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

Bishops of Colorado gave an apparent Vaxx "Exemption" Letter & Stated: "Vaccination is Not Morally Obligatory and so Must Be Voluntary"

Today, the bishops of Colorado gave an apparent Vaxx " exemption" letter (21_8_Vaccine_Exemption_CCC_Fin...docx(20KB)) and stated that "Vaccination is Not Morally Obligatory and so Must Be Voluntary":  COLORADO CATHOLIC CONFERENCE 1535 Logan Street | Denver, CO 80203-1913 303-894-8808 |   [Date]   To Whom It May Concern, [Name] is a baptized Catholic seeking a religious exemption from an immunization requirement. This letter explains how the Catholic Church’s teachings may lead individual Catholics, including [name], to decline certain vaccines. The Catholic Church teaches that a person may be required to refuse a medical intervention, including a vaccination, if his or her conscience comes to this judgment. While the Catholic Church does not prohibit the use of most vaccines, and generally encourages them to safeguard personal and public health, the following authoritative Church teachings demonstrate the principled religious

Does Francis's "Right-hand Man" Parra have a "Sexual Predation against Seminarians, Adultery, and even a Deadly Sex Game...[that] 'might even be a Scandal Surpassing that of McCarrick'"?

  Archbishop Edgar Peña Parra with Francis Today, the Call Me Jorge website asked "What could be so important that Francis interrupted his weekly adulation [Audience] session?": Pope gets a phone call during the Audience. Haven’t seen this before. Then he quickly leaves and says he will be back. — The Catholic Traveler (@MountainButorac) August 11, 2021 It was Abp. Mons. Edgar Robinson Peña Parra, Substitute for the Secretariat of State, who was involved in the recent scandal of mismanagement during the acquisition of a € 300 million building in London. Still no word on what the phone call was about . [] Who is Archbishop Edgar Robinson Peña Parra ? Parra according to the Catholic Herald is Francis's "right-hand man"[] In 2019, Life Site News reported that Parra alleged

Might it be Good for all of us & for Francis to Read about the "Gruesome Death of Arius"?

  I have read the letters of your piety , in which you have requested me to make known to you the events of my times relating to myself, and to give an account of that most impious heresy of the Arians , in consequence of which I have endured these sufferings, and also of the manner of the death of Arius . With two out of your three demands I have readily undertaken to comply, and have sent to your Godliness what I wrote to the Monks; from which you will be able to learn my own history as well as that of the heresy . But with respect to the other matter, I mean the death, I debated with myself for a long time, fearing lest any one should suppose that I was exulting in the death of that man. But yet, since a disputation which has taken place among you concerning the heresy , has issued in this question, whether Arius died after previously communicating with the Church ; I therefore was necessarily desirous of giving an account of his death, as thinking that the question woul