September 9, 2021

September 9, 2021 By

Joseph Shaw, chairman of The Latin Mass Society of England and Wales, himself a radical Catholic reactionary, has dissed the even more extreme Taylor Marshall. He did so in defense of a joint letter about the pope’s Motu proprio, Traditionis Custodes, from The Superiors General of the Fraternity of St Peter (FSSP), the Institute of Christ the King Sovereign Priest (ICKSP), the Institute of the Good Shepherd, and a number of other Superiors General of priestly institutes and religious communities attached to the Traditional Mass (including three communities of women).

This statement is posted on the FSSP website, and on Shaw’s own website. Shaw’s statement excoriating Taylor Marshall on the same page, was cross-posted, along with the joint letter, at reactionary venue Rorate Caeli, in apparent agreement. The Twitter page for the latter (I’m banned there but have seen a screenshot), proclaimed on 8 September: “Marshall is a grifter with nothing to lose.”

Such heated rhetoric between ostensible allies and fellow reactionaries has huge implications for the internal unity of the reactionary movement, which appears to be significantly fracturing (an almost inevitable occurrence with all heretical, schismatic, and quasi-schismatic movements; I classify reactionaries as in the latter group).

I’m delighted to see the recognition of Marshall’s wacko conspiratorial extremism (better late than never). I have been sounding the alarm on him since my article, Reactionary Infiltration of Taylor Marshall’s Book, Infiltration (5-30-19), and many critiques since that time. Of course I have sounded the alarm on Joseph Shaw, too. The errors are only a matter of degree here.

On 15 April 2020 I documented the fracas when Marshall abruptly terminated the contract of his associate in many videos, Timothy Gordon. The current dust-up has far more potentially serious consequences, as I will show. Timothy Gordon has come down on the critical side:

I stand with FSSP and ICKSP. God bless our most holy, ardent, bold, yet obedient priests of the TLM! Pray for these devoted priests to remain steadfast against the summer soldiers and sunshine patriots in their congregations (who turn on them at a moment’s notice). (9-7-21)

LIVE: Defending FSSP/ICK from Taylor Marshall (9-8-21)

On 8 September 2021, Shaw wrote on his Twitter page:

It is high time that everyone realised that Taylor Marshall has no understanding of any of the issues he talks about. I’m sorry to say it but he is an ignorant fool. Now he is attacking people whose sandals he is unworthy to untie.

His critical statement on his web page was even more scathing:

Taylor Marshall, a man I usually ignore, has insulted the signatories of this statement, as lacking the “brave and bold” spirit which, he claims, animated the late Archbishop Lefebvre. He is, in a video far too tedious to link to, claiming that they are cowards.
*
This is a contemptible accusation, which reveals Marshall to be, as I expressed it on Twitter, an ignorant fool. I stand by that judgement, and I call on Marshall to apologise to these good men and women, who have a fearful responsibility both to their professed members, and also, in most cases, to the lay faithful for whom they have pastoral care.
*
Marshall appears to imagine that the Superiors General should react to their complex situation with the subtlety of some Hollywood action-hero: an attitude, in fact, completely at odds with the historical reality of Archbishop Lefebvre himself. What, Marshall seems to be asking, would Rambo do? What would be the reaction of some knuckle-headed character played by Mel Gibson? Well, if he wants to base his understanding of ecclesial politics on Braveheart, he should remember the advice given by the Duke of Argyle (in the 1995 film) to the young William Wallace: “First learn to use this” (pointing to his head), “and then I will teach you to use this” (lifting his sword).
*
It is an interesting fact about social media that some people who witnessed Marshall’s insult of the Superiors General, and my own criticism of Marshall for making this insult, concluded that I was the one to be blamed for dividing Traditional Catholics. This is an attitude completely detached from reality. The restoration of the Church is carried out through the sacraments offered by Traditional priests, and through the lives of prayer and sacrifice represented by the Traditional Institutes and communities, not by monetised social-media clicks. We need to show solidarity, in this moment of crisis, with the Superiors General, not with the man who likes to remind his viewers “I’m just a dad with a webcam”.
*
To the Superiors General, I say: genuine Traditional Catholics have your back. If this separates me from Taylor Marshall and his more deranged fans, so much the better.
Oh my! Eric Sammons replied to Shaw on Twitter (9-8-21):
I think it’s unfortunate that you used such over-the-top language about a fellow trad. You can disagree with Taylor, but to attack him by saying “he has no understanding of any of the issues he talks about” is just ridiculous. He has helped countless people find tradition.
Shaw responded:
What if it’s true, Eric? Anyway, if it is blue-on-blue attacks you are worried about, that is exactly what I’m criticizing TM for. (9-8-21)
And Sammons counter-replied:
You know it’s not true – I can’t believe you think “he has no understanding of any of the issues he talks about”. So he doesn’t understand the Rosary, or the Latin Mass, or St. Thomas? At all? Your over-the-top language overshadows any legitimate criticism you may have. (9-8-21)
This bodes very ill for the future unity of the reactionary revolt, seeing that both Shaw and Sammons are part of the editorial board at One Peter Five: the highly influential reactionary website. Sammons is the editor of Crisis Magazine: yet another reactionary rag.
*
Steve Skojec, founder and former editor at One Peter Five, has been quite critical of Marshall also in his recent tweets, and noted that Marshall had blocked him on Twitter (welcome to the club, Steve!). He chimed in on Sammons’ Twitter thread:
The entire trad movement has become a chorus of barking dogs. Sometimes they bark at perceived threats, sometimes they bark at each other, but the howling never ceases. I’m of the opinion that TM is an opportunist who does more harm than good bc he keeps the barking going. (9-8-21)
“Brownson Review” took a somewhat intermediate position:
Joe’s tweet was harsh; it was ad hominem; maybe he should have reached out to TM privately first (maybe he did; I don’t know). But perhaps it’s also time to admit that TM’s social media is more problematic for us than we like to admit. He’s clearly using rage, fear for clicks. (9-8-21)
Dr. Maike Hickson, a reactionary writer active at Lifesite News, One Peter Five, and Catholic Family News, took Marshall’s side in the thread:
As if this is what we need right now at this moment in history. Very sad. We are grateful to Taylor Marshall and his work. I know so many people here in town who have been touched by him and drawn to Tradition. (9-8-21)
Sammons later wrote (perhaps toning it down a bit, and giving himself some wiggle room):
I’ve never claimed Taylor is immune from criticism. I haven’t watched his video on the matter – I might very well have the same criticism of him that I do of Joseph. But I saw Joseph’s tweet and found it disappointing. (9-8-21)
This situation is one to watch. We’ll have to wait and see what side other big shots in the reactionary world (e.g., The Remnant, Lifesite News, Peter Kwasniewski, Voris, etc.) come down on. I will be observing closely (as one who has kept track of reactionary shenanigans for over 25 years).
*
So far the sides are:
*
Fer Taylor Marshall:
*
Eric Sammons
Dr. Maike Hickson
Many lesser-known Marshall fans & followers
*
Agin Taylor Marshall:
*
Joseph Shaw
Rorate Caeli
Timothy Gordon
Steve Skojec
FSSP
ICKSP (which now runs the parish I attended in Detroit for 25 years)
*
***
*
Photo credit: Paul Philippoteaux’s painting of Pickett’s Charge at Gettysburg. Photographed by Ron Zanoni (6-20-09) [Flickr / CC BY-NC-ND 2.0 license]
*
***
*
Summary: Prominent radical Catholic reactionary Joseph Shaw offered a blistering critique against Taylor Marshall: an even more extreme reactionary. Civil war may be in the works. Stay tuned!
April 15, 2020

April 15, 2020 By

The basic trouble with going far right on the ecclesiastical spectrum: radical right; radical Catholic reactionary, is how far right does one go? Is there actually a breaking point? Who determines where that is? Hence, we will see divisions and in-fighting amongst the reactionaries when one makes a move further right, because being a reactionary is all about being one’s own pope (the more so, the more influential and famous one becomes within the movement). Thus, when there are disagreements, how can two mini-popes with their little online fiefdoms resolve a difference? It becomes like the infighting of pope-less Eastern Orthodoxy.

Radical Catholic reactionaries love to habitually go up to the “line” but not quite go over it. The ordinary form Mass is still valid, yet it is trashed all the time and regarded as “objectively inferior.” And Catholics who attend it are despised and looked down upon, as second-class Catholics. Vatican II is a valid ecumenical council, yet it is trashed all the time and regarded as fundamentally less authoritative than Vatican I and (especially) Trent: even though Pope Benedict XVI (the bitterly disappointing former darling: because he resigned), writing in 1985, made it clear that Vatican II and Trent have precisely the same authority. The pope is a valid pope, but only worthy to be bashed and lied about week in and week out. No particular deference is due to him (think “Protestant”). You get the picture. See the pattern there?

But now and then, a high-profile reactionary actually becomes more “diabolically self-consistent” (though further from the truth) and ventures over the line. This happened on Easter Sunday when Taylor Marshall received the sacraments from the SSPX: the breakaway group which is in imperfect communion with the Catholic Church.

His cohort in over 100 videos, Timothy Gordon, publicly spoke out against this, and all hell has broken loose in reactionary ranks, and we have a civil war. It was long overdue, though completely predictable. But it’s certainly here now. It turns out that Taylor Marshall and Timothy Gordon have had a disagreement regarding SSPX going back to January.

Timothy’s brother David (words in purple below) apparently started the current controversy with this tweet:

This mainstream trad Catholic dalliance with the schismatic SSPX (canon 751) is beginning to endanger the souls of the faithful and it needs quashing with dispatch. R4R is going to settle the debate in the coming weeks. (4-12-20, 9:34 PM)

Timothy replied in that discussion thread:

It’s not a matter of opinion. Look at what the Church says on the matter: [link] (4-12-20, 9:43 PM)

Debating an issue is fragging? It’s an important intellectual matter and it merits dispassionate debate. Get thicker skin. (4-13-20, 12:16 AM)

Timothy (words in green henceforth, and Taylor’s in blue) tweeted on April 13th ( at 8:06 PM and 8:13 PM):

Just defending myself with the truth. People accused me of not reaching out, which I have been for months[.]

Did you see how many folks idiotically assumed that I haven’t been reaching out as a brother in Jan/Feb/March? I was being snubbed. One has the right to defend one’s reputation[.]

I wondered why I hadn’t seen Timothy’s face on the ubiquitous Taylor Marshall videos as of late . . . He later revealed exactly why he was “snubbed”:

For the annals of history: I didn’t “leave.” I was non-renewed against my wishes. It had become clear we didn’t agree about Taylor’s evolving position on the SSPX, but I wished to continue: we were still bringing souls to the Church together, which matters most to me[.] (4-16-20, 3:20 PM)

This sounded very familiar. Taylor had highly recommended my work for years, thanked me in at least one of his books, and carried an ad for my books on his site for several years. But at first disagreement (my critical review of his book, Infiltration) I was immediately banned from his Twitter page and have been the fodder for his (rather juvenile and petty) insults ever since. Now it’s happening to the one who was his partner. Timothy had tweeted earlier in the day on April 13th, at 4:34 PM and 5:33 PM:

Regarding @TaylorRMarshall: I’m happy to chat, do a show, slap high fives and come together about the (majority) stuff we agree on OR do a civil show about the (minority) stuff we disagree on. Gotta be two-sided though. I can’t do UNITY alone. Not gonna tweet anymore on this[.]

Update: called Taylor a little bit ago to wish Happy Easter Monday and bury the petty squabbles. No reply. (If recent history is a guide, I won’t get a reply. I’ll continue to hope.)

Outward unity among the reactionaries has been fairly solid, since all alike detest and despise the pope (“my enemy’s enemy is my friend.”). But the other fault lines inherent in such an arbitrary and quasi-schismatic movement were bound to come out sooner or later. Steven O’Reilly made the obvious point in a tweet underneath Timothy Gordon’s (4-13-20, 5:20 PM):

The problem is, in order to unite the clans, as in the analogy, a William Wallace is needed. Unfortunately, we have a number of chieftains, some with significant egos; and no William Wallace.

Fr. Dwight Longenecker tweeted similarly:

When Catholics set themselves up to judge and condemn popes and bishops its not long before they are judging and condemning one another. (4-14-20, 8:58 AM)

Steve Skojec opined on 4-14-20 (5:10 PM): “Our coalition is dwindling, . . . ” Delighted to hear that! Quasi-schism is starting to fade . . .

I guess Taylor Marshall ain’t Braveheart. Sorry, Taylor! And it ain’t gonna be clan chieftains Chris Ferrara or Steve Skojec or John-Henry Westen or Michael Voris or Patrick Coffin (who all preside over their own echo-chambers) either. Timothy Gordon replied on 4-13-20, at 8:36 PM and 8:54 PM:

Agreed. Ego kills. I’ll speak to ANY of these guys I’ve ever crossed swords with. Wish ALL of them into the Kingdom of Heaven[.]

I’m not a grudge holder. I can get over combat fast, cuz I’ve done a lot of literal and figurative fighting[.]

