Skip to main content

Reactionary Reaction to a Book by Dr. Taylor Marshall

Image
By
+
JMJ

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 ...

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

So ... here we go.

First a reference:
Dave Armstrong: Reactionary Infiltration of Taylor Marshall’s Book, “Infiltration”


He has been married to his wife Judy since October 1984, and the couple has three sons and a daughter.[20] Armstrong holds a Bachelor of Arts, Sociology (cum laude) from Wayne State University, Detroit, 1982.Wikipedia
 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.
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.
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. But if David wants to hold his opinion that all is hunky dory, then he's entitled to be wrong. :-)
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. It means that:
  1. The publishers thought his work would sell books. ... oops looks like he self published
  2. He can use blogging software.
Hardly academic qualifications eh?

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.

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.

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

P^3
Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

The Catholic Church and the Rule of Law- Part II: Dr. John Lamont

By
+ JMJ This is the second article from Dr. Lamont from his lecture given in May 2014. P^3 Source Part A: Society of St. Hugh of Cluny Source Part B: Society of St. Hugh of Cluny 8 May2014 The Catholic Church and the Rule of Law- Part II By John Lamont To understand how the Jesuit conception of obedience departed from earlier conceptions, it is helpful to compare it with the teaching of St. Thomas on obedience. The fundamental difference between the two is that St. Thomas considers the proper object of obedience to be the precept of the superior (2a2ae q. 104 a. 2 co., ad 3). Obedience that seeks to forestall the expressed will of the superior does not bear on what the superior wants or thinks in general, but only on what the superior intends to command. St. Ignatius’s lowest degree of obedience, which he does not consider to be virtuous, is thus what St. Thomas considers to be the only form of obedience. St. Thomas holds that St. Ignatius’s alleged higher forms of o...
Post a Comment
Read more

Open Letter to Cardinal Gantin - July 6, 1988

By
There has been some discussion (read lots) about the term 'Conciliar Church'. I have posted this letter written by the Superior General and District Superiors of the SSPX after the 1988 Consecrations. Of particular interest is that the 'Conciliar Church' being referred to as a system. My paraphrase would be that the SSPX regards the 'conciliar Church' as an error within the Church. Source Open Letter to Cardinal Gantin Prefect of the Congregation for Bishops
Post a Comment
Read more

Morning and Evening and other sundry Prayers

By
+ JMJ Along the theme of P^3 (Prayer, Penance, Patience), and for my own reference ... here is a collection of Morning and Evening prayers from the Ideal Daily Missal along with some additional prayers. In this crisis of the Church, I do not think it is possible to do too much prayer, penance and have patience. P^3
Post a Comment
Read more

Rome and the SSPX - Version 2026 Part 6b: Principles and Rules for Surviving this Crisis of the Catholic Church (Principle 1)

By
 + JMJ Principle 1: Realize that something is amiss in the Catholic Church The world in which I had my Traditional Awakening, is one in which practically anything pre-Conciliar such as liturgy, doctrinc, and even dogmas are either suppressed, ignored or re-framed to be acceptable to the ‘world’. What is more, the people adhering to these pre-conciliar teachings and liturgy are persecuted by other members of the Catholic Church. The things that non-Trads say about Trads can be quite extreme. For example, accusations against Traditionalists include that they are: A revival of the Jansenists (link) , Schismatics, Heretics, Uncharitable, Lefebrists Radicals Integrists When one group of Catholics is persecuted by the others for simply wanting to live as Catholics before them did for generations … well something is wrong. Further, we need to realize that when what was previously condemned is now promoted and what was previously promoted as the trut...
Post a Comment
Read more

How is the SSPX prepared to accept the Second Vatican Council??? - Reblogged and Updated.

By
+ JMJ The Archbishop remained steadfast. In the 1980s, in his correspondence with then-Cardinal Ratzinger, Archbishop Lefebvre stated his position that the criterion for interpreting Vatican II in light of Tradition comprises three elements: 1) He and the SSPX would accept anything in Vatican II that is clearly consistent with Tradition; 2) Any ambiguous texts of Vatican II must be interpreted strictly according to Tradition; according to the consistent teaching of the Church throughout the centuries. 3) Anything in the Council that cannot be interpreted according to Tradition should be revised. The Archbishop laid this out explicitly in his letters to Cardinal Ratzinger in 1982 and 1985. CF News: Rome-SSPX: Background to the Doctrinal Discussions CF News: The April 15 Deadline A few years ago Tony La Rosa (aka ecclesia militans a Toronto based 'resistor') had a difficult time accepting this approach to the council. He held that it must be completely tossed as...
Post a Comment
Read more