is a fact.
It is undeniable that Pope Francis had employed "pachamama" in the colloquial sense...under the name (pachamama) as used popularly by the italian news media, just as Rome's official statement had noted.
That proves that Rome did not attempt to cover for Pope Francis.
There was not any need to cover for him as Pope Francis had rejected clearly the notion that the statues represented a goddess...the goddess Pachamama.
Pax.
Mark Thomas
Mark, you are beating the wrong horse. The pope used the correct name for Pachamama but he knew that it is a pagan goddess and of the pagan culture of the Amazon. Thus he knew he had to distance himself from the paganism of this image, which has never been “baptized” and used as an image of the BVM, and thus he said he had no intention to use the pagan image or statue in a pagan way. But in fact, that is what it came across as. As with so much that the Pope does and says, he speaks out of and acts out of both sides of his mouth and thus creates scandal and confusion by the incoherence of so much that is said and said in different ways at different times.
Pachamama, like the pagan festivals of Halloween and Christmas (prior to Christ, in terms of the season and meaning) could be baptized into a Christian symbol and I would welcome that. But it would have to undergo a thorough Christian conversion and be purified of its pagan elements. THAT HAS NOT HAPPENED YET!
He speaks out of both sides of his Divine mouth, Father McDonald!
Mark, you are again flopping like a fish on a hook. quibbling as to italics and capitalization, when Francis used the Pachmama name, and then you quoting Francis' remarks in damage control as definitive. If he had taken part in homage to a statue of Apollo, and then denied it was a pagan god, you would say that also was definitive. When all the world knows these are pagan gods.
The fact is, and video and photos show, the rites in which he participated had zero Christianity to them, and were Amazonian shamanism. Francis is famous for such psychotic statements, and it IS psychotic when you call a pagan god not a pagan god. This is the POPE lying for the record.
As an fyi, all that native hocus pocus was largely a sham, most the population now lives in squalor in the cities, and the native elements all a hodge podge combined with whatever else they have absorbed in the cities, and bear as much resemblence to Christianity as does voodoo.
Bob,
You nailed it: "...devoid of critical thinking..."
I apologize for the length of this post, but...
1). Why the dismissive attitude towards Taylor Marshall? While I admit that he is a bit tendentious (and tedious), he is not all bad. His book Infiltration has some very good points in it. For me, he is sort of like a theological version of Sean Hannity: I agree with a lot of what he says, but I get irritated listening to him after a short time. Maybe he was a provocateur of the Pacman Mama flotilla, but the man responsible was...
2). Alexander Tschugguel. I don't know a whole lot about this young Austrian Catholic activist, save what could be found in a few internet articles, but was his idea all that bad? As I asked before (and nobody has yet answered) why do we admire saints who destroy pagan idols, yet condemn a young Catholic man for doing the same today? If God is the same yesterday, today and forever, there can be no "evolution" of tolerance for paganism in the Church. Even Cardinal Burke, when confronted about Tschugguel's roundup of ugly idols, replied, "Having listened to Alexander’s statement regarding his actions, I can only express my respect for him and my gratitude for his courageous witness to the faith." (https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/09/opinion/cardinal-burke-douthat.html)
3). If we go down Paolo Ruffini's path (as too many Delusional Catholics are wont to do) of identifying and excusing everything because it is "sacred", it soon becomes ridiculous.
What do I mean? In one example, we respect motherhood because it is sacred. We practice continence and honor the sacrament of marriage because human life is sacred. But now, we have people telling us that love is "sacred", so if two men are "in love" with each other, that too is sacred, and before you know it, sodomy is "sacred" and...well it just devolves into more and more blasphemous tripe.
The Pacman Mama is a pagan idol. It represents a false god. It has NO PLACE in Catholic worship, Catholic prayer, or even consideration of anyone who claims to be a Catholic. It is a emblem of primitive ignorance and it is hideous. Catholics owe NO APOLOGY to any indigenous peoples for bringing them the Catholic faith and the virtue-signalling theatrics of popes, bishops and priests apologizing for the missionary efforts of the Church, or worse yet, INCORPORATING paganism into Catholic activities of any sort is confusing and destructive. If more of our Cardinals were like Bishop Strickland, this would never happen.
But, pardon my frankness, that would mean some of them would have to grow a pair.
Father McDonald, thank you for your response.
We disagree in monumental fashion with each other in regard to the topic in question.
