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."

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.


Popular posts from this blog

Taylor Marshall finally admitted that "Francis teaches HERESY," now, the question is will he do a Skojec & a Schneider Cop Out

    Doctor of the Church St. Francis de Sales totally confirmed beyond any doubt the possibility of a heretical pope and what must be done by the Church in such a situation: "[T]he Pope... WHEN he is EXPLICITLY a heretic , he falls ipso facto from his dignity and out of the Church, and the Church MUST either deprive him , or, as some say, declare him deprived, of his Apostolic See." (The Catholic Controversy, by St. Francis de Sales, Pages 305-306) Taylor Marshall finally admitted that "Pope Francis teaches HERESY: Pope Pius XII condemned the heresy of Francis": Pope Francis on Feb 2 2022, taught, "that in Christ no one can ever truly separate us from those we love because the bond is an existential bond, a strong bond that is in our very nature...who have denied the faith, who are apostates." Pope Pius XII taught the exact opposite when he wrote of those: "who have not been so unfortunate as to separate themselves from the unity of the Body, or b

Wernz-Vidal: "One cannot consider as Schismatics those who Refuse to Obey the Roman Pontiff because they would hold his person Suspect or, because of Widespread Rumors, Doubtfully Elected"

    Pope Francis is tottering on the precipice of Hell. None of this means he isn't the pope, and such talk among the laity is scandalous in its own right. Not a single cardinal in that 2013 conclave has come out and said the election was rigged and Bergoglio isn't the pope, that he is in fact an anti-pope . If he is, a future pope can declare that, when Jorge Bergoglio will no longer be a pope. But if the very men gathered in conclave haven't made that public accusation,  anyone who is suggesting that better take into account that they too will have to give an account of themselves to Almighty God when they die . Such talk adds to the scandal of the "little ones," the simple, even potential converts, who, when they hear big-mouth Catholics on social media saying he's not really the pope, draw back from approaching the Church. Do any of us desire to stand in front Our Blessed Lord as the Supreme Judge and explain why, in our desire for more c

The Nuremberg Trial-like Excuse which Cardinal Burke has so Staggeringly, so Stereotypically Proffered on the Promised “Formal Correction”

Does Cardinal Burke think Francis is an antipope? On at least five occasions, Cardinal Burke has rejected the magisterial nature of official papal teaching (in one case, pre-emptively dismissing a hypothetical official teaching of the Magisterium): Cardinal Burke has rejected the official teaching of Pope Francis in the new Apostolic Constitution Episcopalis Communio concerning the possibility that a pope can raise the final synodal document to the level of ordinary magisterium, if the pope chooses. (We covered the Episcopalis Communio here .) The whole apostolic constitution on the Synod is problematic. … This idea that either the Pope on his own or the Synod together with the Pope can create some new Magisterium [i.e. a new teaching of the ordinary Magisterium], is simply false. The Synod is a consultative body, to help the Pope to see how best to present the Church’s teaching in time. It’s not able to create ordinary Magisterium. As a canon lawyer, Cardinal Burk