Marshall quickly deleted pre-conclave episode critical of Leo XIV…
Taylor Marshall’s About-Face on Robert Prevost:
From Worst-Choice Candidate to Hope for the Church?
Imagine you’re a ‘trusted Catholic influencer’ with a huge following and you publish a video about who in your opinion would be among the worst possible candidates for Pope.
For Dr. Taylor Marshall that distinction belonged to ‘Cardinal’ Pietro Parolin, but since his chances had tanked in the days just before the 2025 conclave due to alleged involvement in a financial scandal, among other things, Marshall wasn’t terribly worried about him anymore. The next in line for worst candidate in his estimation was — wait for it — ‘Cardinal’ Robert Francis Prevost.
A mere three days later, Prevost was elected ‘Pope’ by the conclave and took the name Leo XIV. As a ‘trusted Catholic influencer’, what was Marshall to do? He had a choice to make.
One option was to stick to his guns, but that came at the price of being perceived as a naysayer broadcasting negativity just at a time when most other podcasters and bloggers (and presumably most people in Marshall’s target audience) were wanting to celebrate and be positive about the new ‘Pope Leo XIV’ — whose greatest achievement so far lies in not being Jorge Bergoglio (‘Pope’ Francis).
The other option was to ride the wave of enthusiasm for the new guy at the helm, dishing out ‘white pills’ of positivity; but that came at the price of having to flip-flop mysteriously within 24 hours and with the challenge of making it appear plausible.
Marshall chose to go with the second option. It was no doubt the better choice from a business perspective.
The Taylor Marshall™ Brand
Contrary to what he likes to say, Taylor Marshall isn’t just a “dad with a webcam”. No, he’s a professional selling a brand. It’s the Taylor Marshall influencer brand.
Don’t believe it? Just look at his web site at taylormarshall.com. It’s been finely crafted for promoting the Taylor Marshall brand. There we read that Dr. Marshall is “A Catholic Voice You Can Trust.” How accurate that is, is another question, and it’s one the present article tries to shed some light on.
“Dr. Marshall is one of the most influential voices in the Church today”, we are told further at his site. That he is indeed influential, of that there can be no doubt.
On the Taylor Marshall brand web site, our friendly ‘trusted Catholic influencer’ even poses with a Rosary for our edification:
In a recent paid Facebook advertisement, Marshall invites the public to pre-order a special “autographed edition” of his new book, Christian Patriot. It is “signed exclusively by Taylor Marshall”, and as a “signed limited edition”, it is only available, of course, “while supplies last”.
What Catholic worth his salt wouldn’t want to have a book gracing his shelf that bears the venerable imprint of a pen guided by the hand of a “dad with a webcam”?
So, yes, Taylor’s decision to flip-flop on Robert Prevost was no doubt a wise move for his business.
But then, what are we saying? Is Taylor Marshall not allowed to change his mind, now that Prevost is ‘Pope’? Are people not allowed to recognize and correct mistakes they’ve made? Isn’t that what we’re supposed to do when we’ve come to see we were wrong about something?
Down the Memory Hole
Certainly, it is perfectly alright to change one’s mind. After all, nobody is perfect and mistakes should be corrected. And if perchance the ‘trusted Catholic influencer’ had come to understand that his negative video from a few days before the conclave was faulty and unjust, that would not have been a problem — then he could have explained the matter, retracted what was wrong, and apologized. People would have seen such an admission of fault and its subsequent reparation as a noble and very Christian character trait, and everyone would have understood why Marshall is now rooting for Leo XIV.
But, alas, the brand owner did nothing of the sort. Instead, after Prevost became Leo XIV on May 8, the ‘trusted Catholic influencer’ simply deleted the video of May 5 (episode #1208), in which he had said of Prevost that after Parolin, he would be the worst possible candidate for the papacy in his estimation.
Not only did Marshall delete the video on YouTube as well as on Facebook, he also removed the entire blog page for the episode. It seems he was more interested in erasing the record than in correcting it.