Earlier still, on April 12th, Gordon tweeted:

I’m not asserting with certainty that SSPX is in a formal schism. I’m saying that “formal adherence” to schismatic acts is a grave peril of attending the SSPX. They’re conceptually different[.] (10:22 PM)

Taylor, can you tell me in a sentence why SSPX is necessary when FSSP exists? The answer always insinuates “formal adherence” to schism. A bunch of the mob on here defend your position, but say they choose FSSP over SSPX every time

THIS is the real issue. All else is minutiae[.] (11:39 PM)

And on April 13th:

God bless FSSP! There’s an unimagined gap between FSSP and SSPX[.] (10:21 AM)

Honestly: All I care about is the truth. Wherever it leads. Catholic micro-celebrity is wholly meaningless and mostly fruitless. Don’t act as if fringe groups and their leaders aren’t the mob w/ gang bosses on Cath twitter. They are[.] (10:25 AM)

A) she’s calling names, not me B) my daughter has brain surgery in 90 mins and many of these people want to go to war with good guys like FSSP. It’s intolerable[.] (10:31 AM)

It’s a boring, inconsequential, fruitless debate. And most of these people think you’re scum just for going to the Novus Ordo. Just ask them[.] (12:25 PM)

JP2 indeed spread a false ecumenism but wasn’t trying to kill the TLM entirely. Distinctions matter[.] (12:36 PM)

Dave and I disagree about *how close* VC2 comes to embracing ecumenism/modernism. I think it comes dangerously close. But Trads have flatly misunderstood religious freedom in Dignitatis: read Leo XIII’s IMMORTALE DEI 36, which Trads reject Dave and I agree 100%about Dignitatis[.] (1:01 PM)

Agreed that there was a modernist intent going in. Irrelevant. Meaning inheres in text, not intention. We read the Vatican docs for their original public meaning—that which was ratified by a vote—not their presumptive intent—which isn’t certainly ascertainable[.] (1:47 PM)

There were other pastoral councils that did not condemn a heresy. 2 or 3 of them. Not just VC2. I used to believe this nonsense as well. Another wrong SSPX talking point. (1:49 PM)

That’s heteropraxy, not heterodoxy. What’s obtuse is a hermeneutic of intentionalism instead of a hermeneutic of textualism[.] (1:50 PM)

That’s what we are saying: we KNOW the intent was bad. But the meaning of the Council inheres in the text[.] (1:53 PM)

The world of text, hermeneutic, jurisprudence. Everyone KNOWS what the modernists we’re trying to do. I’m arguing that they failed by not clearly articulating their modernism[.] (1:54 PM)

The issue is that the texts are to be presumed faithful unless specifically heretical, even if their drafters used weaponized ambiguity[.] (2:00 PM)

Yes there’s a new theology that needs to be rejected. But you’re not understanding that conciliar documents need to be interpreted under the construction most optimally faithful to Tradition, wherever possible. (2:04 PM)

I don’t think they’re formally schismatic, but it’s a case by case determination that is impossible to make unless you speak to the individual Kook yelling “novus ordo is invalid!” (2:14 PM)

Just tried calling you. Let’s take this offline, bro. I would never frag ya[.] [2:41 PM)

Disagreeing respectfully is the OPPOSITE of fragging. It’s “intellectual.” Civil discussion is what’s needed and you won’t even respond to me, privately or publicly. Calling FSSP “bootlicking” (as many who were supporting your tweet were doing) IS fragging. Please disown that[.] (3:02 PM)

[DorotaG had tweeted (4-12-20, 11:01 PM): “My bishop in endangering my soul and the boot licking FSSP is nowhere to offer a real mass. The SSPX is the only church in town that is not a total joke and does not desecrate the eucharist. Only one offering mass, confession and benediction for over a month.”]

For my part, I didn’t even see the SSPX debate your post caused until late afternoon. But the debate should be: a) not avoided and b) CIVIL[.] (3:04 PM)

Nobody wants the Catholic infighting, Taylor. We have to be able to have discussion intellectually, w/o the fomenting of the emotions. Let’s appeal to civility Ironic to have to say, because we produced 100+ really good shows on difficult topics over the course of 15 mos. (3:39 PM)

Nonsense. Show me where I called you a single name. You said “precisely” about a schismatic slur[.] (3:43 PM)

I never claimed I texted Taylor yesterday. I said I’ve reached out several times in the New Year w/ scarcely a response. (3:54 PM)

Yes, Dave and I disagree on stuff. The SSPX equaling formal schism stuff is wrong, as far as I know. And JP2 was FAR more modernist than he acknowledges, but the point is that Dave’s tweet to Taylor was 100.0000% civil[.] (4:02 PM)

Why all the handwringing about civility? NOT TOO LATE! Let’s take this offline and chat by phone later, yes? I await your reply, Taylor… It’s sophistical to claim (ever) that it’s too late for civility. I said nothing about you or your family on here and never would! (4:22 PM)

PS: this isn’t a big deal. Catholics are drama queens[.] (4:38 PM)

People were accusing me of not reaching out to Taylor. Reaching out to a brother in Christ is ALWAYS good advice. I’ve been reaching out for months; just defending myself against slander[.] (8:04 PM)

no pattern except that I wish them both well—they’re both Catholics with whom I mostly agree Trent [Horn]: a smart dude I barely know & only spoke with thrice; Taylor: a smart dude I know WELL—spoke to him daily for over a year, until he abruptly/mostly stopped replying to texts/calls[.] (8:33 PM)

Never too late when people care for each other in true Christian charity (which I do for Taylor). Truly care for him. (8:50 PM)

You bet. Will do whatever I can. There’s always room to come@back together. Don’t worry brother[.] (9:46 PM)

No worries at all. Brothers squabbling a bit is the inevitable cost of abandonment by our spiritual fathers; all of us have various talents, but none of us have authority to pronounce on theological questions. Only dad does. The good part is that it’s NEVER too late to make up[.] (9:54 PM)

Just gotta retry each day for unity. All of us, me included. As Faramir says of war: sin makes corpses of us all. (9:58 PM)

And on April 14th:

Lefebvre voted for EVERY SINGLE DOCUMENT. Can we talk about that? It’s quite strange, no? Honesty check time[.] (2:20 AM)

My homeboy @SteveSkojec  (accidentally) mischaracterized my position, which is actually “schismatic attitude” in many/most attendees (but not all)[.] (3:04 PM)

I don’t believe (never have) as Dave does that formal schism is most likely. (3:13 PM)

It seems possible to do with some but not most SSPX attendees, namely the ones w/o the schismatic attitude How do you unite the clans with those who call us FSSP “bootlickers,” a common attitude among SSPX ever since FSSP broke off. (3:18 PM)

Completely unacceptable, Taylor. The largest imaginable public detraction w/ extremely sensitive private info you had as a family friend. (Also, secretly blocking someone as you tweet someone that you’re available is insane.) (7:15 PM)

My brand CANT be damaged by defending the ONE HOLY CHURCH against outsiders who claim my Sunday obligation isn’t fulfilled if I attend novus. (7:45 PM)

Petty, self-serving, vindictive, egomaniacal acts like releasing sensitive private 411 about my household during Abby’s surgery. That’s why. Major pattern. FOR THE RECORD: HE ENDED TNT. I wanted to continue, even w/ above: we were saving souls and that’s all I care about: (7:57 PM)

That’s why you’ll always see me warning against SSPX even though it’s trending now and him riding the wave. I don’t care about the business model. (7:58 PM)

I called him yesterday. He won’t call back. He’s been ignoring me nearly 100% since almost immediately after he said he wouldn’t do another year of TNT. He used the huge analytics boost his channel got from TNT and then ditched me, presumably cuz I’m not Trad enuf for biz expsn[.] (8:33 PM)

He made it sound like he called back, Steve. He didn’t. He sent a diplomatic text insinuating there wouldn’t be a call. (11:32 PM)

I can’t fully access Taylor Marshall’s tweets because he blocked me, but I can get at some:

I am grateful to the Priestly Society of Saint Pius X, by whom our Marshall family received the Resurrected Body of Christ on this Easter Morn. Without them we would be without the Sacraments. God forgive me for anything negative or incorrect that I have ever said about the SSPX. (4-12-20: Easter Sunday, 6:25 AM)

Shots fired by Retrograde Gordon Bros against Marshall. It’s not the first time. Take it up with them. I am living my life and have no time for their judgments over my soul and my family. (4-13-20, 12:52 PM)

Completely dishonest. (4-13-20, 1:00 PM)

I reached out to [Timothy Gordon] this morning, actually. Mind your business Steve [Skojec]. (4-14-20, 4:23 PM)

I’m blocking the 3 Gordon’s because they will not drop it regarding me and the SSPX. I reached out to Tim this morning. For their good and mine and all of us, I’m officially ending this nasty Twitter feud. It’s destructive and wrong. Sorry Gordon’s, but this seems to be the only way. (4-14-20, 4:34 PM)

I ask everyone to pray for all parties involved. (4-14-20, 4:36 PM)

Precisely, no more feuding in public. (4-14-20, 4:58 PM)

It is fixable. But not while shots are fired hourly on Twitter and crowds watch on.(4-14-20, 5:01 PM)

I’m fine. I just don’t want this dragging out in public. It needs to stop. (4-14-20, 4:56 PM)

I don’t think you get it. This shouldn’t be engaged in public. (4-14-20, 4:59 PM)

Bottom line: Timothy Gordon is clearly trying to reach out to Taylor and stop the disunity; Taylor Marshall wants no part of it. I think (all reactionary issues aside for the moment) Timothy Gordon shows himself to be acting as a Christian should (in terms of seeking to reconcile); Taylor Marshall is not acting in such a fashion.

***

Addendum: Further Timothy Gordon (and David Gordon) tweets:

16 April 2020:

I’ll do it anytime. I love dialogue; I care about Taylor; most of all, I love the truth. RoP [Right On Point] is a perfect forum for this. Neutral and objective. (12:11 AM)

The attempts to throw Dave under the bus are silly. Dave’s position and mine, while distinguishable, are in close enough orbit to give faithful, non-contumacious, full-communion Catholics a nice spectrum to examine and choose from. (3:17 PM)

Imagine being me in this situation. Tons of defamatory theories swirling about my motives and about the TnT breakup itself (which Marshall is conspicuously failing to correct). Justice demands that I set the record straight. (3:43 PM)

The point of departure was NOT receiving Communion—which is licit all things considered—but the apology for not just “inaccurate” statements about SSPX (which is great!) but for all “negative” comments about them. The latter of which was/is troubling and misleading[.] (5:07 PM)

I’m not convinced SSPX is in schismatic! I think you’re [Steve Skojec] closer to my position than Taylor’s since both of us won’t attend SSPX (for ineffable reasons, even) and yet he will… (5:20 PM)

In the interest Christian unity, I’d like to emphasize that I do NOT believe that @TaylorRMarshall erred by receiving the Eucharist from the SSPX on Easter; regular parishes are widely shuttered and there was no other possibility of receiving the Holy Eucharist. (9:16 PM)

My sole issue with his Easter tweet was that he retracted his previous due criticisms of the SSPX, which I worried would nudge many of the faithful to attend SSPX liturgy, which would endanger the less-educated in the Faith, since they will more readily succumb to the rebellious mindset of the Society towards VC II and towards the Novus Ordo, a mindset that is condemned by the Church. Moreover, since we are not in full communion with SSPX, receiving the Eucharist with them is a performed falsehood. Such was my purpose for my rejoinder. (9:16 PM)

To all those who believed that I was criticizing his/his family’s reception of the Eucharist from the SSPX rather than the implicit invitation for the less-educated faithful to frequent SSPX liturgy, note this was not my intention. He was acting as a good father. (9:16 PM)

Let’s have robust discussion about the status of the SSPX (whom I still hold to be in objective schism) going forward, but in a spirit of Christian fraternity and unity. For my part in some irreverent jesting in the wake of this spat, I’m sorry. Acta non verba. (9:16 PM)

Also for the record, I’ve never been certain why Taylor opted for non-renewal during the peak of TNT popularity. He never said. There are certainly a few factors, as with all etiologies, but I speculate that his evolution regarding SSPX was probably one of them. (9:50 PM)

Clarify where correct; apologize where incorrect. (9:58 PM)

@ROPpodcast  any way—public or private—to reconcile with TM is good. But again, has to involve all willing parties. (10:01 PM)

Someone close to Taylor, tell him to return my call. He’s got a good heart and we’ve both had a hard year. Can’t be sensitive or grudge-holding over some of these memes. I heard he was mad about some of them[.] (11:30 PM)

17 April 2020:

Dave and I guess about the status of SSPX differently. Get over it. And that’s just what it is, guessing. Cuz the Church won’t clarify. 2 of Dave’s biggest heroes—Sheen and Burke—agree with him[.] (4:06 AM)

***

Practical Matters: Perhaps some of my 3,900+ free online articles (the most comprehensive “one-stop” Catholic apologetics site) or fifty books have helped you (by God’s grace) to decide to become Catholic or to return to the Church, or better understand some doctrines and why we believe them.
*
Or you may believe my work is worthy to support for the purpose of apologetics and evangelism in general. If so, please seriously consider a much-needed financial contribution. I’m always in need of more funds: especially monthly support. “The laborer is worthy of his wages” (1 Tim 5:18, NKJV). 1 December 2021 was my 20th anniversary as a full-time Catholic apologist, and February 2022 marked the 25th anniversary of my blog.
*
PayPal donations are the easiest: just send to my email address: apologistdave@gmail.com. You’ll see the term “Catholic Used Book Service”, which is my old side-business. To learn about the different methods of contributing, including 100% tax deduction, etc., see my page: About Catholic Apologist Dave Armstrong / Donation Information. Thanks a million from the bottom of my heart!
***

Photo credit: Thomas Splettstoesser (8-15-06): atomic structure of profilin in comlex with actin, PDB code 2BTF, cartoon representation, rendered with PyMol [public domain / Wikimedia Commons]

***

March 19, 2020

March 19, 2020 By

This is an exchange on my Facebook page with Timothy Flanders, who appeared in the videos with Taylor Marshall, that I critiqued in my paper, Taylor Marshall: Pachamama “Idolatry” Judged by Coronavirus (Yet “Antichrist” Pope Francis Walks the Streets of Pandemic-Ravaged Rome Free of the Virus . . .) [3-17-20]. His words will be in blue. Any further replies from him will be added to this paper.

*****

If I understand you correctly here, you have selectively quoted the OT, making your argument lack force, and sound more like a hit piece, with due respect. David asks God your exact question in the OT passage from II Kings that we discussed in this video.

24:17 And David said to the Lord, when he saw the angel striking the people: It is I; I am he that have sinned, I have done wickedly: these that are the sheep, what have they done? let thy hand, I beseech thee, be turned against me, and against my father’s house.

Again, if I’ve understood your argument correctly, this verse alone disproves your entire argumentation in this article. You contend that Marshall and myself have to explain why the Holy Father is not stricken with the virus but Alexander is, yet David himself asks this very question in the context of God’s wrath.

With respect,

Timothy

As I noted, these observations are only a tiny portion of my entire writing on the topic of both God’s judgment and disease. I’ve written many articles on both. I also stated that “the overall picture: taking all of the Bible into account, is far more complex and multi-faceted” and “I want to highlight one particular aspect of Marshall’s claims” [bolding presently]. I also cited you [from the videos], to be totally fair about this, saying, “This falls on many innocent souls who had nothing to do with any of this stuff.”

So I understand that. The main disagreement here is between you and Marshall and myself, along with all who believe in biblical inspiration, over against the modernist and liberal so-called Bible scholars.

My case here remains utterly unaffected by this critique, because it is of a particular nature. I think I explained it well enough (of course I always think that!). But to concisely summarize:

1) Taylor Marshall appealed to the OT teaching on judgment (mocking those who dismiss it), to explain and interpret the coronavirus.

