Skip to main content

Marshall Fan: Does Canon Law "matter" to Ryan Grant & Taylor Marshall & are they "Pretending that the Canons were Fulfilled"?

An apparent fan of Catholic celebrity Dr. Taylor Marshall's YouTube show or Twitter account asked the following questions to him and in a sense to Latin language translator Ryan Grant who agrees with him:

Does canon law "matter" to Grant and  Marshall and can they stop "pretending that the canons were fulfilled"?

Grant who is not a canon law expert or a theologian on the Taylor Marshall YouTube channel joined Marshall in ignoring canon 332.2 and claimed ministerium and munus are a "metonym," that is a synonym or near synonym:

"In Benedict, it is like you know, ministry, he is using, he is probably using it as a metonym and it is common to use one thing for the other."
(Dr. Taylor Marshall YouTube channel, "Can Popes become Heretics? St. Robert Bellarmine Analysis, January 31, 2020, 147:17-147:24)

On the show Grant said:

"If I ever come out and say I am a theologian take me out to the wood shed and beat me."
(144:08-144:13)

In the TraditionalCatholics section of Reddit a FiP (Francis is Pope) fan of Marshall asked him if "Canon Law just does not matter when it comes to determining resignations, I'm ok with that, but if we can just be honest about it and truthfully admit to it, that'd be wonderful instead of pretending that the canons were fulfilled when they clearly weren't":

I'm still on the PF [Pope Francis] is the Pope train, but mainly because all the cool kids are doing it and maybe I'm overlooking something. From a legal standpoint, I don't quite understand how the resignation was valid when the letter of the law was not fulfilled. If Canon Law just does not matter when it comes to determining resignations, I'm ok with that, but if we can just be honest about it and truthfully admit to it, that'd be wonderful instead of pretending that the canons were fulfilled when they clearly weren't.

In Sacramental Theology, form and matter are very important in determining whether an actual sacrament occurred or was confected.

The proper form for the Eucharist is "this is my body." If the priest said "this is my flesh" or "this is the body of Christ ... the bread is now transubstantiated ... it is not just bread it is the body of Christ" or whatever, it does not matter how true, profuse, flowery, and skillfully crafted his words are, it is improper form and nothing happened, there is no Eucharist, i.e. body, blood, soul, divinity. This provides a brightline rule where we can determine definitively whether the Eucharist is valid or not and the laity can be put on notice without any ambiguity or doubt. And notice how extremely simple and elegant the form is, just "this is my body," (or "i absolve you" in confession) nothing fancy or complicated.

An analogous operation occurs wrt Canon 332.2. The canon explicitly calls for the "munus" to be resigned. If the Pope says the "seat is empty" or "i am no longer the Pope ... the conclave must be organized to elect my successor ... i am retiring ... " or whatever, again it does not matter how true, profuse, flowery, and skillfully crafted his words are, it does not meet the clear and simple metrics prescribed in canon 332.2. The words "resigned" and "munus" need to come together in any resignation. In the Eucharist "this is my flesh" is improper form and nothing happens, even though only a single word was changed. WRT canon 332.2 if you switch "munus" to "ministerium" then it should be the same thing, the canon was not fulfilled, the magic words were not said, no actual resignation occurred. That is the logical consequence of 'resigning the ministerium' and not meeting the conditions for canon 332.2. The law is there for clarity and to remove doubt wrt important legal matters such as whether the Pope has actually resigned or not so the laity need not be in a state of uncertainty and second guessing ourselves. It's so simple to just say "munus" and he actually uses the word "munus" correctly TWICE in Non Solum Propter before completely mucking it up and resigning the ministerium.