That is not to say that Marshall was pretending he hadn’t been critical of Prevost before. On the contrary, in several subsequent videos he certainly admitted as much and acknowledged that he had changed his mind. Yet, to our knowledge, and this based on a review of numerous videos he published after May 8, at no time did he acknowledge having deleted his May 5 video, nor did he ever give an adequate justification for his about-face. But more on that later.
Providentially, Novus Ordo Watch has a copy of the entire removed video, as well as an automatic transcript of the episode. (It turns out Marshall left a copy of his video on Twitter, which can be accessed here; an audio-only copy of the episode is also available still through Apple Podcasts.)
Of course we cannot simply publish Marshall’s deleted episode on our own YouTube channel, as that would constitute copyright infringement. However, we can tell you what Marshall said about Robert Prevost in the episode. It is this:
Especially today, I’m going to talk about Cardinal Prevost. He’s definitely a dark horse, maybe one of the most dangerous.
…
So, Parolin is out, and that’s why today, we’re going to look at, where are the liberals going to turn? Who are these second, third place, fourth place, fifth place cardinals who are liberal? And so we’re going to kick it off with an American, Cardinal Prevost. His name is buzzing around — I believe he is the dark horse candidate. And I think in some ways he could be the worst case scenario. So let me give you a quick background on Cardinal Prevost.
He’s 69 years old. Alright, so, you know, if he lives to 90, alright, that’s a 21-year papacy. He was born in Chicago. He joined the order of Saint Augustine, so he’s an Augustinian. He has a bachelor of science in mathematics from Villanova, a master of divinity from Catholic Theological Union. That’s not good. A doctorate in canon law from Pontifical University Saint Thomas Aquinas in Rome, 1987.
He was ordained in 1982, and he served as a missionary in Peru. He held roles as chancellor of Chulucanas and taught canon law. In 2023, he has been prefect for the dicastery for bishops, a powerful position overseeing the global nomination of bishops. So, if you’re unhappy with the selection of bishops in the last couple years, Prevost is involved in that. He was also made cardinal recently in 2023. I’m sorry, 2020. No, 2023. And he was elevated to [the rank of] cardinal-bishop in 2025.
He’s liberal. He emphasizes migrants, being pastoral, which usually is code word for denigrating dogma, denigrating morals, letting things be slippery. He has supported the Amoris Laetitia movement for allowing divorced and civilly-remarried people to receive Communion and has shown support for Fiducia Supplicans. So… that’s the blessing of same sex couples.
Some describe him as a middle-of-the-road candidate or a compromise. So this is where he’s dangerous. He’s maybe not as radical and in-your-face as Pope Francis, Bergoglio. He presents himself as a moderate. He definitely has the — even though he’s American — he has the South American missionary legacy. And he also is pro-environmentalism, migrant rights, etc.
Now there’s some scandals around Prevost, and this is probably what might knock him out. He has two scandals under his watch; not personal, something he did bad with… in a sexually inappropriate way, but the way he oversaw some cases. Okay. So the first one goes back to 1999 to 2001. While he was the provincial of the Augustinian province in Chicago, he allowed Fr. James Ray, an Augustinian priest suspended from public ministry since 1991 due to credible accusations of abuse of minors, to live in the St. John Stone Friary in Chicago. The friary was near a Catholic elementary school, and Prevost did not notify the school administration or the parents and say, hey, we’ve got this guy who has been removed from ministry over credible accusations of abuse of minor children. And he’s living next door to a school. Ray continued some priestly functions until he was finally removed and laicized in 2012. The survivor network of those abused by priests have argued that Prevost’s decision of endangering children by failing to ensure proper oversight or transparency regarding Ray’s history is a crime.