2) He specifically applied it to the current situation as a judgment against the alleged “Pachamama” idolatry.

[claiming it is divine wrath, and that it’s because of the Vatican ceremony, are both sheer speculations]

3) I agree with this OT teaching on divine wrath, as one article of mine in particular, proves.

4) A key part of this judgment motif is that God (typically, but not always) judges individuals and groups for the sins that they themselves have committed. He “singles them out,” in other words.

5) #4 doesn’t fit the current state of affairs, under Marshall’s hypothesis (#2), insofar as the ones guilty of the alleged idolatry that is supposedly the initiating cause of the alleged divine judgment and wrath (especially Pope Francis) seem to be undergoing no great suffering.

6) On the other hand, the person most known for opposing the alleged idolatry (which in fact did not take place, as shown ad infinitum), Alexander Tschugguel, has himself contacted the virus.

This makes no sense under the paradigm you have set up. In effect, God would be judging the “Jeremiah” that He Himself has sent to warn about the coming judgment. Marshall mentioned in the video about the Jews being judged via the Babylonians, and losing their temple. Who was warning them about it? That was Jeremiah the prophet. And who is warning us today? Supposedly, the heroic Alexander Tschugguel, who fearlessly (after committing an act of theft) disposed of the alleged idols, Boniface-and Elijah-like.

Scripture teaches that in particular judgments, the ones committing the sins are judged; not the ones warning about the sins.

7) Therefore, the hypothesis of #2 (taking into account #4, which is entailed by #1), appears to be falsified, by Marshall’s own OT criterion.

8) Moreover, you two have argued that the cessation of Masses in Rome is part of God’s judgment for “Pachamama”. Thus, you yourself make a particular application of judgment in that case, yet you want to make an exception or create an “anomaly” when it comes to Alexander over against Pope Francis and all the other alleged wicked, apostate, heretical bishops.

Why? Extreme presumption and internal incoherence and inconsistency rule the day. I think you have to go back and reconsider your several false premises to see where your reasoning has gone awry.

I’m glad you brought up King David. In this instance, he did not suffer, and his people did. Sometimes that is how it is in Scripture. But of course, in the case of David’s murder and adultery, he did suffer terribly. One son died and another led a rebellion against him. Many other kings were struck down by God because of their sins.

So why wouldn’t God do this with Pope Francis, if he is so terrible?

I won’t even get into how utterly ridiculous it is to classify the temporary shutting-down of churches in a country [Italy] which currently has 35,713 coronavirus cases (the second-highest figure after China), with 2,978 dead so far (475 more since yesterday), in order to stop the spread of a super-infectious virus, as “God’s wrath.”

In fact, this is simply following biblical injunctions from the Mosaic Law, which indeed stopped the spread of infectious diseases 3000 years before modern science figured out germ theory and the laws of contagion.

If they didn’t do this during the Black Death, it was because they had no idea of how it was spread. It wasn’t necessarily heroic faith, but it had to do far more with massive ignorance.

A reasonable interpretation of the alarming spread in Italy is to note the fact that it has the third oldest average age in Europe, after Monaco and Germany (which is presently fifth in the world in numbers of infections), and the sixth-oldest population in the entire world.

We know that Coronavirus attacks older people exponentially more than young (virtually every one of the now 100+ victims in the US are over 50: most over 60, and the bulk of those 70 and older).

So the sensible and obvious thing to do is to stop public gatherings as much as possible, and that includes Masses. That’s not God’s wrath or “self-interdiction.” It’s a straightforward application of loving our neighbor, so that they won’t die from viral infection.

How is Alexander doing now? Have you heard news of any improvement yet?

[ received no reply, so I inquired on the Internet:

Alexander Tschugguel, 26, of Vienna, Austria, . . . has been hospitalized today due to having contracted the coronavirus.

Alexander has been at home in bed with fever for nine days and is very weak. He texted me yesterday only to say he was too weak to speak. Today, he was admitted to hospital, and first reports suggest that his life is not in danger. [3-18-20 on a reactionary site]

I had asked my readers to pray for him in my previous paper, and added: “Let’s continue praying. It sounds like he has some serious immune deficiency problems.” Then I found a message straight from Alexander himself:

After so many of you already know about my state of health I wanted to thank you all deeply for all the prayers and support I get.

It is now day 11 with the virus and up until now it did not get any better. After I have been in home quarantine until yesterday morning my wife and I decided that it got worse and that I have to go to the hospital. Now I am here and they take good care of me. Please continue to pray! Especially for the ones who got hit by the Virus as hard as me or even harder but who can not have all this help and this support. Let us always pray for the sick and old, for the ones who do not have families or friends which take care of them.

As soon as I am healthy again, God willing, I will write another update here.

Yours,

Alexander

Christ will win!

Ps:

I am sorry that I can not answer your private messages right now. It is too much.

Please continue to keep him in prayer]

***

Here is some more data about how God judges. According to Taylor Marshall and Timothy Flanders, coronavirus is His wrath for supposed idolatry in the Vatican, in the tree-planting ceremony. It would be very difficult to prove such a thing, but let’s accept it for a moment, for the sake of argument. It would mean that our loving God, Who became a man and died on the cross on our behalf, decided in His wrath to afflict (as of the latest statistics), over 222,000 people; 9,115 of them fatally, because of one ceremony in the Vatican (which I strongly believe — and have proven by fact and reason, many times –, was wildly and wrongly misinterpreted, and lied about by reactionaries, in violation of the Ten Commandments).

These figures include 8,154 cases in China, including 3,249 deaths, or 36% of all fatalities. Yet what would China have to do with a ceremony in the Vatican? That is not how God’s judgment works! I’ve already noted above the current figure for Italy, which has 33% of all fatalities. We now know that, according to a Bloomberg article (3-18-20):

More than 99% of Italy’s coronavirus fatalities were people who suffered from previous medical conditions, according to a study by the country’s national health authority. . . .

The Rome-based institute has examined medical records of about 18% of the country’s coronavirus fatalities, finding that just three victims, or 0.8% of the total, had no previous pathology. Almost half of the victims suffered from at least three prior illnesses and about a fourth had either one or two previous conditions.

More than 75% had high blood pressure, about 35% had diabetes and a third suffered from heart disease.

The median age of the infected is 63 but most of those who die are older . . . The average age of those who’ve died from the virus in Italy is 79.5. As of March 17, 17 people under 50 had died from the disease. All of Italy’s victims under 40 have been males with serious existing medical conditions.

So, please note what this entails: we’re told that God is judging via the coronavirus. The biggest sin and alleged precipitating cause for this occurred in Italy. But did God go after the very ones who allegedly committed it (the pope, cardinals, bishops, and those who agreed with their acts?). No, not at all. Instead (in Taylor Marshall’s absurd scenario), God looked around for elderly people (average age of the dead: 79.5 years), and particularly those who already had two or three other diseases (high blood pressure, diabetes, heart disease), and killed them, up to the tune of 33% of all worldwide fatalities. These are the people God in His omnipotence and providence decided to judge and kill by His wrath. That is supposedly just and loving.

Another of Taylor Marshall’s blasphemous theories is that God is also judging because the pope (so he pontificates) abandoned Chinese Christians. So who does God go after in retribution for that? Not Pope Francis, the alleged perpetrator, but . . . the Chinese (!): most of whom, no doubt (i.e., among the victims), are not even Christians: 3,249 deaths there, and 36% of all fatalities. That’s God’s judgment and wrath, you see! Does that make any sense? Of course not. It’s equal parts outrageous and absurd. It’s certainly not consistent with the God revealed in the inspired revelation of the Bible.

This is not only outrageously false and unbiblical, but literally blasphemous (how ironic, in the midst of a false charge that the pope and bishops were supposedly committing sacrilegious idolatry). If this is the nature of the God Whom Christians serve, count me out. I’m gone yesterday. Thankfully, it is not the God I know and the true God revealed in the Bible. He is fair and just in His judgments: terrible though they may sometimes seem from our perspective. If He judges a nation, it’s because most of the entire nation has gone astray, and are ripe for judgment, as part of the collective.

God used the Babylonians to judge even the Jews, the chosen people, after they massively engaged in idolatry and other sins and abandoned Him (Jeremiah chapters 49-52). But He also judged Babylon:

Isaiah 14:22-23 (RSV) “I will rise up against them,” says the LORD of hosts, “and will cut off from Babylon name and remnant, offspring and posterity, says the LORD. [23] And I will make it a possession of the hedgehog, and pools of water, and I will sweep it with the broom of destruction, says the LORD of hosts.”

Nations who opposed Israel became incorrigibly wicked, and God judged them:

Isaiah 19:17 And the land of Judah will become a terror to the Egyptians; every one to whom it is mentioned will fear because of the purpose which the LORD of hosts has purposed against them.

Isaiah 30:31 The Assyrians will be terror-stricken at the voice of the LORD, when he smites with his rod.

Isaiah 34:5, 9 For my sword has drunk its fill in the heavens; behold, it descends for judgment upon Edom, upon the people I have doomed. . . . [9] And the streams of Edom shall be turned into pitch, and her soil into brimstone; her land shall become burning pitch.

Jeremiah 47:1, 4  The word of the LORD that came to Jeremiah the prophet concerning the Philistines, before Pharaoh smote Gaza.. . . [4] because of the day that is coming to destroy all the Philistines, to cut off from Tyre and Sidon every helper that remains. For the LORD is destroying the Philistines, the remnant of the coastland of Caphtor.

Ezekiel 25:2-3  “Son of man, set your face toward the Ammonites, and prophesy against them. [3] Say to the Ammonites, Hear the word of the Lord GOD: Thus says the Lord GOD, Because you said, `Aha!’ over my sanctuary when it was profaned, and over the land of Israel when it was made desolate, and over the house of Judah when it went into exile;

This is what God does: He judges wicked nations (including His own chosen people, several times). When virtually the whole world became wicked in the time of Noah, He judged it, too. What He doesn’t do, on the other hand, is judge people who had nothing to do with one alleged sin, for that sin. He judges individuals or relatively smaller groups for their own sins, as I documented last time. Here are a few more examples:

2 Kings 9:33-37 He said, “Throw her down.” So they threw her down; and some of her blood spattered on the wall and on the horses, and they trampled on her. [34] Then he went in and ate and drank; and he said, “See now to this cursed woman, and bury her; for she is a king’s daughter.” [35] But when they went to bury her, they found no more of her than the skull and the feet and the palms of her hands. [36] When they came back and told him, he said, “This is the word of the LORD, which he spoke by his servant Eli’jah the Tishbite, `In the territory of Jezreel the dogs shall eat the flesh of Jez’ebel; [37] and the corpse of Jez’ebel shall be as dung upon the face of the field in the territory of Jezreel, so that no one can say, This is Jez’ebel.'”

Jeremiah 29:21-22 `Thus says the LORD of hosts, the God of Israel, concerning Ahab the son of Kola’iah and Zedeki’ah the son of Ma-asei’ah, who are prophesying a lie to you in my name: Behold, I will deliver them into the hand of Nebuchadrez’zar king of Babylon, and he shall slay them before your eyes. [22] Because of them this curse shall be used by all the exiles from Judah in Babylon: “The LORD make you like Zedeki’ah and Ahab, whom the king of Babylon roasted in the fire,”

Acts 5:1-10 But a man named Anani’as with his wife Sapphi’ra sold a piece of property, [2] and with his wife’s knowledge he kept back some of the proceeds, and brought only a part and laid it at the apostles’ feet. [3] But Peter said, “Anani’as, why has Satan filled your heart to lie to the Holy Spirit and to keep back part of the proceeds of the land? [4] While it remained unsold, did it not remain your own? And after it was sold, was it not at your disposal? How is it that you have contrived this deed in your heart? You have not lied to men but to God.” [5] When Anani’as heard these words, he fell down and died. And great fear came upon all who heard of it. [6] The young men rose and wrapped him up and carried him out and buried him. [7] After an interval of about three hours his wife came in, not knowing what had happened. [8] And Peter said to her, “Tell me whether you sold the land for so much.” And she said, “Yes, for so much.” [9] But Peter said to her, “How is it that you have agreed together to tempt the Spirit of the Lord? Hark, the feet of those that have buried your husband are at the door, and they will carry you out.” [10] Immediately she fell down at his feet and died. When the young men came in they found her dead, and they carried her out and buried her beside her husband.

1 Corinthians 11:27-30 Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord. [28] Let a man examine himself, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup. [29] For any one who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment upon himself. [30] That is why many of you are weak and ill, and some have died.

Revelation 2:12-16 “And to the angel of the church in Per’gamum write: `The words of him who has the sharp two-edged sword. [13] “`I know where you dwell, where Satan’s throne is; you hold fast my name and you did not deny my faith even in the days of An’tipas my witness, my faithful one, who was killed among you, where Satan dwells. [14] But I have a few things against you: you have some there who hold the teaching of Balaam, who taught Balak to put a stumbling block before the sons of Israel, that they might eat food sacrificed to idols and practice immorality. [15] So you also have some who hold the teaching of the Nicola’itans. [16] Repent then. If not, I will come to you soon and war against them with the sword of my mouth.

I simply can’t find in the Bible a “judgement” or “wrath” such as Taylor Marshall and Timothy Flanders posit in the present case. There are plenty of very widespread sins that God might conceivably judge (and on a very wide scale): abortion, homosexual acts, economic exploitation, making riches or power into an idol, pornography, sexual trafficking, drug dealing, sexual abuse, terrorism, racial and ethnic prejudice, sexism, on and on and on. He could incinerate the United States to ashes in the next hour and we could say nothing in our defense: due to abortion alone; not even getting into many other serious sins we commit and even sanction by unjust, immoral laws. It would be perfectly just for Him to do so.

But none of that is mentioned when Marshall and Flanders talk about God’s wrath: only one ceremony which they (along with legions of reactionaries) never understood in the first place; which was a Catholic ceremony, without any idolatry at all. See my many articles regarding it. Such are so many falsehoods currently being spread about Pope Francis. May God open the eyes and have mercy on the souls of those who broadcast them, unwillingly or willingly.

Ecclesiastes 10:20 Even in your thought, do not curse the king, . . .

Titus 3:1-2 Remind them to be submissive to rulers and authorities, to be obedient, to be ready for any honest work, [2] to speak evil of no one, to avoid quarreling, to be gentle, and to show perfect courtesy toward all men.