I was really triggered when Dr. Marshall [apparently on his show or Twitter] said that the munus v. ministerium argument is so "weak" and then to support his argument, that munus = ministerium, he opened up frkn WIKIPEDIA. For a highly-specialized and hyper-specific field like canon law he tries to define terms using some generic online dictionary. That is fine for your high school Latin homework but Wikipedia is sorely inadequate for defining canonical terms and he should have known better. There need to be way better arguments than this weak-sauce if you're going to convince anyone that PF is the rightful Pope.
Moreover, Latin language expert Br. Alexis Bugnolo says this is not a correct way to canonically and legally approach the resignation because canon law requires an objective reading of what the two words mean using canon 17's criteria as canon lawyer Edward Peters has explained and not a subjective reading of what the two words may possibly have meant in the mind of Benedict or in a Latin dictionary:

"Canon 17 requires that Canon 332 S2 be read in accord with the meaning of canon 145 S1  and canon 41... [which] requires that ministerium and munus be understood as referring to two different things."
(From Rome, "Ganswein, Brandmuller & Burke: Please read Canon 17, February 14, 2019)


Canonist Peters explains canon 17's importance:

"Canon 17... states 'if the meaning [of the law, and UDG is a law] remains doubtful and obscure, recourse must be made to parallel places."
(Catholic World Report, "Francis was never pope? Call me unpersuaded," September 28, 2017)

Dr. Marshall do you have counter arguments to Br. Bugnolo and your apparent fan who is asking:

Can you stop "pretending that the canons were fulfilled"?

Pray an Our Father now for the restoration of the Church as well as the for the Triumph of the Kingdom of the Sacred Heart of Jesus and the Immaculate of Mary.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

"Exorcist Fr. Ripperger is asking everyone to say this Prayer until the Election is Resolved"

A good friend of the Catholic Monitor got this from a group message. She said "exorcist Fr. Chad Ripperger is asking everyone to say this prayer until the election is resolved": Prayer of Command In His Name and by the power of His Cross and Blood, I ask Jesus to bind any evil spirits, forces and powers of the earth, air, fire, or water, of the netherworld and the satanic forces of nature.  By the power of the Holy Spirit and by His authority, I ask Jesus Christ to break any curses, hexes, or spells and send them back to where they came from, if it be His Holy Will.  I beseech Thee Lord Jesus to protect us by pouring Thy Precious Blood on us (my family, etc.), which Thou hast shed for us and I ask Thee to command that any departing spirits leave quietly, without disturbance, and go straight to Thy Cross to dispose of as Thou sees fit.  I ask Thee to bind any demonic interaction, interplay, or communications.  I place N. (Person, place or thing) under the protectio

High-profile Lawyer Barnes: Amy Coney Barrett would be a Disaster

High-profile trial lawyer Robert Barnes who deals in civil, criminal and constitutional law reported on Twitter that Amy Coney Barrett would be a disaster. The Barnes Twitter report shows that Coney Barrett has " sid[ed] with the government on the lockdowns, on uncompensated takings, on excusing First Amendment infringements & Fourth Amendment violations... [and] exclaimed the benefits of Jacobson, the decision that green-lit forced vaccines & carved out an emergency exception to Constitutional protection in "public health" or "emergency" cases used to justify forced sterilizations & detention camps... [and] hid behind precedent... to prohibit pro-life activists from exercising their free speech ." The Avvo.com lawyer directory reports that attorney "Robert Barnes embraces the challenge to defend the little guy and stand up for what is right. This is why he left the prestigious Yale Law School, whom publicly stated their unwill

If Kamala Harris' Father is part White & part Jamaican African and her Mother is Asian-Indian then is she really Black?

  Is Joe Biden's running mate really Black? If Kamala Harris' father is part white and part Jamaican African and her mother is Asian-Indian then is she really Black? Reason.com tries to figure it out: Kamala Harris, Joe Biden's pick to be the Democratic Party's vice-presidential nominee, is the daughter of an Indian immigrant mother and a Jamaican immigrant father. Her father, as I understand it, has ancestors of both European and African origin. [Welcome new Volokh readers. FYI, I've been working on a book on the American Law of Race, with this forthcoming article the first relevant output. My own opinion is that Ms. Harris should be deemed American, period, but there is no such box on government forms, and if you decline to state your race, someone will decide for you… First things first. There is no multiracial or mixed-race category in American law in any jurisdiction. Nor is there an Indian category. So Harris cannot be legally Indian, nor can she b