And, you know, I don’t see any excuse for this. How can you take someone who is being… who’s removed from ministry for these horrible things and let him reside on church money, on church property, next to an elementary school, a Catholic elementary school? I don’t want a man like that as pope. That’s not zero tolerance. That’s not taking the problem in the church seriously, that we have evil wolves in sheep’s clothing, and you’re going to give him a free place to live next to a Catholic elementary school? Mm-mm. No way. This man does not deserve to be the pope, Prevost. Cardinal Prevost. No way. Cardinals who are going into conclave in two days should not elect Cardinal Prevost.
But there’s more. In Peru, Prevost has been accused of failing to open a canonical investigation into the allegations of abuse by two priests, Fr. Eleuterio Vásquez Gonzáles and Fr. Ricardo Yesquén of the diocese of Chiclayo. The allegations are made by three women, Ana Maria, Aura Teresa, and Juana Mercedes Quispe. They claim abuse occurred in 2007, with complaints formally raised in 2022. The women assert that Prevost met with them in April 2022, but did not initiate a formal investigation despite an alleged admission of guilt by Vásquez in Prevost’s presence.
So the women are saying that Prevost admitted — or, sorry — the priest, Vásquez, admitted guilt in the presence of Prevost, and Prevost did nada. That’s Spanish for ‘nothing’. They further claimed that no decree was issued to open an investigation or impose precautionary measures. That was reported by The Pillar. The case gained significant attention in Peru with a 2024 investigative report by the Peruvian television program, ‘Fourth Power’ [Cuarto Poder], accusing Prevost of covering up the abuse.
The allegations are particularly sensitive because Prevost as Prefect of the Dicastery for Bishops oversees global enforcement of Vos Estis Lux Mundi, Pope Francis’ decree on episcopal accountability for abuse cases. So, he oversees the supposed reform of overseeing bishops’ malpractice of abuse cases. He’s the guy over that, and yet he seems to be guilty of it. SNAP filed a complaint in March 2025, and critics have argued that Prevost’s inaction undermines his credibility as a papal candidate.
The diocese of Chiclayo issued statements in September 2024 denying the cover-up allegations, asserting that Prevost followed canonical norms. They claim he met with the complainants, encouraged them to pursue civil authorities, imposed precautionary measures, removing Vásquez from his parish, and sent an initial investigation dossier to the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith. The diocese also disputes the claim that Vásquez admitted guilt, …[garbled]… any admission related to celebrating a public Mass is not abuse. Prevost’s supporters argue the case was dismissed due to statute of limitations and lack of evidence.
Don’t like it. I don’t like the first one; I don’t like the second one. The first one, I think, is even worse: That he would place a priest with credible accusations next to a Catholic school and not notify the parents, not notify the administration of the school, is unacceptable. This man shouldn’t be a cardinal, shouldn’t be a pope. If you agree with me, hit the thumbs up; like today’s show; share it.
Okay. So I think he is the scariest dark horse. I think there is behind-the-scenes rallying behind Prevost. He looks more moderate, but he’s actually liberal, and I think he’s careless, according to these reports.
…
Alright, back into the super chats. Cindy [says]: “Sorry, not your favorite subject, but can you lay out any ‘silver linings’ in a papacy of Zuppi, Aveline, or Prevost? Arguments for [why they] might not be as bad as Pope Francis?” Um, I don’t see any silver linings other than that they’re not Francis. And I think the problem is Francis… Francis pushed his agenda so far, everything is kind of… everything is kind of in ruins, you know?
If you think about a giant marble cathedral that took centuries to build, and then it gets pulled down, all the pieces are still there, but it’s not in its form. And there’s confusion, and people are looking around like, Are we still supposed to worship here? What’s going to happen? Are we rebuilding? Right? And I think the message from Francis is, we’re tearing it down, and then we’re going to rebuild something even better. I know you liked the old thing, but we got something even better. And this is what the Holy Spirit wants us to do. He wants us to take this apart, dismantle, and then build something that the Holy Spirit really, really wants, and you’re going to love it.