Acts 23:1-5 And Paul, looking intently at the council, said, “Brethren, I have lived before God in all good conscience up to this day.” [2] And the high priest Anani’as commanded those who stood by him to strike him on the mouth. [3] Then Paul said to him, “God shall strike you, you whitewashed wall! Are you sitting to judge me according to the law, and yet contrary to the law you order me to be struck?” [4] Those who stood by said, “Would you revile God’s high priest?” [5] And Paul said, “I did not know, brethren, that he was the high priest; for it is written, `You shall not speak evil of a ruler of your people.’”

***

Related Reading

US Coronavirus Deaths: Elderly with Preconditions [3-13-20]

Taylor Marshall: Pachamama “Idolatry” Judged by Coronavirus (Yet “Antichrist” Pope Francis Walks the Streets of Pandemic-Ravaged Rome Free of the Virus . . .) [3-17-20]

My Outlook & Goals During This Coronavirus Crisis [3-24-20]

Explanation of Coronavirus Statistics (Dr. JD Donovan) [3-26-20]

“Black Death” Mentality On Display at Patheos Catholic [3-26-20]

Dialogue: [Irrational?] Leftish Reactions to Coronavirus [3-27-20]

Dialogue on Leftish Reactions to Coronavirus, Part II [3-27-20]

Why Has Italy Suffered the Most from Coronavirus? (+ Reflections on the Propriety of Using the Term, “Chinese Flu” / Condemnation of Anti-Chinese Prejudice) [3-28-20]

Reply to Unfair Criticisms of Trump Re Coronavirus [4-4-20]

Mini-Debate on Laying Blame for Lack of Knowledge of Coronavirus, and Irresponsibility (vs. Jon Curry) [Facebook, 4-5-20]

Coronavirus: Chris Ferrara vs. Science & Historical Precedent (Social Distancing Was Used in the 1918 Flu Pandemic and Has Been Shown Again and Again to be Highly Effective) [4-7-20]

Will US Coronavirus Deaths Be Far Less than Predicted? [4-7-20]

***

Unfortunately, Money Trees Do Not Exist: If you have been aided in any way by my work, or think it is valuable and worthwhile, please strongly consider financially supporting it (even $10 / month — a mere 33 cents a day — would be very helpful). I have been a full-time Catholic apologist since Dec. 2001, and have been writing Christian apologetics since 1981 (see my Resume). My work has been proven (by God’s grace alone) to be fruitful, in terms of changing lives (see the tangible evidences from unsolicited “testimonies”). I have to pay my bills like all of you: and have a (homeschooling) wife and two children still at home to provide for, and a mortgage to pay.
*
My book royalties from three bestsellers in the field (published in 2003-2007) have been decreasing, as has my overall income, making it increasingly difficult to make ends meet.  I provide over 2700 free articles here, for the purpose of your edification and education, and have written 50 books. It’ll literally be a struggle to survive financially until Dec. 2020, when both my wife and I will be receiving Social Security. If you cannot contribute, I ask for your prayers (and “likes” and links and shares). Thanks!
*
See my information on how to donate (including 100% tax-deductible donations). It’s very simple to contribute to my apostolate via PayPal, if a tax deduction is not needed (my “business name” there is called “Catholic Used Book Service,” from my old bookselling days 17 or so years ago, but send to my email: apologistdave@gmail.com). Another easy way to send and receive money (with a bank account or a mobile phone) is through Zelle. Again, just send to my e-mail address. May God abundantly bless you.
*

***

Photo credit: Queen Jezebel Being Punished by Jehu, by Andrea Celesti (1637-1712) [public domain / Wikimedia Commons]

***

March 17, 2020

March 17, 2020 By

Yet “Antichrist” Pope Francis Walks the Streets of Pandemic-Ravaged Rome Free of the Virus . . . 

Dr. Taylor Marshall, the notorious reactionary and conspiracy theorist, is on record arguing that the “coronavirus” is “a sign of divine judgment.” He did this in a video entitled, “Catholics and Corona: No Public Masses in Rome or Italy until APRIL 3 2020”: dated  3-9-20. This video was excerpted into a much shorter one called “Is Coronavirus a Sign of Divine Judgement?” (3-10-20).

Dr. Pedro Gabriel, in one of his uniformly excellent and helpful articles at the website, Where Peter Is, has already offered a scathing rebuke of this thinking (“Dr. Marshall and the coronavirus: suffering people deserve better!”: 3-14-20).

I want to highlight one particular aspect of Marshall’s claims. He wanted to make the argument that God (particularly as revealed in the Old Testament), exhibits wrath against sin, including (sometimes) diseases, and that the coronavirus is an instance of this. He goes on at length mocking those (“modernists” et al) who don’t believe in this general attribute / behavior of God.

I for one certainly do believe in it, and have written at great length about it (“Does God Ever Judge People by Sending Disease?”: 10-30-17), as part of my effort in teaching about how God’s judgment works, in many papers on the topic. Dr. Gabriel also acknowledged that this is a truth revealed in the Bible:

It is indeed true that there are many biblical examples of natural disasters and diseases as a manifestation of God’s wrath. I certainly do not exclude that this can be a reason why suffering exists in some cases.

He goes on to argue that “this is just part of the story” and that the overall picture: taking all of the Bible into account, is far more complex and multi-faceted. Again, I wholeheartedly agree. This has been my own “take” as well, in writing about both judgment and the issue of sickness and suffering, and how God (and our own sins) are related to that.

But back to my particular point. I submit that if Taylor Marshall wants to appeal to the Old Testament and God’s particular wrath, then he has to consistently abide by his interpretation. If he wants to argue Old Testament and what it teaches about judgment, then that is the hill he chooses to die on, and he must defend it. I can play that “game” with him if he likes (though we know he avoids me like the plague: no pun intended!).

I’ve already laid out much of this data  in my article on this very topic. To be totally fair about this, Marshall and his friend Timothy Flanders, in these videos (I have dialogued fruitfully with Timothy now four times, and he has been a class act), acknowledge that God’s wrath and judgment (even if it is applicable to the current pandemic), strike a lot of “innocent” people. Timothy stated near the end of the abridged video:

This falls on many innocent souls who had nothing to do with any of this stuff [Marshall agreed, saying, “right”]. [8:11-8:16]

This is absolutely right, and (again) I have noted it many times in my apologetic treatments of God’s wrath. But if Taylor Marshall wants to appeal to Old Testament passages about God’s wrath, then he has to squarely face and incorporate the many that single out sinful individuals and groups in particular for judgment. Here’s an extensive sampling:

Exodus 9:11 (RSV) . . . the boils were upon the magicians and upon all the Egyptians.

Exodus 15:26 . . . “If you will diligently hearken to the voice of the LORD your God, and do that which is right in his eyes, and give heed to his commandments and keep all his statutes, I will put none of the diseases upon you which I put upon the Egyptians; for I am the LORD, your healer.”

Leviticus 26:21 Then if you walk contrary to me, and will not hearken to me, I will bring more plagues upon you, sevenfold as many as your sins.

Numbers 12:9-10 And the anger of the LORD was kindled against them, and he departed; [10] and when the cloud removed from over the tent, behold, Miriam was leprous, as white as snow. And Aaron turned towards Miriam, and behold, she was leprous. [

Deuteronomy 7:15 And the LORD will take away from you all sickness; and none of the evil diseases of Egypt, which you knew, will he inflict upon you, but he will lay them upon all who hate you.

2 Kings 15:5 And the LORD smote the king [Jeroboam], so that he was a leper to the day of his death, . . . (cf. 2 Chr 13:20)

2 Chronicles 21:18-19 And after all this the LORD smote him [King Jehoram] in his bowels with an incurable disease. [19] In course of time, at the end of two years, his bowels came out because of the disease, and he died in great agony. (cf. 21:15)

2 Maccabees 9:5 But the all-seeing Lord, the God of Israel, struck him [Antiochus] an incurable and unseen blow. As soon as he ceased speaking he was seized with a pain in his bowels for which there was no relief and with sharp internal tortures —

Acts 12:23 Immediately an angel of the Lord smote him [King Herod], because he did not give God the glory; and he was eaten by worms and died.

Now comes the part where it is very difficult to apply such passages and actions by God to the current pandemic, with the interpretation that alleged “idolatry” with regard to supposed “pachamama” gods in the Vatican garden (that I and others have refuted over and over) has brought it on. We shall assume this is true for a moment, for the sake of argument, and in light of the above Old Testament passages that Marshall and Flanders directly appealed to.

Why is it, then, that the alleged purveyors and promoters of the “idolatry” (folks like, oh, Pope Francis and other Vatican cardinals and bishops) are not suffering, whereas the very person who tossed some of the statues (falsely alleged to be “Pachamama”) into the Tiber River, and who has been lionized for doing so (Alexander Tschugguel), has himself sadly caught the virus?

Isn’t that the opposite of what we would be led to expect, according to this conspiratorial hypothesis? Taylor Marshall announced in a video dated 3-15-20 (“Urgent Corona Prayer Request for Alexander Tschugguel”), that he has been struggling mightily with a terrible fever (even after being released from the hospital) and is in a “bad way.”

I wish him all the best, and urge prayers and penances on his behalf. He seems like an earnest, sincere, pious, and zealous young man. He was dead wrong about this, but that’s of course beside the point, as to wishing him a full recovery. In fact, I would like to apply my current acute suffering of right shoulder pain to the souls of Alexander and all sufferers from the virus: especially those who are critically ill.

I am not — repeat, NOT — claiming that he is a subject of God’s wrath (though he could possibly be, just as is true — or could eventually be true — of any of us). Austria currently has 1,332 cases of this quite non-discriminatory virus, and, sadly, Alexander is one of them. Please pray fervently for his full recovery. Since young people are the least affected by this virus, he very likely will get well.

What I am contending is that if Taylor Marshall wants to argue this way about God’s judgment, and apply it to the current pandemic tragedy (complete with absurd, ludicrous charges that the suspension of Masses — even in pandemic-ravaged Italy? — is also part of God’s judgment), then he has to explain this anomaly of the “good guy” being afflicted and the arch-enemy “bad guy” and antichrist, Pope Francis, walking the streets of Rome virus-free thus far.

After all, God struck down kings; He (the same God Who did all that stuff as revealed in the inspired revelation of the Old Testament) can dispose of a supposedly wicked, evil pope just as easily. If Pope Francis were one-tenth as bad as the mountain of lies and calumnies and scurrilous slander about him would have it, arguably he should have [biblically] been devastated by God and eaten by worms (or some similar such horrible fate) no later than five years ago.

***

Related Reading

US Coronavirus Deaths: Elderly with Preconditions [3-13-20]

Alexander Tschugguel, Taylor Marshall, & God’s Wrath [3-19-20]

My Outlook & Goals During This Coronavirus Crisis [3-24-20]

Explanation of Coronavirus Statistics (Dr. JD Donovan) [3-26-20]

“Black Death” Mentality On Display at Patheos Catholic [3-26-20]

Dialogue: [Irrational?] Leftish Reactions to Coronavirus [3-27-20]

Dialogue on Leftish Reactions to Coronavirus, Part II [3-27-20]

Why Has Italy Suffered the Most from Coronavirus? (+ Reflections on the Propriety of Using the Term, “Chinese Flu” / Condemnation of Anti-Chinese Prejudice) [3-28-20]

Reply to Unfair Criticisms of Trump Re Coronavirus [4-4-20]

Mini-Debate on Laying Blame for Lack of Knowledge of Coronavirus, and Irresponsibility (vs. Jon Curry) [Facebook, 4-5-20]

Coronavirus: Chris Ferrara vs. Science & Historical Precedent (Social Distancing Was Used in the 1918 Flu Pandemic and Has Been Shown Again and Again to be Highly Effective) [4-7-20]

Will US Coronavirus Deaths Be Far Less than Predicted? [4-7-20]

***

Photo credit: CounterDarkness (10-18-16) [Pixabay / Pixabay License]

***

March 14, 2020

March 14, 2020 By

A very vigorous discussion on my Facebook page has already taken place, and continues. I have collected my own thoughts, for ease of access: if anyone wonders about my own reasoning (as a pretty liturgically traditional Catholic apologist) in this respect.

***

Reactionary zealot Taylor Marshall, in his infinite wisdom (greater than virtually all of the Church fathers, east and west), has now opined that if he has to take Holy Communion in the hand, he would choose to not receive Our Lord Jesus at all.

Isn’t that a fine specimen of self-righteous, legalistic, Donatist-like pharisaical hypocrisy?

***

Taylor Marshall retweeted a tweet by “bloodthieving goblin” from March 12th. It read: “I (reluctantly) chose to receive in the hand. Looked and saw a couple of flecks on my hand. I will never do that again, I will simply not receive.”

***

The essential madness, lunacy, and impiety and blasphemy of Taylor Marshall’s position is this:

1) Most reactionaries like him will readily admit that ordinary form Masses are valid (though liturgically “objectively inferior”).

2) That being the case, it follows that Our Lord Jesus (Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity) is truly received in Holy Communion.

3) Therefore, he would be deliberately choosing (within his own conceptual paradigm) to not receive our Lord and the huge benefit of that sacrament, once a week, and more if he goes to daily Masses, rather than receive Him.

4) This, of course, is a purely pharisaical / legalistic majoring on the minors, since how we receive Him (i.e., the mode or method, not our disposition and demeanor) is far less important in the scheme of things, than whether we do.

5) If, on the other hand (hypothetically / for the sake of argument), he believed that Masses are invalid if they provide only communion in the hand (such as in the present extraordinary circumstances of a pandemic), he would be claiming to know better than the Church and overturns the entire tradition of valid ordination of priests and apostolic succession, as well as recent papal and conciliar infallible authority, in establishing a revised liturgy.

6) This literally puts him in a position of not only acting like the Pharisees, but also identical in outlook to the ancient rigorist Donatist schismatics (against whom St. Augustine fought so hard).

7) He would also be, in effect, or in a certain sense, denying the ancient principle of ex opere operato (based on mode of reception).

***

When people don’t think through things and don’t know Church history, this is the sort of nonsense they come up with: as if it will benefit them spiritually: to not receive the aid of the Holy Eucharist. These are the Pharisees of today: even worse, because they’ve had the benefit of 2000 years of Christianity.

And Taylor Marshall is out there teaching and influencing many thousands. God help him at Judgment Day. It’s frightening. I’m not saying he will go to hell, but we stand accountable for all that we do, and it will be very unpleasant till all that is purged.