We also are in disagreement in regard to your assessment of Pope Francis...that he speaks supposedly "out of and acts out of both sides of his mouth and thus creates scandal and confusion by the incoherence..."
Anyway, we disagree with each other. I accept that fact.
Thank you for having allowed me to offer comments in regard to the Our Lady of the Amazon statues. I will leave it at that.
I appreciate that you permit on your blog frank discussions.
In that regard, I think of our recent frank, very hard-hitting, no holds barred discussion about Gilligan's Island.
:-)
Father McDonald, may you enjoy good health, as well as many blessed years.
Pax.
Mark Thomas
Bob said..."Mark, you are again flopping like a fish on a hook. quibbling as to italics and capitalization...
Okay. Yeah. Right. Sure.
But as I am flopping like a fish, I imagine that I am a carp, as I am always...carping about something.
Anyway, Bob, you believe as you will.
In turn, I will stand with the Vicar of Christ, as well as the holy priests/Holy People of God who organized/conducted the beautiful, orthodox, Vatican Gardens event that included the Our Lady of the Amazon statues.
Bob, have a peaceful Sunday.
Pax.
Mark Thomas
Bob,
You are dealing with someone impervious to reason. He’s a broken record of papalotry
With no lack of compassion towards carp, carping or flopping fish:
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/09/opinion/cardinal-burke-douthat.html:
When Pope Francis apologized for the treatment of the statues, he called them Pachamama statues. Pachamama is an Amazonian fertility goddess whose name means Mother Earth. In so doing, he inadvertently gave weight to the idea that these statues were pagan idols. This strengthens the position of the dissenters, and possibly justifies their choice to throw the statues out of the church.
Some Catholics defended the use of the statues, arguing that they are an Amazonian depiction of the Virgin Mary, a sort of “Our Lady of the Amazon.” This would be an example of contextualizing the Catholic faith using Amazonian symbols and practices. However, the Vatican officially denied that the statues are depictions of the Virgin Mary, so this argument fails. Another defense was that the statues were symbolic representations of the idea of life. Since the statues were venerated in religious rituals, this argument also fails.
While the actions of the dissenters may seem extreme, the Vatican is at fault for its unclear stance on the statues, which only seemed to confirm their provenance as pagan idols. While a plausible defense could be made (though it would be difficult given the aforementioned statements), the Vatican needs to recognize that many laypeople are skeptical these days. In a time when the church has covered up sex abuse and the Pope has proposed oveturning traditional doctrines, fewer and fewer parishioners are going to give the Vatican the benefit of the doubt.
As it stands, the actions and arguments of conservative Catholics are more justified. At best, the Vatican was careless in using Amazonian idols in the synod’s proceedings. There needs to be either a clear explanation logically accounting for why Pachamama images were used, or an apology for using them without good reason.
https://www.joshuatcharles.com/blog/2020/4/24/pachamama-is-a-demon-testimony-from-missionaries:
We traveled to a hill outside Huancayo. On the hill sits Cruz de la Paz, which means the Cross of Peace. This is a large cross that overlooks the city of Huancayo. It is a place of pilgrimage for faithful, but also a gathering place for pagan worship. An altar of cement sits beneath the cross. Inscriptions and graffiti had been placed on the cross which identified it as an altar to Pachamama and other pagan deities. Locals know this is a Catholic place, but it is also a place where sacrifices are made to pagan deities, especially Pachamama and her child/husband, Inti. Surrounding the altar and cross were many stone altars erected by hand. Fires had burned around and near these smaller altars. You could see multiple Satanic and masonic symbols in the area. Directly behind the large cross to the right, situated below the hill, is a small town called Cullpa Alta. Fires were burning in the town, and smoke could be seen rising from the town.
We asked the locals among us what was happening. They said the city was celebrating El Dia de Santiago. They said it is a festival that appears to be Catholic but is anything but. They described a scene in which Catholic celebrations were mixed with pagan Incan rituals. They described a week of city-wide orgies and celebrations in and outside the church. The festival is an amalgamation of Catholic and pagan rituals. The rituals celebrate the fertility goddess Pachamama. One local literally said, “Nine months from now, another group of bastard children will be born because everyone is encouraged to have as much sex as possible with as many people as possible. Children will be born without fathers.” We pressed for more details and the locals said the Church (Catholic Church) does nothing. They say nothing. It is allowed, and it even happens within the walls of the church. We were shocked to hear this, but all indications and observations gave reason to believe this was true.