I think that’s the analogy, that’s the situation right now. And I think when it comes to… You asked for silver linings of Zuppi, Aveline, Prevost… All three of them are on the Francis trajectory. I don’t think any of them could be successful in that project, but all three of them are going to continue to dismantle the cathedral. They’re not going to rebuild. That’s bad, right? That’s… that doesn’t bring honor to God; it’s confusing for the laypeople; I think it will drive people away. I think we’ll continue to see the erosion of Western civilization because the Church isn’t going to be there to hold it up.
So, I don’t see a silver lining, especially, you know, if you are doing illicit real estate deals that cost the Church over a hundred million in Euros, if you’re not above board on abuse in the Church. You know… I mean, maybe the silver lining is [that] he has a beautiful voice, and he chants great, but to me, it doesn’t outweigh the delicate and difficult situation that we are in in 2025.
(Taylor Marshall, “A NEW LIBERAL POPE? Worst Case Situation Analysis”, May 5, 2025; unofficial transcript; slightly edited for clarity.)
Before we go any further, we want to be clear that Prevost’s record on dealing with sexual abuse is not so clear as it may appear at first. Some of the accusations against him may be false or exaggerated. Some days ago, we put together a post dedicated to this specific controversy, in the interests of finding the truth. While we are vehemently opposed to Prevost theologically, we’re not interested in spreading false accusations:
Be that as it may, let’s keep in mind that even if Prevost is guilty of grave moral failings in dealing with sexual abuse, that is not the sort of thing that could make him a non-Pope. Bad Popes are possible; it’s non-Catholic Popes that aren’t. The real problem has to do with doctrine, not with personal moral failings.
Let’s just note that Marshall identified Prevost as dangerous precisely because he is moderate and more reserved than Bergoglio: “Some describe him as a middle-of-the-road candidate or a compromise. So this is where he’s dangerous. He’s maybe not as radical and in-your-face as Pope Francis, Bergoglio. He presents himself as a moderate. … He looks more moderate, but he’s actually liberal…”, Marshall said in his worst-case analysis. (For an explanation of why a moderate liberal is worse than an extreme liberal, see the Vatican-endorsed 1886 book Liberalism is a Sin by Fr. Felix Sarda y Salvany.)
Taylor’s Unconvincing Cover Story
So, what happened? We already said that it’s OK to change one’s mind if that is warranted. But did the facts about Prevost change? Did Taylor Marshall find out that Leo XIV is not a “middle-of-the-road candidate or a compromise” after all? Did he come to understand that he’s somehow not a liberal and not dangerous, in spite of the evidence?
No, he didn’t. Or if he did, he kept it a secret. In his video of May 9, the day after Prevost became Leo, Marshall does acknowledge his change of heart, but the justification he gives for it is suspiciously inadequate:
I submit myself to His Holiness, Pope Leo XIV, Supreme Pontiff of the one, holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church. Pope Leo XIV is the Vicar of Christ, and Christ is King. I’m reminded of the words from the Epistle to the Hebrews, chapter 13, verse 17 [and 18]: “Obey your prelates, and be subject to them. For they watch as being to render an account of your souls; that they may do this with joy, and not with grief. For this is not expedient for you. Pray for us. For we trust we have a good conscience, being willing to behave ourselves well in all things.”
It’s no secret: I wanted Cardinal Sarah or Cardinal Erdö or Cardinal Burke, but I’m not a cardinal. I’m a layman, and we must accept the vote of the conclave. All the cardinals appointed by Pope John Paul II, Pope Benedict XVI, Pope Francis… all of them have accepted that Pope Leo XIV is the Supreme Pontiff. And so I bend the knee, and I accept Pope Leo XIV as the Vicar of Christ on Earth, the Supreme Pontiff, the Pope, my Holy Father.
(Taylor Marshall, “I submit to POPE LEO XIV – My Initial Thoughts”, May 9, 2025; unofficial transcript; slightly edited for clarity.)