***

Janice RC: Why do you care? It’s his business.

Because it’s pharisaical slop, that will harm those who heed that rotten advice, that’s why.

Address him then. Don’t gossip about it.

That’s what I’m doing. It’s not gossip. He publicly announced it, and I am publicly critiquing it. He refuses to dialogue with me, as far as that goes.

***

Matthew 23:23 (RSV) “Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for you tithe mint and dill and cummin, and have neglected the weightier matters of the law, justice and mercy and faith; these you ought to have done, without neglecting the others.”

Luke 11:42 “But woe to you Pharisees! for you tithe mint and rue and every herb, and neglect justice and the love of God; these you ought to have done, without neglecting the others.”

Luke 11:39 And the Lord said to him, “Now you Pharisees cleanse the outside of the cup and of the dish, but inside you are full of extortion and wickedness.”

Matthew 12:1-8 At that time Jesus went through the grainfields on the sabbath; his disciples were hungry, and they began to pluck heads of grain and to eat.
[2] But when the Pharisees saw it, they said to him, “Look, your disciples are doing what is not lawful to do on the sabbath.”
[3] He said to them, “Have you not read what David did, when he was hungry, and those who were with him:
[4] how he entered the house of God and ate the bread of the Presence, which it was not lawful for him to eat nor for those who were with him, but only for the priests?
[5] Or have you not read in the law how on the sabbath the priests in the temple profane the sabbath, and are guiltless?
[6] I tell you, something greater than the temple is here.
[7] And if you had known what this means, `I desire mercy, and not sacrifice,’ you would not have condemned the guiltless.
[8] For the Son of man is lord of the sabbath.”

Mark 7:1-9 Now when the Pharisees gathered together to him, with some of the scribes, who had come from Jerusalem,
[2] they saw that some of his disciples ate with hands defiled, that is, unwashed.
[3] (For the Pharisees, and all the Jews, do not eat unless they wash their hands, observing the tradition of the elders;
[4] and when they come from the market place, they do not eat unless they purify themselves; and there are many other traditions which they observe, the washing of cups and pots and vessels of bronze.)
[5] And the Pharisees and the scribes asked him, “Why do your disciples not live according to the tradition of the elders, but eat with hands defiled?”
[6] And he said to them, “Well did Isaiah prophesy of you hypocrites, as it is written, `This people honors me with their lips,
but their heart is far from me;
[7] in vain do they worship me,
teaching as doctrines the precepts of men.’
[8] You leave the commandment of God, and hold fast the tradition of men.”
[9] And he said to them, “You have a fine way of rejecting the commandment of God, in order to keep your tradition!

***

Kris Smith: In other words, Taylor Marshall is saying that if he cannot receive Jesus on his own terms, he doesn’t want Jesus at all. Very holy of him . . . 

Which, I would say, is most definitely blasphemous. He dishonors God by refusing to receive Him and by thumbing his nose at Holy Mother Church, that allows communion in the hand (as I explained in another post here). We’re not just talking about allowable preference. I prefer on the tongue as well.

***

Deborah Jones: I receive only on the tongue because I do not have consecrated hands . . . 

I see. So you have a particularly consecrated, holy tongue? According to Holy Scripture (many passages), you’re more likely to have a wicked tongue than hands. You are “handling” him on your tongue. How is a tongue different from a hand? They’re both part of sinners like you and I. That’s not the proper distinction. It’s between the pious, reverent person and the one who isn’t. And either disposition can happen in either method because it is a heart and soul issue, not a physical one.

An atheist or Satanist could receive on the tongue and keep the consecrated host (i.e., Jesus) for Satanic Masses, or contemptuously spit Him out.

We can receive on the hand because the Church allows us to, and because it was the main way to receive in the early Church. I agree that the priest has consecrated hands (and beyond that, is the alter Christus), which is why I do my utmost to try to receive from a priest if it is at all possible (and I’ve written about habitual improper overuse of eucharistic ministers, contrary to the rubrics).

***

Carolina: I believe it is their intention to give God the glory and honor and if they feel that they are dishonoring our Lord by receiving in the hand then that’s something between them and God.

Well, no, it isn’t: not if he has decided that no communion is better than a form of it that he dislikes. The Church has permitted both. Therefore, for him to take this absolute stand is in direct defiance of the Church, and of the God Who established that Church and her authority. But Taylor “knows better” than the Church and God.

And of course that is the classic Protestant attitude and also the liberal Catholic “I’m the ultimate judge” attitude. If he thinks he knows better than the Church (not to mention popes), then he ought to get honest with himself and go back to being an Anglican. He seems to have never left that communion in spirit.

***

Dan Burke: Uh – no. Sounds like a man with conviction and a deep reverence for God. I won’t be doing that but why condemn him so aggressively for it?

Because it’s precisely the attitude of the Donatist schismatics. Why did Augustine oppose them so vigorously? And it’s pharisaical: he chooses to not receive our very Lord, rather than accept what he wrongly thinks is “modernism” in the first place.

It opposes the judgment of Holy Mother Church. It is the same mode of thinking as Protestants and liberal dissident Catholics. And because he leads many thousands astray, who are foolish enough to accept his reactionary falsehoods.

Is that sufficient?

***

Taylor [in effect / logically] judges literally tens of millions of Catholics as spiritually inferior to himself; including virtually all of the Church fathers. We would expect it, seeing how he treats all popes [in his book, Infiltration] back to Ven. Pope Pius XII.

***

Related Reading

* 
*
* 
* 
* 
*
* 
* 
Holy Communion in the Hand (Norm till 500-900 AD) (+ vigorous Facebook discussion) [9-3-15; some additions on 3-13-20]
* 
* 
* 
*
***

Photo credit: steel engraving by Peter Carl Geißler (1802-1872), showing Jesus Christ, knocking at the door (Revelation 3:20) [public domain / Wikimedia Commons]

***

December 11, 2019

December 11, 2019 By

Taylor Marshall’s Orchestrated Campaign to Flood the Amazon Page for His Book Infiltration with Positive Reviews

Within nine days (by 6-1-19), Marshall garnered 840 reviews of his book, Infiltration on the book’s Amazon page (89% of them 5-star reviews from his rapturous fan club of wide-eyed “sheep”). By the next day it was 917. The total is now (on 12-11-19) 1,405 reviews.

Taylor played the game of amassing an army of his “choir” to pump up the book for the masses on Amazon. That’s capitalism fer ya. I admire it in a weird sort of way. Many of us authors would love to have all these reviews of our books! It creates an appearance that “everyone!” is ecstatic about this ludicrous book.

My New Catholic Answer Bible has been a consistent bestseller for 14 years (published by the largest Catholic publisher: Our Sunday Visitor), but it has mustered up only 181 reviews: coincidentally also 89% 5-star, but these were spontaneous reviews, not arranged beforehand. No one else has anywhere near this number of reviews (and this fast). If we look at, for example, other big pope-bashing books, we find that The Dictator Pope (2018) by Henry Sire has 211 reviews, Lost Shepherd (2018) by Phil Lawler, has 69, The Political Pope (2017) by George Neumayr, 76, To Change the Church (2018) by Ross Douthat, 57, and The Francis Feud (2018) by Karl Keating (in which I was mentioned as a pope-defender, 99 times), garnered 21 reviews.

But of course, pro-Catholic Church apologetics is not nearly as sexy and fashionable as pope-bashing and now even Vatican II-bashing is. How sad, and how low we have sunk since I first had my conversion story printed in Patrick Madrid’s Surprised by Truth: a runaway 1994 bestseller, which even now has 164 reviews. It’s the same in all directions. No one has seen anything like it. For example, Scott and Kimberly Hahn’s Rome Sweet Home has 729 reviews, but that’s since 1993, and he is the most well-known Catholic apologist. And even so, that’s only a little more than half of what “tin foil hat Marshall” has gotten in a little less than seven months. Karl Keating’s Catholicism and Fundamentalism (1988): an immensely important and influential apologetics book, has 208 reviews. Steve Ray’s Crossing the Tiber (1997) has 111. My other three bestsellers in the field have gotten 48, 42, and 21. Super-apologist Peter Kreeft rarely gets over 100 reviews (or anywhere near it) for any of his scores of books.

Regina Magazine‘s Facebook edition gushed on 6-2-19:

“Don’t buy it!”
“Don’t buy it!”

Okay, so this is pretty funny. It seems that ‘INFILTRATION’ by Dr Taylor Marshall has struck a raw nerve among ‘conservative’ Catholics — who are all loudly online insisting that it’s all ‘conspiracy theories’ and that they won’t read it and no one else should.

Unfortunately for them, their wailing is having the opposite effect — it’s DRIVING sales.

Take a look at this on Amazon: nearly 900 FIVE STAR REVIEWS in THREE DAYS!

Our sources say sales are through the ROOF.

That God certainly has a sense of humor, doesn’t he?

[four smiley icons]

But (sorry to inform them) it’s a flat-out falsehood. I let them know on their page, writing (in a comment — almost needless to add — that was removed within four days):

Yes, of course it has almost 1000 reviews, because this was all orchestrated beforehand in a campaign to give followers a copy in exchange for a review. It has nothing to do with opposition supposedly driving sales. I hate to bust your bubble, . . .

Don’t wanna believe me, cuz I am a critic? We know that he did this because it is documented from his website. It was called “Dr. Taylor Marshall’s Infiltration Launch Team”. The page was removed (for some odd reason), but fortunately, Internet Archive preserved one copy of it, dated April 5, 2019 (it was initially posted on 4-3-19).

Regina Magazine replied:

Er, congratulations on discovering what is a standard approach to publishing books these days. And, your flowery language aside, the pool of ‘desperate predeposition’ includes a whole LOTTA normal Catholics. But what interests us most is where YOUR paycheck is drawn from?

And I responded: “Nice try. You stated: “their wailing is having the opposite effect — it’s DRIVING sales.” I showed that it had nothing to do with that. Switching the subject doesn’t rectify your mistake.”

Dr. Jeff Mirus, in his scathing review of Infiltration, alludes to Taylor Marshall’s conspiracy

At the very end, the book includes a list of the alleged members of the “Infiltration Launch Team” who are said to have read the book prior to publication and to be helping in promotion. It may be an unprecedented step in publishing, since I estimate the number of names at over 2,000. But again, from what pool of desperate predisposition were these people drawn?

Here is the content of Marshall’s now-removed “Launch Team” web page:

Thank you for wanting to join our Launch Team for Infiltration: The Plot to Destroy the Catholic Church from Within. We are looking for 200 “Launch Team” advanced readers who are:

1. willing to read a private (do not share) advanced copy of the book in pdf format,
2. give us feedback,
3. write a review of Infiltration on Amazon.com
4. and help promote it when it debuts on May 20 2019 (tentative publish date).

If we select you, then your name will be printed on the last page of the book with a “Thank you” from me.

If you are willing to help me promote the book, please fill in the forms below and we will notify you within the week if you have been selected.

Godspeed,
Taylor Marshall

Dr. Taylor Marshall’s Infiltration Launch Team

Please apply to be one of the 200 members for Taylor Marshall’s new book: “Infiltration: The Plot to Destroy the Catholic Church From Within.” This book traces the infiltration of the Catholic priesthood going back to the 1800s and up through the 1960s and Sankt Gallen election of Jorge Bergoglio as Pope Francis.

Name*

First

Last

Best Email Address to which we can send the advance digital copy of the book*

Have you read a book by Dr Taylor Marshall before?*

Yes, I’ve read at least one.

No, I have not any of his books.

Dr. Marshall has 8 books? Have you already read one? You won’t be disqualified for not having read one of his books, but we’d like to know.

If you have read a Marshall book, which one? (select all that apply with right click or “command” click)*

I haven’t read one of his books The Crucified Rabbi / The Catholic Perspective on Paul / The Eternal City / Thomas Aquinas in 50 Pages / Saint Augustine in 50 Pages / Sword and Serpent / Tenth Region of the Night / Storm of Fire and Blood

Were you Part of a Previous Book Launch Team with Taylor Marshall*

Yes, I was part of a previous Launch Team

No, I was NOT part of a previous Launch

Being part of the original Launch Team increases your chances for being chosen for this Launch Team.

Are you willing to have your name printed in the text of the book?*
Yes, print my name in the book as a Member of the Launch Team

No, I don’t want my name acknowledged in the book.

Are you willing to read your advanced digital copy of “Infiltration” book in under 1 week so that you have it read before it goes to the public?*

Yes

No

You will be thank by name on the last page of the book Infiltration.

I will promote the book on Social Media through Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, OR by emailing friends.*

Yes, I will help promote the book

No, I will NOT help promote the book

Are you willing to write a review of “Infiltration” book on amazon.com*

Yes, I’d be delighted to right a review of the novel on amazon.com

No I won’t write a review of the book on amazon.com

Do you have an account at amazon.com?*

Yes, I have an account (I’ve purchased or reviewed something on amazon before)

No, I’ve never used amazon.com before.

Where do you live in the world?*

City, State, Nation (eg, Dallas, Texas, United States)Thank you for submitting. If we choose you for a free book and your name in the book, we will be in touch soon. Please submit below:

*****

This is fully confirmed in the book itself, at the end:

“A Special Thanks to Our Launch Team

“A special thanks to our Infiltration Launch Team who read this book before publication and also helped us with promotion. Thank you for your time, input, and enthusiasm.

“Godspeed,
Taylor”

Now, to be perfectly fair, I have already stated (in one of my articles about the book) that there is nothing wrong per se, with asking folks to promote one’s book: on Amazon or elsewhere. And other Catholic authors have done this. For example, Karl Keating was asking people to write reviews of his book against geocentrism: and to do it as soon as it appeared on Amazon. I gladly complied and wrote a review.

So it’s nothing new or even blameworthy. It’s just that no other Catholic author that I’m aware of has been so wildly successful with the strategy.

My only objection is the leaving of an impression to the casual observer that 840 reviews in nine days’ time since a book has been published, are a spontaneous outpouring of the Catholic community as a whole, which is supposedly passionately responding en masse to this marvelous book that finally “tells the truth.”

That is not true, and it should be noted and made much more clear, therefore, that this was a deliberate, planned effort, and comes directly from his clonelike fan club, who clearly accept every word of his (or almost every one) as pearls of wisdom.

Gotta give the guy credit for the effort and the chutzpah. Again, that’s capitalism. But folks are also entitled to know why there are so many salivating reviews, and what originated them (free review copies for every reviewer: many of whom simply put up a sentence or two).