MORE
https://chi-usa.com/cardinal-burke-catholics-have-our-lady-of-guadalupe-as-mother-not-pachamama/:
EWTN’s Fr. Mitch Pacwa, SJ, who has served in the Andes, described the use of the carved wooden figure as a “major scandal.”
Cardinal Burke has spoken out before about the reverencing of the Pachamama statues. During a December 8 interview with a French television station, Burke said that “diabolic forces” had entered the Vatican with the idol and that reparation was necessary to defeat them.”
“Something very grave happened during the special assembly of the Bishops’ Synod for the Amazon region. An idol was introduced into St Peter’s Basilica – the figure of a demonic force,” he said.
“Therefore reparation is necessary and also prayers, so that the diabolical forces that entered with this idol are vanquished by the grace of God, by Christ who wants St Peter’s Basilica to be purified of the sacrilegious act that took place during the Synod.”
Several other prelates, including Cardinal Gerhard Müller, Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò, Bishop Athanasius Schneider, and Bishop Rudolf Voderholzer of Regensburg, have criticized the use of the image at the Synod on the Amazon.
Mark Thomas,
You are an empty suit and are ruining a once fine blog. Buzz off. Otherwise, Father McDonald will lost the sane posters who come here to comment.
TJM,
I'm sorry, but that just won't do.
Unless someone is a "troll" deliberately provoking or regularly bullying someone on a blog, I don't think we have any call for demanding that others "buzz off"--tempting as it may be.
This is a free and open forum. Like you and, probably, many others, I look at you-know-who's posts and as soon as I see the long-winded mini-bites and "pax" sign-off, I tend to roll my eyes and move on to the next post. He's written me off as an "insult artist" and, sometimes I have been. Most of us aren't "all good" or "all bad" and we must--WE MUST try not to paint others into a corner as either "black" or "white" or however we wish to define them. There are other people who post here who demonstrate far more serious anti-social behaviors in print than this person. Try to look upon him as a penance to endure. He probably looks at us that way.
From reviews of Marshall's "Infiltration"
"When the book became available for purchase, I bought both the Kindle edition and print ver-sions. As I proceeded to read, I noted Marshall’s lack of scholarship. There were improper citations (and in many places no citations at all), and a demonstrable lack of critical thinking. There was noreal original research or contribution. The book was poorly edited, and, by all appearances, had a “rushed” look about it."
"To my great sadness, Sophia Institute Press has just published Taylor R. Marshall’s Infiltration: The Plot to Destroy the Church from Within. The publisher is offering it under its “CRISIS Publications” imprint, designed to address problems “with clarity, cogency, and force” through books that are “destined to become all-time classics.” Infiltration is certainly an all-time classic…in the category of conspiracy theories."
"I was sent a pre-publication copy of Taylor Marshall’s Infiltration. I read the book with interest, but didn’t discover anything new."
"Unfortunately, Infiltration is a work full of innuendo. It would be tedious to expand upon every unsubstantiated innuendo Dr. Marshall presents as fact."
"Infiltration fails as a serious and sober look at the problems facing the Catholic Church."
A lot of symmetry between Fr K’s and MT’s writing style!
To be fair on Dr. Marshall's book - here are the current Amazon stats:
https://www.amazon.com/Infiltration-Plot-Destroy-Church-Within/dp/1622828461/ref=cm_cr_arp_d_product_top?ie=UTF8
4.8 out of 5 stars 4,628 ratings
It has a solid five-star rating on average.
Kev - And 70 millions copies of "Fifty Shades of Gray" were sold, too. Popularity means exactly what?
Jeff Mirius wrote: "It is hard to know where to begin a review, since discussing the book is rather like pointing out the absurdity of a crazy relative who always has an answer to every objection, pulled out of a world that exists only in his head. The fundamental stupidity of the book arises from the author’s felt need to explain the normal human condition in terms of a series of conspiracies. Developments and ideas the author considers bad—from the loss of the Papal States through the Second Vatican Council and right up to the current pontificate—are ascribed to the secret machinations of the Masons, the Modernists, the Communists, the gays, the St. Galen Mafia, you name it.
Infiltration, as I have indicated, displays an understanding of human history typical of your mad relative. What else can we expect from a book which makes wild assertions about plots, conspiracies and complex theological or institutional problems, each of which the author claims to treat decisively and beyond doubt in roughly three to five pages!"