Now this is somewhat strange already: Taylor Marshall discovering Hebrews 13:17 and the duty of submission to the ecclesiastical hierarchy. Seriously? If there’s one thing the ‘trusted Catholic influencer’ wasn’t known for during the last few years, it’s submission to the man he thought was the Pope. Everything he says above about Prevost was also true of Bergoglio (Francis), if we assume him to have been a true Pope, so why the sudden change of heart?
A little bit later in the video, Marshall explains what got him to do a 180 on Prevost:
…I was initially shocked, and, yeah, as I’ve processed it, and then as I woke up this morning and got on my knees and prayed for the Holy Father, I had hope, I had encouragement.
Also, last night, when we prayed the Rosary, our family prayed the Rosary for Pope Leo XIV. It was somewhat surreal. I would say it was a good feeling at the end of the Rosary. We prayed for the intentions of the Holy Father, Pope Leo XIV. Another surreal moment. And I also think, you know, coming off the last twelve years over the past week and leading into the conclave, talking to other Catholics, but also just praying and praying for a good pope and that the cardinals pick the right the right man… Honestly, I think what I’ve learned the most is there are wounds. There’s a lot of hurt. You know? And I think that came out in many ways in America and maybe throughout the world as well. And I hope that an American pope is aware of those wounds and desires to be a healer. I hope so.
I want to show some footage of Pope Leo XIV, and I’ll continue to share some… Oh, one other thing I wanted to mention is, you know, I know there are people out there who are saying, well, he did this and he said this, and they’re starting to, you know, collect the stack of facts against him. And I’m aware of all those; I probably have read all of them. But I want to remind you that there is a weight of the office that has fallen on Pope Leo XIV. And we as Catholics believe that the office of the pope, the successor of Saint Peter, the Vicar of Christ, comes with special graces. There are graces of office that come to the pope, and we have to pray that those graces are activated and effectual, and we have to trust that to the Holy Spirit.
(Taylor Marshall, “I submit to POPE LEO XIV – My Initial Thoughts”, May 9, 2025; unofficial transcript; slightly edited for clarity.)
So Marshall prayed and had a good feeling. He acknowledges he’s aware of the “stack of facts” against Prevost, and apparently he does not even dispute them. So what accounts for his change of mind?
He appeals to the “special graces” attached to the office of pope. Prevost is no longer just Prevost, now he is Leo XIV. Fair enough, from his perspective. But is that some sudden discovery of his, one he did not yet know about a few days prior, when he called Prevost the worst-case scenario (after Parolin, who he thought had no chance)?
In fact, if the grace of the papal office somehow wipes the slate clean, as it were, why bother making videos evaluating papal candidates in the first place? Why produce a broadcast reviewing worst-case scenarios that have no silver lining? Would the graces not be there to assist whomsoever gets chosen? (But then, how did that work out for Francis?)
This just shows Taylor’s inconsistency about the matter if we take his argument at face value. However, his reasoning isn’t very strong if we consider that the sacrament of Holy Matrimony also comes with special graces, and yet no one would say that a really bad choice for a spouse is suddenly a terrific pick simply because the knot’s been tied and the Rosary feels right.
Perhaps some people will begin to wonder: Was Marshall fooling his audience then (May 5) or is he fooling his audience now (May 9 and after)? Or perhaps his primary goal isn’t sound Catholic information, analysis, and commentary in the first place but simply running a prosperous influencer business?
Remember, on May 5 Marshall wanted you to “hit the thumbs up; like today’s show; share it” if you agreed with his opposition to Prevost. Now he (presumably) wants you to “hit the thumbs up; like today’s show; share it” if you agree with his advocacy of Prevost. Get it? The most important thing to him seems to be the success of the brand; the content is secondary.
Thus we see that Taylor deleted his May 5 video critical of Prevost not in order to correct a mistake but rather to get rid of an embarrassing narrative that he has no intention of continuing. That explains why he simply erased the episode rather than correcting the record and explaining where he had erred.