***

Related Reading:

*
*
*
*
*
*
*

***

Unfortunately, Money Trees Do Not Exist: If you have been aided in any way by my work, or think it is valuable and worthwhile, please strongly consider financially supporting it (even $10 / month — a mere 33 cents a day — would be very helpful). I have been a full-time Catholic apologist since Dec. 2001, and have been writing Christian apologetics since 1981 (see my Resume). My work has been proven (by God’s grace alone) to be fruitful, in terms of changing lives (see the tangible evidences from unsolicited “testimonies”). I have to pay my bills like all of you: and have a (homeschooling) wife and three children still at home to provide for, and a mortgage to pay.
*
My book royalties from three bestsellers in the field (published in 2003-2007) have been decreasing, as has my overall income, making it increasingly difficult to make ends meet.  I provide over 2600 free articles here, for the purpose of your edification and education, and have written 50 books. It’ll literally be a struggle to survive financially until Dec. 2020, when both my wife and I will be receiving Social Security. If you cannot contribute, I ask for your prayers (and “likes” and links and shares). Thanks!
*
See my information on how to donate (including 100% tax-deductible donations). It’s very simple to contribute to my apostolate via PayPal, if a tax deduction is not needed (my “business name” there is called “Catholic Used Book Service,” from my old bookselling days 17 or so years ago, but send to my email: apologistdave@gmail.com). Another easy way to send and receive money (with a bank account or a mobile phone) is through Zelle. Again, just send to my e-mail address. May God abundantly bless you.
*

(originally posted on 6-1-19 on Facebook; revised on 12-11-19)

Photo credit: ElasticComputeFarm (8-13-15) [Pixabay / Pixabay License]

***

November 4, 2019

November 4, 2019 By

This exchange and further statement (via past comments of mine) occurred in a Facebook discussion of my article, Taylor Marshall Groupie Makes a Typical Personal Attack (11-2-19). Rob Cui’s words will be in blue.

*****

I have made it clear several times that my critiques of his [Taylor Marshall’s] stuff are not personal. For example, in a paper shortly after I began my critiques:

I’m responding publicly to public materials. . . .

I have no personal issues at all, as I stated in my paper: none whatsoever. Zero, zilch. This is about defense of Holy Mother Church against calumnies. . . .

We live in an age today where every criticism of ideas is immediately collapsed into a supposed personal attack. It’s the influence of postmodernist subjective mush. Now, assuredly a lot of personal attacks do take place online. But my critique of Taylor Marshall’s errors is not an example of that. (5-31-19)

Dave. I agree with some of what you wrote, especially the pope bashing, but I believe you failed to comment on the book’s premise which is that there has been an infiltration of Masons and Communists that is destroying the Church from the inside. You failed to comment on the section about the St Gallen mafia that orchestrated Bergoglio’s election. I have been edified by your knowledge and teaching for many years but I believe your blanket criticism of reactionaries is quite extreme. Have all your experiences with reactionaries been so negative? There are many saintly and holy people that you would consider reactionaries.

It wasn’t my purpose to refute all the conspiracy theories in the book (as already reiterated in this [i.e., the previous] post). Someone else can do that. I have neither the patience nor the slightest desire to do so. My business is the defense of Holy Mother Church: not delving into conspiracy theories and examining charges like Pope St. Paul VI being an active homosexual (which was claimed in the book).

Have all your experiences with reactionaries been so negative?

Yes.

Now that they and more and more traditionalists and even plain “orthodox” allies are going after Vatican II and the ordinary form Mass and espousing virtual belief in the defectibility of the Church, my concerns over the last 25 years have been rather spectacularly validated. What you call “extreme” is simply orthodox Catholicism: St. John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI Catholicism (if you don’t like Pope Francis).

So now you are going down this road. I see on your Facebook page that you cite the schismatic Lefebvre twice [I would link them but the posts are not set to “public”]. You’ll end up in despair going this route. For the love of God and Church, don’t do it!

Here is what I think about conspiracy theories in general, as I wrote in papers dated 6-5-19 and 7-8-19 and my censored Amazon review (6-1-19):

I made it clear that my purpose was not to discuss the various conspiracy theories in the book. I have no interest in them. . . .

As Fr. Longenecker’s review highlighted, I am not in the least opposed to the bare idea that the Church has been “infiltrated.” The question is in the details and facts and degrees. I didn’t really address this in my first long paper (here critiqued), but I did in my (censored) Amazon review, that was considered the “top review” for over two weeks, the top critical review, and the one that had the most “helpful votes” (over 250 before it was mysteriously removed. There I wrote, as the ending section:

Lastly, I agree that many groups have tried to infiltrate the Church. The radical homosexuals are the ones in our day. The liberals have been trying to wreck Catholicism since the French Revolution. My mentor, Servant of God Fr. John A. Hardon, SJ (who received me into the Church and enthusiastically endorsed my first book, A Biblical Defense of Catholicism) said often that modernism is the culmination of all heresies, and that the modernist crisis is the greatest in the history of the Church. I agree 100%!

My response to that, though, is that the Church is led and protected by the Holy Spirit and is indefectible; therefore, all such attempts fail in the long run. Reactionaryism is the counsel of despair. The orthodox Catholic is always hopeful and believes that God is in control and that all things work together for good (Romans 8:28).

Conspiratorialism is a dead-end street; the fool’s way out, and a plain dumb and intellectually naive and vacant interpretation of very complex events and ideas. Much better is traditional Catholic grace-empowered faith: particularly in the indefectibility of the Church, God’s providence, and the scriptural knowledge that sinners are always present in the Church (parable of the wheat and tares, seven churches of Revelation, etc.).

In this vision and way of life, we know and believe that God is always in control and protects Holy Mother Church despite our repeated attempts to bring it down to the dirt and filth of human sin and nefarious aspirations for power, rebellion against God, and all the rest.

I have not delved into all these conspiracies, since it was not ever my goal or intention, but a good friend of mine, Paul Hoffer (an attorney and Catholic apologist) has embarked on a multi-part point-by-point examination of the conspiracies suggested in Infiltration (three parts done thus far):

A Chapter-by-Chapter Refutation of Dr. Taylor Marshall’s Book, Infiltration: The Plot to Destroy the Church from Within (+ Part II / III) (Paul Hoffer, starting on 6-9-19) . . .

I put out my article: Freemasonry? I’ve Had Links About it On My Site Since 2000 (I have vigorously opposed theological liberalism all this time, too) [6-5-19] I wrote in this paper:

I’m glad Taylor is educating Catholics about the danger of Freemasonry (including the infiltration of Catholic institutions). Welcome to the club, Taylor! I’ve been doing this for many years: as well as decrying theological liberalism from time immemorial (all the way back to 1982, as a Protestant apologist and researcher).

One can see my web page: “Theological Liberalism and Modernism (and “Dead” and “Nominal” Catholics)” in an archived version, dated 16 April 2000, filled with tons of links and many of my own articles on this dreadful error. Moreover, my book, Twin Scourges: Thoughts on Anti-Catholicism & Theological Liberalism dates from June 2003.

My concern and warnings about Freemasonry in particular have continued to the present time. On my site right now is the paper, “Catholic Refutations of Freemasonry (Collection of Links).” It is dated 6-28-10, back in the good ol’ days of Catholic unity, when Marshall still thought I was “one of the best cyber-apologists out there.” I added additional links on 9-26-16. It now contains 14 educational links.

The web page, “Liberal Theology & Modernism” is still there now, too.

So I have opposed this from the time before Taylor was even a Catholic [2006]. The difference is that I deny that Freemasonry has subverted an ecumenical council and popes. I think all such conspiracies to change the Catholic religion have failed. They’ve caused tons of damage to souls (I agree), but they haven’t succeeded in changing Church doctrine. [see source of entire citation]

If the point of your work and that of Taylor Marshall’s work is to win souls for God then it is a shame that you would attack him. I am a fan of you both and I wish that you could work together as opposed to being so divisive.

I’m not attacking him; rather, his false ideas. Do you intend to actually interact with what I wrote or not?

Marshall blocked me on his Twitter page within 24 hours of my first critique. Then he accused me of writing about him merely for “click bate” [sic] motivations (i.e., money). Sounds really ripe for a working relationship, doesn’t it?

Previously, he had warmly recommended my books, and for several years carried a book ad of mine on his site. At the moment I dared to disagree with him, he started acting like I was a moron and worth no one’s time.

***

See many more articles about Taylor Marshall in his own section on my Traditionalists vs. Reactionaries web page.

***

Unfortunately, Money Trees Do Not Exist: If you have been aided in any way by my work, or think it is valuable and worthwhile, please strongly consider financially supporting it (even $10 / month — a mere 33 cents a day — would be very helpful). I have been a full-time Catholic apologist since Dec. 2001, and have been writing Christian apologetics since 1981 (see my Resume). My work has been proven (by God’s grace alone) to be fruitful, in terms of changing lives (see the tangible evidences from unsolicited “testimonies”). I have to pay my bills like all of you: and have a (homeschooling) wife and three children still at home to provide for, and a mortgage to pay.

*

My book royalties from three bestsellers in the field (published in 2003-2007) have been decreasing, as has my overall income, making it increasingly difficult to make ends meet.  I provide over 2600 free articles here, for the purpose of your edification and education, and have written 50 books. It’ll literally be a struggle to survive financially until Dec. 2020, when both my wife and I will be receiving Social Security. If you cannot contribute, I ask for your prayers. Thanks! See my information on how to donate (including 100% tax-deductible donations). It’s very simple to contribute to my apostolate via PayPal, if a tax deduction is not needed (my “business name” there is called “Catholic Used Book Service,” from my old bookselling days 17 or so years ago, but send to my email: apologistdave@gmail.com). Another easy way to send and receive money (with a bank account or a mobile phone) is through Zelle. Again, just send to my e-mail address. May God abundantly bless you.

***

Photo credit: Ordercrazy (12-28-13) [Wikimedia Commons / Creative Commons CC0 1.0 Universal Public Domain Dedication]

***

 

November 2, 2019

November 2, 2019 By

I just ran across this today in a search. It’s very illustrative insofar as it is ultra-typical of 1) the reactionary mindset, and 2) the clone-groupthink / conspiratorial fan club for Taylor Marshall mentality. This guy calls himself “Tradical” and runs the reactionary Tradicat blog.

He was “responding” [cough] to my article, Reactionary Infiltration of Taylor Marshall’s Book, Infiltration (5-30-19). He calls his hit piece, “Reactionary Reaction to a Book by Dr. Taylor Marshall” (6-10-19). His words will be in blue below.

*****

David Armstrong’s ‘reaction’ to other ‘reactions’ is predictable, because he is not ‘culturally’ Catholic. If he was he wouldn’t write stuff like this …

Not sure what he means by this, so I won’t speculate, but surely it is stupid and false (in light of the rest of his piece), with regard to myself and the published Catholic apologetics work I’ve done now for almost 27 years. It’s simply a substanceless personal attack. If he actually had any grounds and substance to say such an idiotic thing about me, then he could have produced it, couldn’t he? But he gives us nothing. This is the usual tactic: the epithet with no evidence whatsoever provided.

However, given what happens to some converts – – – it may be for the best.

The anti-convert mentality is rampant among reactionaries and also some of the more extreme traditionalists (some of whom even absurdly attack St. John Henry Newman). It’s always been a very curious phenomenon to observe. I suspect that it derives from a combination of prideful elitism and jealousy (since converts often receive a lot of attention: usually in proportion to how dramatic their conversion was).

Then he starts citing my article (after a snippet from my Wikipedia entry):

He has been married to his wife Judy since October 1984, and the couple has three sons and a daughter. Armstrong holds a Bachelor of Arts, Sociology (cum laude) from Wayne State University, Detroit, 1982.

A little background: He’s a sociologist. No biggy – good to see he got through university with something. But … this means that all of his Theology is self-taught. Like me … except I have a foundation from an SSPX school.

If it’s “no biggy” that my theological education was entirely my own (“like” his), then why bring it up at all? It’s simply more personal attack (in effect, “Armstrong has no theological degree, so he has no basis to make such a critique . . .”). I’m not a sociologist: which means a person who has attained a doctorate in sociology, and is thus a professor of sociology. I’m a widely published lay Catholic apologist.

As for being self-taught in theology, I’m (in this respect) in very illustrious company: folks like G. K. Chesterton (a journalist with no college degree at all), Malcolm Muggeridge (journalist), Frank Sheed (lawyer), C. S. Lewis (English professor), Thomas Howard (English professor), Peter Kreeft (philosophy professor), and many other successful and influential apologists. They all managed to be self-taught in theology, too.

Chesterton is virtually a “god” to reactionaries and traditionalists alike (as he is to me). I never see them attack him because of his lack of theological training or any academic degree. This silliness is only brought up today against folks they don’t agree with: people who don’t toe their ridiculous and self-refuting line.

It is mere recycled radical Catholic reactionary conspiratorialism: a sort of updated version of The Great Facade (2002; updated with a 2nd edition in 2015: in order to capitalize on the anti-Francis hysteria), by Christopher Ferrara and Thomas Woods. Marshall has been sinking more and more into the doom-and-gloom abyss of reactionary thinking for several years now.

Well this is an interesting op, but perhaps Marshall is actually beginning to realize that all is not as it seems.

He offers no refutation. This (along with my whole paper) is actually an amateur sociological analysis of the backdrop of Marshall’s book: his reactionary status.

In other words, to sum it up: “It ain’t just Pope Francis.” It’s radical Catholic reactionary conspiratorial / alarmist / fanatical thinking (to more or less degrees, depending on the document). That’s why — increasingly — those who attack Pope Francis also are frequently observed attacking Pope Benedict XVI, Pope St. John Paul II, Pope St. Paul VI, and Pope St. John XXIII (even sometimes Ven. Pope Pius XII, too), and/or Vatican II, and/or the ordinary form Mass.

Ah, well  this crisis didn’t start with Pope Francis, it’s been a long time in the making.

Yeah, I know that reactionaries wrongly think that (usually dating the downfall of the Church to Pope St. John XXIII), which is a major part of my point in writing my article.