Marshall misquotes Nostrae Aetate when he wrote, "Pope Paul VI’s eager enthusiasm for ecumenism is rooted in this document [Nostra aetate] that presupposes that false religions can and do lift the soul to ‘perfect liberation,’ ‘supreme illumination,’ and ‘submission to His inscrutable decrees.’ Pope Leo XIII and Pope Saint Pius X would not have agreed with these theological assertions, . . . his thinking conformed to Freemasonic goals . . ."
NA doesn't make this claim. It makes the unicity of the Catholic Church very clear: "The Catholic Church rejects nothing that is true and holy in these religions. She regards with sincere reverence those ways of conduct and of life, those precepts and teachings which, though differing in many aspects from the ones she holds and sets forth, nonetheless often reflect a ray of that Truth which enlightens all men. Indeed, she proclaims, and ever must proclaim Christ ‘the way, the truth, and the life’ (John 14:6), in whom men may find the fullness of religious life, in whom God has reconciled all things to Himself."
Another reviewer wrote, "Dr. Marshall's book demonstrates that he is one of those lost ones who want the Church to turn back the clock and go back to the way things used to be: the Tridentine Mass, popes who exercise temporal as well as spiritual power, a Church patterned after the Council of Trent as opposed to the Church of the Second Vatican Council. He wants to hop in Mr. Peabody's Wayback machine and pretend that the Age of Enlightenment did not happen; that the French Revolution did not occur; that Italian unification did not take place; or, that the rise of nationalism, socialism, communism, scientism, existentialism, modernism, and emotivism/relativism, did not take hold in Western civilization. Upon reading Dr. Marshall's book, it comes across not so much of a diagnosis and cure for what ails the Church, but a salve to soothe hurt feelings of a group of Catholics who feel left behind by a Church seeks to proclaim the Gospel in a post-modern world. He longs for a world where the words "Ressourcement" or "Aggiornamento" had never been uttered."
So Kev, a bit more on why Taylor Marshall is, as Fr. ALLAN McDonald says, "a waste of time."
Just a click or two will take you to Marshall's SHOCKING podcast of MONDAY, DECEMBER 5, 2022, # 898: "Jill Biden puts Baphomet Demon in White House as Christmas Decoration – Dr. Taylor Marshall [Podcast]"
No, the image claimed by Marshall to be a "demon" is a carving on a mirror frame in the War Room in the White House. The frame was carved ca 1790 and given to the White House in 1946. The depiction of the demon in question, a winged human figure with the head and feet of a goat, was not created until 1854 by French occultist Eliphas Levi. The mirror has been on display in the White House since 1961.
All that glitters is not gold, including Marshall's Amazon rating.
Whatever you say, Fr. Kavanaugh.
I was just trying to be fair to Dr. Marshall compared to your cherry-picked bad reviews.
No need to write me a book (good grief).
But, good grief Kev, you cherry picked the positive rating, now didn't you?
You can throw in with the conspiracy theory fueled Marshall. I suggest that there is ample reason to ignore him.
As I read this, I can't help thinking about one of my favorite "lesser-known" films by Whit Stillman, 1990's Metropolitan. The film follows several pampered preppies and their conversations at various Christmas parties during their break as freshman at various Ivy League colleges. One young man dismisses Jane Austen's Mansfield Park in a conversation with a charming young lady and reveals that he only reads literary criticism and doesn't bother with actually reading any books!
So I too decided to go on Amazon and read some reviews. I found this one from a customer named P. Hammond. It was titled, "Total Lies and Bull"
"It seems The Church is looking for the Bad Guys outside rather than face up to some very simple facts within. Number 1 the Church needed change to keep up with the times. Change is good and most members agree with the changes. The Masons did not do anything. The Church leaders did. The bad issues in the news such as sex abuse also had nothing to do with the Masons. If people just looked with an open mind you would see that the church needed to better screen their Priesthood. Looking to blame the Masons does nothing but take responsibility away from church leadership. The book in question is mostly hate speech. After reading it and looking at each side and historians the work is just hate. Hate groups use works like this and often use God to justify such actions. The Masons are open to any good man regardless of faith. They do good across the world and don't deserve the negativity."
The book in this review is the Permanent Instruction of the Alta Vendita, a 19th century masonic document that fell in to the hands of Pius IX and was ordered to be published as a warning to Catholics. It is a game-plan for the Masonic infiltration of the Catholic Church, which the freemasons saw as their greatest obstacle in attaining their humanist/naturalist world revolution. Of course, the most erudite of our progressive clergy would surely dismiss this little booklet as irrelevant or demonstrating poor scholarship or some other pedantic kiss-off. The only problem is, much of what this book hoped to achieve then has been achieved. And it's still working out, right in front of our eyes.