Sadly, it is clear that Marshall changed his tune on Prevost not because he realized he had been mistaken about the man before the conclave or because he suddenly discovered the power of God’s grace. No, he simply saw that it would be more expedient for the Taylor Marshall business to jump on the bandwagon of positivity and enthusiasm over the ‘new Pope’. To maintain opposition to Prevost in the face of so much public excitement and hope would have been tantamount to committing influencer suicide, so to speak. The stuff about the graces of the office and praying the Rosary is just the cover story, and it’s not even a convincing one.
A History of Clever and Successful Self-Promotion
In all of this, let’s not forget that Taylor Marshall isn’t a blank slate. He has a history of marketing his brand in ways that are quite clever and successful but perhaps questionable in other ways.
In 2019, Marshall published the book Infiltration: The Plot to Destroy the Church From Within. Although a laughably superficial work with terrible scholarship and bizarre errors, he called it his “greatest literary accomplishment of my life”, and it immediately became a bestseller. There is no question that one of the reasons for its great success was Marshall’s promotional strategy involving a so-called ‘launch team’ of over 2,000 volunteers. This tactic happily yielded him hundreds of high-rated reviews of the book on Amazon on day one.
We have exposed the problems with Infiltration and Taylor’s marketing tactic in the following two podcast episodes and article:
- TRADCAST 027: Taylor Marshall’s “Infiltration” Unmasked (Part 1)
- TRADCAST 028: Taylor Marshall’s “Infiltration” Unmasked (Part 2)
- Assessing Taylor Marshall’s “Infiltration”: Bold Exposé or Controlled Opposition?
Please note that we are not holding Marshall to an unreasonable standard. The man is an academic; he has a Ph.D. in philosophy from the University of Dallas. That means he knows how to reason, how to research, how to write, and how to present his case with proper documentation.
But then, Infiltration was probably never meant to be a serious work documenting and exposing the infernal plot against the Catholic Church anyway. If it was, it failed dramatically. But if it was chiefly meant to catapult Marshall into the big league of social media and influencer stardom, it was a spectacular success for the author.
Just before Infiltration hit the shelves, the ‘trusted Catholic influencer’ got a meet-and-greet with none other than ‘Pope Francis’ after a general audience. It happened on May 15, 2019. In his quick encounter with the Jesuit from Buenos Aires, who, incidentally, had great trouble with the English language, Marshall handed a copy of Infiltration to him and briefly explained what the book was about:
Vatican City, May 15, 2019: A few days before the public release of his book Infiltration, Taylor Marshall meets ‘Pope’ Francis for a photo op to help him drive book sales and gain credibility as a ‘trusted Catholic influencer’. (image: Servizio Fotografico Vaticano / rights-managed)
Clearly, this was a terrific photo opportunity for Marshall if you think of it in terms of advertising, sales, and promoting himself as a credible influencer who plays in the big league. A VIP ‘papal’ photo op like that is not easy to get, but it definitely came in handy for Marshall to establish himself further in the digital and media worlds and to drive book sales and get greater name recognition. Who arranged the Vatican encounter for him is not known.
The one-on-one with Francis becomes even more suspicious when we consider that in Infiltration, Marshall writes the following about Bergoglio’s election in the 2013 conclave:
Mission accomplished for the Sankt Gallen Mafia: at last they delivered to the world a “Revolution in Tiara and Cope” as had been prophesied by the Freemasonic document Alta Vendita more than 150 years before. After a slow, patient revolution, they had secured “a Pope according to our heart; it is a task first of all to form for this Pope a generation worthy of the kingdom that we desire.”
(Taylor R. Marshall, Infiltration: The Plot to Destroy the Church from Within [Manchester, NH: Sophia Institute Press, 2019], p. 225)
After recounting some of Francis’ blasphemous and heretical teachings, Marshall concludes: “Saint Pius X would have placed Pope Francis under the ban of Modernism. How can we have two popes in theological contradiction?” (Infiltration, p. 228).