But if David wants to hold his opinion that all is hunky dory, then he’s entitled to be wrong. :-)

It’s not (and never has been) my opinion that “all is hunky dory” (thus one notes that he didn’t document me saying anything of the sort). For example, I wrote in an article from January 2013:

I have stated many times and have believed for 22 years, since becoming Catholic, following my mentor, Servant of God Fr. John A. Hardon, S. J., that modernism is the greatest crisis in the history of the Church. It is its causes, origins, locations, and solutions to it that differentiate my orthodox Catholic view from [reactionaryism].

***

I’ve been studying and critiquing reactionary thinking since 1997 and have written two books about it (one / two) and have an extensive web page on the topic. 

Interesting, but … he just has a website and this doesn’t mean he’s right.

Of course it doesn’t. Obviously, I mentioned these things to show readers that I am not new to this sort of debate, and to prove that I have been an observer and critic of reactionaryism for a long time. Period.

It means that:

  1. The publishers thought his work would sell books. … oops looks like he self published
  2. He can use blogging software.

Yes, these two books were self-published. I also have ten books that have been published by five reputable Catholic publishers (Sophia / TAN / OSV / Catholic Answers / Chora Books) : including six with the very same one that published Taylor Marshall. All of this is perfectly irrelevant. He has to make his case; not merely make observations that have no relevance to my argument. It’s a form of the genetic  or poisoning the well fallacies.

Hardly academic qualifications eh?

I never claimed they were. It’s irrelevant; a non sequitur.

Anyway, I suspect that David didn’t go into it too much because he doesn’t actually seem to get into a blow-by-blow rebuttal.

This is the lone thing that he got right. This article was not intended to be a point-by-point refutation. I made this very clear in the introductory section:

I will be examining its blatant reactionary aspects and simply citing from the book (what might be called “sociological exposing of extremist elements”) and identifying plain and obvious examples of three of the four classic hallmarks of radical Catholic reactionary beliefs:

1) Pope-bashing (I will concentrate on bashing of popes other than Pope Francis).

2) Vatican II-bashing.

3) Pauline / New / “Novus Ordo” / ordinary form Mass-bashing.

[the fourth common element is ecumenism-bashing, which is also assuredly a strong motif in the book]

I’ve applied this same method of analysis / exposure to several of the “statements” against Pope Francis and books or articles that criticized Pope Francis and also other popes, Vatican II, and the New Mass:

I followed this up with links to many of my papers which had the same purpose. It’s not refutation per se (though it may certainly be considered an indirect or roundabout refutation); it’s religious sociology. I do also have many other papers where I offer a refutation of various reactionary claims, but that was not my purpose here.

I’m not going to read what I suspect is simply tripe so … moving on.  Sorry for wasting your time on a bit of a rant.

Exactly! If you have no rational counter-response, this is the sort of idiotic thing you say. and you expose yourself as a blowhard (especially in noting that he wouldn’t even read what he supposedly “critiques”). I read Taylor Marshall’s entire book; just as I read Phil Lawler’s pope-bashing book also (cover to cover), and recently, two atheist books that I offered partial refutations to.

Quick summary: David is simply an example of why we need to re-establish a true Catholic Culture th[at] is fostered by the Tridentine Mass.   Otherwise protestants like David will simply half-convert and still be afraid of the truth.

That’s me!: a “protestant” who is a “half-convert” and “afraid of the truth.” Believe me, I wouldn’t have spent any time on this ludicrous piece: but — and only but — for the fact that it is an absolutely “textbook” and classic instance of good ol’ ad hominem attack (sans rational argument).

***

Unfortunately, Money Trees Do Not Exist: If you have been aided in any way by my work, or think it is valuable and worthwhile, please strongly consider financially supporting it (even $10 / month — a mere 33 cents a day — would be very helpful). I have been a full-time Catholic apologist since Dec. 2001, and have been writing Christian apologetics since 1981 (see my Resume). My work has been proven (by God’s grace alone) to be fruitful, in terms of changing lives (see the tangible evidences from unsolicited “testimonies”). I have to pay my bills like all of you: and have a (homeschooling) wife and three children still at home to provide for, and a mortgage to pay.

*

My book royalties from three bestsellers in the field (published in 2003-2007) have been decreasing, as has my overall income, making it increasingly difficult to make ends meet.  I provide over 2600 free articles here, for the purpose of your edification and education, and have written 50 books. It’ll literally be a struggle to survive financially until Dec. 2020, when both my wife and I will be receiving Social Security. If you cannot contribute, I ask for your prayers. Thanks! See my information on how to donate (including 100% tax-deductible donations). It’s very simple to contribute to my apostolate via PayPal, if a tax deduction is not needed (my “business name” there is called “Catholic Used Book Service,” from my old bookselling days 17 or so years ago, but send to my email: apologistdave@gmail.com). Another easy way to send and receive money (with a bank account or a mobile phone) is through Zelle. Again, just send to my e-mail address. May God abundantly bless you.

***

Photo credit: Bruno Girin (6-17-05). Mud volcano in Qobustan, Azerbaijan [Wikipedia / Creative Commons Genérica de Atribución/Compartir-Igual 2.0 license]

***

July 17, 2019

July 17, 2019 By

This is a follow-up to my Reply to Timothy Flanders’ Defense of Taylor Marshall. Timothy responded in my blog combox. His words will be in blue.

*****

Dave,

Praise to Jesus Christ!

Thank you for the thoughtful critique of my article here on your website, my brother. I appreciate the words and all of your links since I am not very familiar with your work. I also would prefer to be wrong about the Infiltration and Vatican II, so I have been searching for scholarly critiques of what you call “reactionaryism” so as to provide an objective picture of the evidence which critiques Vatican II (thank you the link to the refutation).

Thank you for stating here in this response that you intended to not interact with the evidence for the infiltration, which explains how your original critique did not discuss more of the primary and secondary sources that Marshall used. It is true, as well, that my article, limited as it was by length did not face more of your points in particular but I needed to make generalizations for the sake of space. I welcome your correction if I have misrepresented you in my own writing.

I would like to ask you first about your comment about Dr. von Hildebrand. He stated in the quotation that I cited in the article that he thought that Freemasons and Communists were orchestrating things back in 1973. It seems you have some respect for Hildebrand, would you consider Hildebrand’s observations to be reactionary or puerile in some way?

Thank you and I look forward to discussing with you brother.

With respect,

Timothy Flanders

Hi Timothy,

Thanks for your reply, and especially the courteous nature of it. All they are doing at One Peter Five is insults up and down (Skojec saying I’m completely “washed up” as an apologist, etc.). Plain silly . . . so it’s nice to have an actual discussion, with the person who wrote the article.

I can understand that you couldn’t deal with all of my article, as it was quite long. I just wanted to explain what its purpose was. I felt that I dealt with your article adequately in my reply, including any “corrections.” I don’t have much to add here except to answer your questions. Thanks again for your humble attitude.

As for Dr. von Hildebrand, I understand that he had a big problem with the New Mass. The way it was implemented in practice, I can understand that. As I noted, I don’t deny that groups have sought to infiltrate the Church. The question is how, to what degree, and with what success. That includes both Freemasons and Communists. So I wouldn’t say that merely noting that is reactionary in and of itself, let alone “puerile.”

It’s the overall thrust of Dr. Marshall’s book that I object to: as if these conspirators were wildly successful. I deny that they have hijacked Vatican II or overthrown any of Catholic tradition. As an apologist I always concentrate on what systems of belief actually teach. There is liberalism and mayhem in any Christian communion: including the Catholic Church. But they haven’t changed Church teaching. To see that, we need only look at Anglicanism, to see the stark contrast.

If you wanna discuss anything else, feel free. That’s all I can think of to say for now.

God bless!

Hey brother thanks for the response.

I understand your feelings toward One Peter Five but I would like to ask you to keep an open mind toward your brethren there (notwithstanding any insults they may have hurled at you). They are a good group of brethren in Christ, though they are coming to different conclusions than you. I think we all need to forgive each other as faithful Catholics in a difficult time. In a counter point to your view of “all they are doing is insults up and down” I can point you to two different articles of mine they have published which make critical statements about “traditionalists.” This alone proves that there is more here than just invective, although I would readily admit (as I do say) a lack of charity from some who call themselves “traditionalists.”

For myself, I do not consider myself a “traditionalist” but I do think many of their points are reasonable and a lot of their evidence needs to be faced. My impression from your first critique of Marshall (and forgive me if I drew an incorrect impression) was that you were simply attempting to quickly label Marshall and dismiss him (your argument seemed to hinge on convicted him of a three point label).

The reason I bring up Hildebrand in particular, is that it would appear he would come under your critique of bashing on points #2 and #3. He wrote privately that Vatican II itself as a “great misfortune” (if I remember his wording correctly), and also devotes a chapter to critiquing the New Mass itself–not its implementation per se–in The Devastated Vineyard. In this work he states “truly if one of the devils from Screwtape Letters was responsible for the liturgy, he would not have done a better job than the New Mass” (again paraphrasing for memory).

Thus when I read Hildebrand, I see a serious intellectual with a deep charity and love for the Church who has serious critiques of the Vatican council as such and the New Mass as such. My point is simply that the “traditionalist” movement is not a bunch of crazy conspiracy theorists but real Christian brothers who are often also serious intellectuals, who deserve the respect of brothers and academics.

For my part, I have been searching for a serious, academic critique of traditionalism but have not been able to find any except Likoudis, whose book, from my view, suffers from an exaggerated ultramontanism and also out of date (published before 2007). I see your critiques were published after Summorum Pontificum so I will be reading those soon. In the mean time, perhaps you would be so kind as to visit my website and provide some of your critiques there, which I would honestly welcome. I would prefer not to agree with traditionalists, but I have not found any way to answer their arguments.

Anyways, I do appreciate the conversation and I hope you have some time to provide some criticism on my website. God bless you and your family. :)

in Christ,

Timothy

Hi Timothy,

Thanks for this response as well, which remains substantive and civil. Good for you. My opinion of One Peter Five remains unchanged, and likely will stay as it is, but I am truly happy to see that they publish a person like you who refuses to get into the petty, personal insults and ad hominem. May your tribe greatly multiply over there!

For myself, I do not consider myself a “traditionalist” but I do think many of their points are reasonable and a lot of their evidence needs to be faced.

I might be closer to traditionalism than you, per my article: Am I a Catholic Traditionalist? (Well, You Decide!).

My impression from your first critique of Marshall (and forgive me if I drew an incorrect impression) was that you were simply attempting to quickly label Marshall and dismiss him (your argument seemed to hinge on convicted him of a three point label).

I explained in some depth at the beginning exactly what my purpose was. It was a sociological examination, showing that Taylor is a member of the category of radical Catholic reactionaries, which, in my usage (I coined the term) is in stark contrast to traditionalists. What people do with that information is up to them. I was simply saying that this is the category of thought we are talking about, which isn’t poisoning the well, but simply being intellectually honest. I’ve done that with regard to several of the formal criticisms of Pope Francis as well. My point was: “be aware of the milieu from which these critiques come (as the dominant influence on them). These are people who also believe things like the dissing of Vatican II and the canonization of John Paul II, etc.”

Of course, I was also arguing that he has gone too far, and that he was dead-wrong on several counts. That’s not poisoning the well, either. It’s simply rational theological / ecclesiological argumentation.

Hildebrand died in 1977, a year before Pope John Paul II became pope, so he saw the worst of the usual conciliar aftermath and little or none of what I would call a “revival.” Sometimes people like that are tempted to throw the baby out with the bathwater. As an analogy, my mentor was the Servant of God Fr. John A. Hardon, S. J. He saw the worst excesses in the beginning of the Catholic charismatic movement, and so became quite critical of it. It’s one of the few things where I disagreed with him. And I did because the Church supports the movement. I had to follow Holy Mother Church, if the choice was between that and even a man who may become a saint one day. Aquinas and Augustine were wrong on a few things, too.

That said, if Hildebrand was against the New Mass and the Council in and of themselves, then he would have possessed two of the four hallmark traits of the reactionary. Otherwise great men can be wrong in some things. This shouldn’t surprise anyone. An ecumenical council cannot be dismissed by any Catholic who believes in indefectibility. I’d have to see his reasoning more closely, but to my mind, there is no argument that can undermine the sublime authority of an ecumenical council.

Right now, I’m writing a series of refutations of Pasqualucci’s 26 supposed “points of rupture” of Vatican II with tradition: an article published at One Peter Five (to their great shame). I’ve completed nine installments (six already posted).

the “traditionalist” movement is not a bunch of crazy conspiracy theorists but real Christian brothers who are often also serious intellectuals, who deserve the respect of brothers and academics.

Again, for me, traditionalists and reactionaries are not the same thing. I coined the latter term precisely because I was trying to find a way to differentiate the extremists from the legitimate traditionalists: with whom I feel a great affinity. It was an effort to retire the term radtrad: which traditionalists (in great numbers) were interpreting to mean “all traditionalists: who are radical”, whereas the intended meaning was “the extreme, radical wing of the traditionalist movement.” I wanted to get “traditionalist” out of my title and “Catholic” in it. Hence, “radical Catholic reactionary.”

As to being serious intellectuals, some are and some aren’t. But there are different levels to that analysis. If I see someone who persists in holding seriously erroneous premises, against all critiques, then I see a person that has a serious credibility problem as an academic (as the case may be). Just being an intellectual or academic is not enough in and of itself. One still has to have true opinions. Chesterton wrote:

[W]hile there are stupid people everywhere, there is a particular minute and microcephalous idiocy which is only found in an intelligentsia. (Illustrated London News, “The Defense of the Unconventional,” 10-17-25)

I call them Catholics, because they are, but I don’t respect at all what they are teaching (when they are in error), because it is serious, dangerous falsehood, and my job as an apologist is to try to protect the flock from such things, and to defend Holy Mother Church. Steve Skojec, on the other hand, has denied that I am a Catholic.

I have written two books critiquing reactionaries (not traditionalists), dated 2002 (rev. 2013) and 2012. I will send you free e-book copies if you like (though they only cost $2.99). They are available in PDF, mobi, or ePub formats.

It may be that further dialogue on your site could be a fruitful endeavor for both of us. I will likely do that, time-permitting. Right now my “project” is the defense of Vatican II contra Pasqualucci. You might want to consider interacting with those as well. I would welcome that.

May God richly bless you,

Dave

***

Photo credit: original, first edition cover of my first book on reactionary Catholicism, later revised in 2013 and retitled Reflections on Radical Catholic Reactionaries, in order to differentiate the extreme reactionaries from legitimate Catholic traditionalists.