I maintain that it is impossible to be a Catholic and NOT be a conspiracy theorist. Those who use this label to denigrate those they disagree with ignore the obvious:
We live in a reality created by God. That God's greatest creation, Lucifer, rebelled, intending to unseat God. God banished him and his followers to eternal punishment. God then creates a new creature (man) in His image and likeness and, the demon is determined that this new creation will not enter Heaven, so he sabotages God's creation to damn it to the same punishment through the wiles of temptation. Now corrupted by sin, man is lost, but out of compassion, God condescends to become one of us and suffer in a manner He doesn't deserve to atone for our sins. Now that the redeemed man has a chance to be saved, the demon is determined to sabotage the means of that salvation-- the Church. IT'S ALL A CONSPIRACY AND WE ARE ALL PLAYERS IN IT.
If you can't see the conspiracy, if you can't grasp it, if you deny it, then what is the point of even attending Mass? For the coffee and doughnuts?
Our sacramental life is the only means of overcoming the evil conspiracy.
Thomas - Give us the hard, unassailable evidence of the "conspiracies."
A conspiracy theorist is one who conjurs up the argument based on innuendo, heresay, gossip, conjecture, and, often, paranoia. "Sandy Hook (10 years ago today) was a false flag operation staged with actors and built on lies about dead children," is such a nutjob conspiracy theory. Others in clude the "fake" moon landing, the replacement of Pope Paul VI with a look-alike, 9/11 was an inside job, the Covid vaccine was a fake front for population control, complete with microchips being inserted into everyone.
The reality of the fall and subsequent sin is not a conspiracy theory - it is doctrine based on revelation.
The quickie online dictionary defines "conspiracy" as "a secret plan by a group to do something unlawful or harmful." A "conspiracy theorist" is defined as "a person who proposes or believes in a conspiracy theory."
Pater Ignotus, seeing how quickly and passionately you took it upon yourself to correct what you perceive as disinformation (to use YOUR kind of language), one cannot help but suspect that you have a rather lopsided interest in making sure that we perceive this term as YOU think we should--politically. Yes, your preference for making everything political is not unnoticed! So all readers--Pater Ignotus demands that we get our minds right!
I'm O.K. with other ways of looking at it. Or as one of Father Kavanaugh's favorite commentators likes to say, "There are no conspiracies, but there are no accidents either!"
Thomas - I'm sure the conspiracy theorists who believe that the moon landing was fake, that the shootings at Sandy Hook school was a false flag operation, that Pope Paul VI was replaced by a lookalike, or that the Covid vaccine contained a secret microchip would agree with you.
ALL of these theories are, their believers would say, based on evidence that they believe is credible. They are all bunk, nonsense, malarkey.
There is not "secret plan by a group" led by Lucifer to rebel against God. This plan is in the open, well known, and part of our Church's doctrine. The evidence of evil is not hidden or occult. That, too, is in the open.
Agreed. The reality of evil and God's love for us are all out in the open.
However,
...the machinations of how the Evil One achieves his ends are NOT out in the open. The intrigues of malicious people are not out in the open. I'm not accusing anyone of hiding anything, but I highly doubt that most Catholics KNEW that the New Mass imposed upon them in 1970 had been concocted by a committee that included several Protestant ministers or that the president of the Consilium was a freemason--that definitely was not out in the open. Much of what governments do is not out in the open. Conspiracies exist, including conspiracies to destroy and/or neuter the Catholic Church. To deny that is to deny reality.
If we believe in the reality of evil, then we believe in the reality of Satan. If the Church is the vehicle of God's grace in the world, are we so naive as to think that HE is just going to sit back and let the Church function without interfering? Are we to also believe that the devil would openly proclaim or admit what his plans for the destruction of the Church or the destruction of our souls are? 75 years after the fact, we are still finding out about plans that Adolf Hitler had that were certainly NOT out in the open. Stalin's operation of the Kremlin was certainly not out in the open.
Your desire to reduce everyone who believes in conspiracy to QAnon disciples or members of political movements you don't approve of is a bit of a red herring, but one we can all understand, given your obsessive history of turning everything into politics and trying to define everyone you disagree with.