None of that mattered, of course, for the photo op. To help promote the Taylor Marshall brand, even the Sankt Gallen Mafia’s own hand-picked quasi-Masonic candidate was good enough. Whereas a real Catholic would have been ashamed to be seen happily greeting and chatting with Jorge Bergoglio, that was not a problem for the ‘trusted Catholic influencer’, who knew the encounter would help him immensely in advancing his influencer career. Infiltration was released only a few days later (May 23, 2019, for the Kindle edition and May 31 for the print edition).
Just how successful Marshall’s self-promotion was could be seen the following year, which was a presidential election year in the United States. On July 2, none other than President Donald Trump, then in his first term, tweeted about Marshall. That was around the same time that the ‘trusted Catholic influencer’ was appointed to be on the advisory board of ‘Catholics for Trump’. Clearly, Taylor had reached top-notch influencer status!
Later that same year, Marshall demonstrated once more that selling his brand was more important to him than Catholic principle when he, identified by the event as a “faith leader”, participated virtually (with a public video message) in an ecumenical prayer rally that included Protestants and Jews — which is the very thing he as a ‘traditional Catholic’ supposedly repudiates. Oops!
Fast-forward to May of 2023. Out of the blue, Marshall announced that he was running for President of the United States. The announcement all but guaranteed attention from all kinds of journalists, bloggers, and media outlets. His adoring fans were smitten. Finally, a traditional Catholic candidate for the presidency! Or so they thought. To make a long story short, less than two months later Taylor called it off, and it became clear his ostensible presidential campaign had been little more than a publicity stunt.
Given that background, can anyone be blamed for being skeptical about Marshall? Of course not. But agree or disagree with his practices, it cannot be denied that they’re effective for business; and that’s probably the point.
Miscellaneous Items and Final Thoughts
Before concluding this article, there are a few more items we should not fail to mention.
First, we want to point out that Taylor Marshall wasn’t the only one who flipped on Robert Prevost within 24 hours. A number of others in the conservative Novus Ordo / recognize-and-resist trad camp did, too, as documented here. Whether all of them did so for less than noble reasons, or whether they perhaps all got marching orders from someone who controls them, is a separate question, and one we don’t profess to know the answer to. But flip they all did.
With regard to Marshall’s critical assessment of Prevost in the now-deleted video of May 5, whose transcript we quoted from extensively above, recall that the ‘trusted Catholic influencer’ said somewhat mockingly of the worst-case scenario candidate that “maybe the silver lining is [that] he has a beautiful voice, and he chants great”.
Ironically, only a week later, on May 12, Marshall was so impressed with Prevost’s chanting of the Regina Caeli in Latin that he put out an episode entitled: “How to Pray in Latin Like Pope Leo XIV: Regina Caeli”. In the video, Taylor starts out with saying: “Today, we’re going to do some Latin, we’re going to learn some Latin. We’re going to learn the Regina Caeli — Pope Leo XIV has been chanting it every day.” Oh, the irony!
Next, let’s briefly address a point Taylor Marshall makes in some of his post-conclave videos, namely, that Pope Pius IX (r. 1846-1878) had been a liberal before his election and yet he ended up being one of the most conservative Popes ever. Could this not also be the case for Leo XIV, given the graces attached to the papal office?
Although this may sound reasonable at first, the argument is actually based on equivocation: Pius IX was never a liberal in the same sense as one would speak today of Bergoglio, Cupich, or McElroy as being liberals, or even in the sense used by Fr. Sarda y Salvany in Liberalism is a Sin. There is no need to explain the matter here now; interested readers can find the false ‘Pope Pius IX was a liberal’ argument refuted here:
Interestingly enough, we compiled the above post in March of 2013, a few days after Bergoglio’s election as ‘Pope Francis’, because pundits were making the exact same bad argument then: appealing to Pius IX’s erstwhile ‘liberalism’ to give people hope about Bergoglio. Now it’s being recycled again, this time for Prevost.