***

July 8, 2019

July 8, 2019 By

Timothy Flanders, writing in the reactionary venue One Peter Five (“Conspiracy and Catholic Doctrine: A Defense of Taylor Marshall”: 7-8-19), offers a rare substantive reply to any serious criticism of Taylor Marshall’s book, Infiltration. He deals with my first lengthy treatment of the book (technically not a book review): Reactionary Infiltration of Taylor Marshall’s Book, Infiltration (5-30-19).

He also counter-replies to Dr. Jeff Mirus (towards whom he is the most critical and disparaging), and Fr. Dwight Longenecker and Dr. Jennifer Roback Morse (both of whom he is relatively less critical of). So for once I’m not the biggest bum and scoundrel. I’m second fiddle to Dr. Mirus. The other three can all ably defend themselves. I will respond only to the critique of my article.

Timothy Flanders’ words will be in blue. Dr. Taylor Marshall’s words will be in green.

*****

To his credit, Armstrong engages in a somewhat academic manner by disputing some sources, but his critique also hinges not on a question of evidence, but on convicting Marshall of the sin of “bashing” so as to label him and dismiss him. 

Flanders attempts to caricature my article as merely a species of “poisoning the well” and ad hominem attacks. This is, unfortunately, the usual response to any critique of radical Catholic reactionary thinking. I do indeed get into some of the evidence, both here and in many other articles, as I will explain further below, but this piece is primarily not a book review per se; rather, it is a piece of religious sociology. I make this quite clear in the first section of my lengthy paper. It could hardly be missed (yet Flanders did somehow manage to miss all that):

I will be examining its blatant reactionary aspects and simply citing from the book (what might be called “sociological exposing of extremist elements”) and identifying plain and obvious examples of three of the four classic hallmarks of radical Catholic reactionary beliefs:

1) Pope-bashing (I will concentrate on bashing of popes other than Pope Francis).

2) Vatican II-bashing.

3) Pauline / New / “Novus Ordo” / ordinary form Mass-bashing.

[the fourth common element is ecumenism-bashing, which is also assuredly a strong motif in the book]

I’ve applied this same method of analysis / exposure to several of the “statements” against Pope Francis and books or articles that criticized Pope Francis and also other popes, Vatican II, and the New Mass: [many papers of mine along these lines listed and linked] . . .

In other words, to sum it up: “It ain’t just Pope Francis.” It’s radical Catholic reactionary conspiratorial / alarmist / fanatical thinking (to more or less degrees, depending on the document). That’s why — increasingly — those who attack Pope Francis also are frequently observed attacking Pope Benedict XVI, Pope St. John Paul II, Pope St. Paul VI, and Pope St. John XXIII (even sometimes Ven. Pope Pius XII, too), and/or Vatican II, and/or the ordinary form Mass.

Armstrong is willing to state that his critique is “not personal,” 

That’s correct, but of course, as with most criticism today, the recipients take it personally. This is just how it is in our postmodernist age, where everything is subjective, and dialogue becomes rarer and rarer . . .

but he ignores the salient points of Marshall’s work while attacking minor points. 

As noted, my intent was not to address the cogency or factuality of every conspiracy brought up in the book, but to highlight only certain deliberately chosen motifs. These are not merely “minor points”: they are important aspects that need to be examined and scrutinized.

For instance, his treatment of Nostra Aetate ignores the fact observed by Marshall that the document’s first drafter was the erring theologian Gregory Baum, whose sordid life is now known. The issue is not whether the documents can be interpreted in an orthodox manner — they can — but whether they include intentional, weaponized ambiguity.

“Ambiguity” is standard / stock / playbook reactionary rhetoric: applied to Vatican II and Pope Francis alike. In the end, it is irrelevant who drafted a particular document. The Bible was largely written by terrible sinners as well (Moses the murderer, David the adulterer and murder, Solomon, who espoused false, idolatrous religions and likely died apostate, Matthew the tax collector, Paul the persecutor and murderer of Christians, and Peter, who denied Christ three times). But it is also inspired revelation, so God protected it.

All that matters in ecumenical councils is the final result, voted on by the bishops. That is what is protected by the Holy Spirit, from doctrinal error. And even Flanders admits that not only this, but all  Vatican II documents “can be interpreted in an orthodox manner.”

And so, I am quite happy to discuss any of the documents with reactionary critics, to see whether in fact, a “heterodox” or “ambiguous” interpretation holds any water or makes sense. I did this in my section, “Vatican II Bashing.” I responded at some length to Taylor Marshall’s absurd charge:

Rahner introduced a new ecclesiology in which the Church of Christ is not the Catholic Church but rather “subsists in the Catholic Church.” This seems to contradict the teaching of Pope Pius XII in his 1943 encyclical Mystici Corporis . . . 

I also dealt at length with the reactionary boilerplate that Vatican II was merely “pastoral” (a quick, easy, and dumb way to dismiss it).  Moreover, not in this paper, but in others in the past month, I have directly taken on false charges against the alleged “ambiguity” or heretical teachings of various Vatican II documents:

*
*
Reactionary Louie Verrecchio’s Three Lies About Vatican II (dealing with ecumenism and religious liberty) [6-19-19]
*
Armstrong agrees with Mirus on the critique I will discuss below, including pointing out that no evidence proves that John Paul II gave permission for the sacrilege committed by pagans at Assisi. This is a fair point.
*
Thanks!
*
But using a lack of formal permission to dismiss the (at least) apparent and material approval of the pontiff for such a scandal is also unfair to Papa Wojtyla’s memory.
*
There is no evidence that Pope St. John Paul II approved any such thing. Marshall didn’t establish that at all. It’s not “unfair” to his memory to note that a false and unjust accusation is just that!
*
I think, overall, Marshall’s treatment of John Paul II is fair — pointing out all of the excesses of the ’80s without omitting the successes of the ’90s.
*
Marshall’s view (undoubtedly, though subtly and cleverly downplayed and muted in the book) is that Vatican II was a modernist council, and that popes since Pope St. John XXII were “men of the Council” and modernists as well. So this includes Pope St. John Paul II. Hence, Marshall writes against him, directly or indirectly (things I cited in this paper):

The liturgical, theological, and philosophical changes of Vatican II . . . were detrimental to the laity.

. . . the modernizing and liberalizing tendencies in doctrine, politics, and liturgy of Vatican II.

Maritain proposed a “new form” of Christendom, rooted in his philosophical, political, and religious pluralism. In brief, it was a prototype for the ideals and goals of Vatican II.

The engineers of Vatican II were Karl Rahner, Edward Schillebeeckx, Hans Küng, Henri de Lubac, and Yves Congar. All five men were held under suspicion of Modernism under Pius XII. Karl Rahner, S.J. had a greater influence than any other on the theology Vatican II — so much so that one might say that Vatican II is simply Rahnerianism.

Devout Catholics often defend Vatican II by saying that it was “hijacked,” and that is certainly the case, but the question is when, and by whom. As will become clear, Pope John XXIII, and his favorites, Bugnini, Bea, and Montini [Pope St. Paul VI], had already set the optimistic new order, or novus ordo, agenda.

. . . he supported the reforms of the Second Vatican Council, . . . 

His pontificate is clearly conflicted, . . . the Freemasons sought to create (beginning in the mid-1800s) a climate among youth, seminarians, and young priests who grew up breathing the air of ecumenism, indifference to religious disagreements, and a mission for world brotherhood. John Paul II is the first pope who moved freely in these ideals . . . he drank deeply of Vatican II, . . . 

Some are convinced that John Paul II was not who we thought him to be.

It seems that what Mirus and Armstrong have done is attempt to swiftly silence any debate on this subject.

I’m all for constructive debate. I can’t find any significant follower of Taylor Marshall who is willing to do so. Nor is Dr. Marshall himself. I’ve critiqued him more than anyone else. But what has his response be so far?:

1) He blocked me on his Twitter page within 24 hours of the article under consideration.

2) He implied that my critiques were motivated merely by financial gain (“click bate” [sic] ).

3) He caricatured my critiques and those of the others above as merely ad hominem attacks or attacks on the publisher.

That’s some willingness to openly dialogue, isn’t it? Finally, after five weeks, at least one of Marshall’s defenders bravely ventures forth to deal with some of the critiques, but not Dr. Marshall himself, who remains missing in action.

Instead of discussing evidence, their critiques hinge on an unfortunate use of ad hominem: labeling Marshall’s work with a name — “conspiracy theory” — and asserting that an insult is sufficient to ignore evidence.

I made it clear that my purpose was not to discuss the various conspiracy theories in the book. I have no interest in them. I did mention one in passing, however:

The “Paul VI was a sodomite” conspiracy theory has been bandied about in many reactionary books and websites. By including it, Dr. Marshall “proves” to the reactionaries that he is definitely one of them. It takes a lot of hubris and chutzpah, indeed, to accuse a pope who is a saint — the very one who wrote the magnificently heroic, tradition-affirming Humanae Vitae at that — , of ongoing sodomy with a secret lover. To even mention such filth is a disgrace and an outrage.

As Fr. Longenecker’s review highlighted, I am not in the least opposed to the bare idea that the Church has been “infiltrated.” The question is in the details and facts and degrees. I didn’t really address this in my first long paper (here critiqued), but I did in my (censored) Amazon review, that was considered the “top review” for over two weeks, the top critical review, and the one that had the most “helpful votes” (over 250 before it was mysteriously removed. There I wrote, as the ending section:

Lastly, I agree that many groups have tried to infiltrate the Church. The radical homosexuals are the ones in our day. The liberals have been trying to wreck Catholicism since the French Revolution. My mentor, Servant of God Fr. John A. Hardon, SJ (who received me into the Church and enthusiastically endorsed my first book, A Biblical Defense of Catholicism) said often that modernism is the culmination of all heresies, and that the modernist crisis is the greatest in the history of the Church. I agree 100%!

My response to that, though, is that the Church is led and protected by the Holy Spirit and is indefectible; therefore, all such attempts fail in the long run. Reactionaryism is the counsel of despair. The orthodox Catholic is always hopeful and believes that God is in control and that all things work together for good (Romans 8:28).

Conspiratorialism is a dead-end street; the fool’s way out, and a plain dumb and intellectually naive and vacant interpretation of very complex events and ideas. Much better is traditional Catholic grace-empowered faith: particularly in the indefectibility of the Church, God’s providence, and the scriptural knowledge that sinners are always present in the Church (parable of the wheat and tares, seven churches of Revelation, etc.).

In this vision and way of life, we know and believe that God is always in control and protects Holy Mother Church despite our repeated attempts to bring it down to the dirt and filth of human sin and nefarious aspirations for power, rebellion against God, and all the rest.

I have not delved into all these conspiracies, since it was not ever my goal or intention, but a good friend of mine, Paul Hoffer (an attorney and Catholic apologist) has embarked on a multi-part point-by-point examination of the conspiracies suggested in Infiltration (three parts done thus far):

A Chapter-by-Chapter Refutation of Dr. Taylor Marshall’s Book, Infiltration: The Plot to Destroy the Church from Within (+ Part II / III) (Paul Hoffer, starting on 6-9-19)

Undoubtedly, they would have censured the great Dr. Dietrich von Hildebrand, Hammer of the Nazis, with the same unscholarly invective, since the latter was already talking about Freemasons in 1973. Indeed, reading Hildebrand shows exactly how inadequate ad hominem is in the shadow of this 20th-century giant.

Right. I have had about eight of his books in my library. I also talked at length with his wife Alice at a dinner party in 2000. And I guess this supposed hostility to Dr. Hildebrand is why I put out my article: Freemasonry? I’ve Had Links About it On My Site Since 2000 (I have vigorously opposed theological liberalism all this time, too) [6-5-19] I wrote in this paper:

I’m glad Taylor is educating Catholics about the danger of Freemasonry (including the infiltration of Catholic institutions). Welcome to the club, Taylor! I’ve been doing this for many years: as well as decrying theological liberalism from time immemorial (all the way back to 1982, as a Protestant apologist and researcher).

One can see my web page: “Theological Liberalism and Modernism (and “Dead” and “Nominal” Catholics)” in an archived version, dated 16 April 2000, filled with tons of links and many of my own articles on this dreadful error. Moreover, my book, Twin Scourges: Thoughts on Anti-Catholicism & Theological Liberalism dates from June 2003.

My concern and warnings about Freemasonry in particular have continued to the present time. On my site right now is the paper, “Catholic Refutations of Freemasonry (Collection of Links).” It is dated 6-28-10, back in the good ol’ days of Catholic unity, when Marshall still thought I was “one of the best cyber-apologists out there.” I added additional links on 9-26-16. It now contains 14 educational links.

The web page, “Liberal Theology & Modernism” is still there now, too.

So I have opposed this from the time before Taylor was even a Catholic [2006]. The difference is that I deny that Freemasonry has subverted an ecumenical council and popes. I think all such conspiracies to change the Catholic religion have failed. They’ve caused tons of damage to souls (I agree), but they haven’t succeeded in changing Church doctrine.

In conclusion, Flanders’ critique of my critique of Taylor Marshall scarcely deals with it at all. It ignores most of its stated purpose. But at least it is some semblance of an attempt (however weak and irrelevant). I’ll grant him that much. That’s already almost infinitely more than Taylor Marshall himself has done.

***

And of course, the combox savages me, as usual. I’ve already gone through this sort of silliness in the 17 or so days that my Amazon review was permitted to be publicly read on the book page. The comments were among the most ridiculous I have ever seen on any topic. The One Vader Five combox will likely soon surpass even that folly.

I posted a link to this paper in the combox, and it was allowed, but Big Cheese Steve Skojec showed up to lob his usual petty, small insults my way.

***

Photo credit: sunilkargwal (6-29-15) [Pixabay / Pixabay License]

***

 

Follow Us!
OTHER RELATED CONTENT
1
What Religion Does Taylor Swift Practice?
Sticking the Corners
2
Have You Ever Wanted to Hear...
Beloved
3
Does God Make People Suffer?
Reflections in the Knight
4
Church Joyfully Welcomes U.S. Navy Chaplain...
The Pursuit of Holiness
Browse Our Archives
TRENDING AT PATHEOS Catholic
John Chrysostom (c. 345-407) vs. "Faith Alone"
Our World Needs Peace - Be A Peacemaker
Sheep (Gospel for Apr. 21, 2024)
For This Type of Food
Thoughts on Day Two of the Trump Trial
Trent Horn: Dangers of Progressive Catholicism Book Review
view all Catholic blogs