Thomas - Nutjob conspiracy theorists were around long before QAnon. And there's a world of difference between a conspiracy and a conspiracy theory. That 19 men acted in a conspiracy to carry out the attacks of 9/11 is a fact. "That key individuals within the (US) government had at least some foreknowledge of the attacks and deliberately ignored it or actively weakened United States' defenses to ensure the hijacked flights were not intercepted" is a nutjob conspiracy theory.
The notion that the "New Mass" had been concocted by a committee that included several Protestant ministers is false. Yes, there were Protestant Observers at Vatican Council II. A famous picture of them posing with Pope Paul VI is often cited as "proof" that they helped "concoct" the mass. They didn't.
The first stage of that false narrative is that Bugnini is reported to have said, "We must strip from our Catholic prayers and from the Catholic liturgy everything which can be the shadow of a stumbling block for our separated brethren that is for the Protestants…" He did not say this. The text of what actually he said can be found in L'Osservatore Romano and can be found here: http://queenofmartyrspress.blogspot.com/2011/12/for-record-and-from-source-what-bugnini.html
The claim has been debunked "VATICAN PRESS OFFICE, Reply, on the alleged Protestant influences on the new Order of Mass, 25 February 1976. Questions (2 February 1976). Among the reasons advanced, at least in German- speaking Switzerland, against accepting the new Order of Mass, is the objection that six Protestant theologians are supposed to have had a part in composing new liturgical texts; that therefore the purity of traditional Catholic teaching has been compromised. With all due respect, this gives rise to the two following questions: Was there Protestant participation in the composition of the new Order of Mass? (Response from the Vatican Press Office)
1 In 1965 certain members of Protestant communities expressed the desire to follow the work of the Consilium.
2 In August 1968 six theologians of different Protestant denominations were allowed to become simple observers
3 The Protestant observers did not take part in the composition of the texts of the new Missal.
But, conspiracy theorists will continue to believe that the FALSE Bugnini quote and the photograph of the Protestant observers with Paul VI constitute "proof" that they concocted the New mass. This is not proof and they did not concoct the new mass.
Well Father, your "infallible" debunking is a tribute to your tenacity! NO ONE out argues you! You WILL. have the last word, all else be damned!
There's just one problem: Do you REALLY believe the Vatican Press Office? Do you honestly think that these "simple observers" simply observed?
Come on Father, put me in my place with more of your sophisticated "debunkery"! We all love watching you show off!
Thomas - I would say we live in very different worlds.
In your world, anyone, any source that agrees with you is credible. Anyone or any source that disagrees with you can't be trusted. That's a trait of conspiracy theorists, btw.
In your world, your responses to posts are appropriate. But when someone responds to your posts, he/she is trying to get the last word or demanding that people agree with him/her. That's another trait of conspiracy theorists.
In your world, innuendo, gossip, and unsubstantiated claims are unassailable proof that you are correct. In your world, facts don't matter if they do not fit your perceptions.
I don't live in that world.
Yes, I believe the Vatican Press Office and will do so until their statement is shown to be false. Innuendo, gossip, and unsubstantiated claims don't amount to proof.
Yes, absent any evidence to the contrary, not just claims made by a disgruntled few, I think the Protestant observers were just that, observers.
Thomas, one more thing. In your world anyone who uses facts or quotes from original sources to make a point is engaging in "sophisticated debunkery" and is "showing off."
Well, in my world, using facts and quoting original sources, such as the L'Osservatore Romano item showing what Bugnini actually said, is the way adults, including those who are not inclined to be conspiracy theorists, show that their positions are correct.
I'm sure we're all very impressed with how much more 'adult" you are than the rest of us.
However, you could actually respond to the questions:
Citing sources is meaningless when the sources are suspect. Are you so credulous that you actually believe everything the Vatican Press Office? Do you honestly believe that the "simple observers" simply observed? Do you honestly believe that all those eager Catholics re-tooling the Mass didn't ask them about their opinions?
We've all read your put-down remarks about conspiracy theorists twice now. Perhaps you could address those questions?
Thomas - Could you actually respond to the fact that the Bugnini quote often cited as "proof" that his intentions were malicious is false?
Could you actually show how a picture of the Six Protestant Observers with Paul VI is "proof" that they helped concoct the Nwe Mass?
Yes, I have made negative remarks about conspiracy theorists and will continue to do so, whether their nutjob theories are about politics (the "Big Lie" that Trump won because there was "massive fraud' in the election), or religion (Six Protestant ministers), or science (vaccines have microchips in them or Herschel Walker's "dry mist spray" that cures Covid.)
Post a Comment