Next, there is a curious thing that Marshall said during his ‘I submit to POPE LEO XIV’ broadcast on May 9. A participant in the live chat asked Taylor if he would send a copy of Infiltration to Leo XIV (who, unlike Francis, speaks English and so could actually read the book). Astonishingly, however, the ‘trusted Catholic influencer’ shot down the idea, saying: “I don’t know. I mean, Infiltration definitely was more geared towards the run-up to Pope Francis, and, I think we’re in a different moment now. We’re in a different epoch, so I don’t see that happening.” That is a mighty strange response!
Marshall’s remarks are puzzling for several reasons. For one thing, why does he say the book “was more geared towards the run-up to Pope Francis”? It was published in 2019, about six years into Francis’ twelve-year reign, and it covers ecclesial developments from that very year. Furthermore, the book presents Francis as the culmination of the Masonic efforts to infiltrate and wreck the Church, so how could the author think the information would not be relevant to Leo XIV? Does he think his ‘Holy Father’ shouldn’t read what he wants every one of his followers to purchase and read? Or is Taylor perhaps going to withdraw the book, since we’re in a “different moment now”?
In fact, what is it with that “different moment” or “different epoch” remark? Just what new epoch are we in, and how could Marshall possibly know that? Francis hadn’t been dead for a month yet when Taylor answered the inquiring member of his audience, and Prevost had just stepped onto the balcony of St. Peter’s as Leo XIV the day before. Yet, already Marshall was declaring the dawn of a new epoch, one that doesn’t even require the ‘Vicar of Christ’ to be informed of an infernal plot against the Church by Modernists and Masons — even though Marshall had seen fit to notify his immediate predecessor in person, a who was clearly implicated and denounced in the book as the ripest fruit of the infiltration?! Does this make any sense? Or is Marshall perhaps simply trying to develop his personal brand in a different direction, since Infiltration has long fulfilled its chief purpose of making him into a major influencer and widely-recognized social media personality?
On a related note: On May 17, 2025, we published an episode of our own podcast, TRADCAST EXPRESS 209. It includes a critique of Taylor Marshall and his sudden, insufficiently-explained about-face on Robert Prevost. It is well worth a listen:
.
Lastly: In a video episode published on May 19, the ‘trusted Catholic influencer’ explained what he thinks is the secret behind the success of his podcast. He does so in the context of offering a mild criticism of his ‘Holy Father’ even, but not without immediately reminding us that he is a nobody (albeit one whose autographed limited-edition book you can get while supplies last!). Make sure you’re sitting down:
Do I wish [Leo XIV] tapped the brakes on using the term ‘synodal church’ or saying Francis is accompanying us from heaven? I do, I do. But, again, I’m just a little layman, a dad on a webcam. Alright? I’m just sharing my heart. And by the way, I think one of the reasons why this podcast is successful and it has over a million subscribers is: I honestly just do share my heart with you. Right? There’s no pretenses here. I’m telling you exactly what I think, and I think people maybe find that refreshing. I’m not playing a game. I’m the same guy I am on camera and off camera. Right?
(Taylor Marshall, “Pope Leo XIV removes controversial Head of John Paul II Institute”, May 19, 2025; unofficial transcript; slightly edited for clarity.)
No doubt, Taylor, that is the reason!
Ladies and gentlemen, when dealing with Taylor Marshall, all we need to do is open our eyes. Yes, he may be personable, a ‘nice guy’, and even have some truly good commentary and other useful content now and then. However, the red flags are everywhere, and our Blessed Lord warned us: “Take heed lest any man deceive you” (Mk 13:5).
Should you really let Taylor Marshall influence you?
Which way today, Tay?
Title image and end image sources: composites with elements from Shutterstock (El Greco/Carlos Yudica/Corina Daniela Obertas/mr chris kemp) and taylormarshall.com
Licenses: paid and fair use
;
No Comments
Be the first to start a conversation