In 2017, Cardinal Gerhard Muller had an idea defending Francis's teaching that allows Communion for adulterers which apparently has an anathema from the infallible Council of Trent:
"It is possible that the penitent may be convinced in conscience, and with good reasons, of the invalidity of the first marriage even though they cannot offer canonical proof. In this case the marriage valid before God would be the second one and the pastor could grant the sacrament." (Vatican Insider, "Muller, 'Buttiglione's book dispelled the cardinals' dubia,'" December 31, 2017)
In simple words, it appears that Muller said a penitent and a priest can decide on
"matrimonial causes" between themselves and therefore matrimonial causes
do not belong to Church judges (ecclesiastical judges).
The penitent and the priest can decide on a no-fault annulment without the other marriage partner being involved and decided that the second non-Catholic marriage or civil marriage is magically now a real Catholic marriage "valid before God," "without canonical proof" and without canon law which means without ecclesiastical judges.
In other words, if this is true throw out all Revelation, all Church law, all canon law and all ecclesiastical judges on all matrimonial causes or Catholic marriages if the penitent and priest are "convinced in conscience, and with good reasons" despite the fact that they cannot "offer canonical proof."
Muller needs to be informed of the infallible Council of Trent teaching:
"Canon XII. -If any one saith that matrimonial causes do not belong to ecclesiastical judges; let him be anathema."
Catholic Answers Jimmy Akin in 2002 on www.ewtn.com said:
"Many people have been falsely lead to believe that Vatican II revoked
the anathemas of the Council of Trent. Nothing can be further from the
truth. An anathema on an infallible statement can not be revoked, and is
always binding... at the opening of the Second Vatican Council, Pope
John XXIII stated, 'I do accept entirely all that has been decided and
declared at the Council of Trent..."
"Though today they are not subject to the penalty of anathema since this penalty no longer exists, they are still subject to other canon law penalties, such as excommunication. In fact, the canonical crime of heresy carries with it an automatic imposition of the penalty of excommunication."
Where is Pope Benedict's Supposed Writings that are Anathema by Trent?
Cardinal Muller claimed that Pope Benedict XVI in some 2000
writings supported his new teaching that is anathema by Trent.
All the writings of Joseph Ratzinger as Cardinal and as Pope Benedict, that I know of, officially flatly contradicted Muller's new error that is anathema by Trent.
If Muller were any kind scholar in the least degree, he would have quoted the supposed statement of Benedict and stated what the title of the statement was at the minimum.
If the 1972 essay is what Muller is speaking of, he failed to note that CNA on December 4, 2014 reported that Benedict retracted the 1972 essay issued before he was a Cardinal or Pope that said the divorced and "remarried" could receive Communion.
Does Dr. Taylor Marshall partially accept Cardinal Muller's apparent false idea on Francis's teachings?
In Dr. Marshall's podcast last Wednesdays in which he discusses Bergoglio and "civil unions" as well as Francis's status as Pope (starting right about minute 27), it is difficult to make out if Marshall possibly partially might agree with Muller's false idea on Francis's teachings.
He appears to do this for the same reason as Muller which is to claim that certain teachings of Francis aren't heretical.
Unfortunately, Marshall set up a false dichotomy. He represents our choice of responses as, "Bergoglio is a heretic, let's start a new Church," or "Bergoglio's the Pope and that's just the way it is." Who ever said anything about starting a new Church? There have been a number of anti-popes during the course of history and dealing with them has never meant that.
Then he uses an annulment analogy (that partially appears to accept Muller's false idea), and another false dichotomy sets in. Either a couple decides for themselves (which is wrong) or the couple waits passively for the judgment of the Church, declaring themselves incompetent even to form and advance a reasoned opinion.
This is ridiculous. If people couldn't form their own judgment, they couldn't petition the Tribunal in the first place. How could you wait for and submit to the judgment of the Church if the Church receives no petition to judge?
Marshall appears to says when Catholics, including bishops, form judgements from the evidence on the objective possibility that Francis's teaching are heretical or that Bergoglio may be an antipope, and ask the Church to to judge on the matter, then they are saying let's subjectively annul our relationship with the Church and "start a new Church."
If this is what Marshall is saying, it appears to match out with Muller's idea.
Like Gandalf talking to Saruman, I reject the options that Taylor has outlined here. I wonder, does he have others to offer? Because God does, and so does Canon Law.
Pray an Our Father now for the restoration of the Mass and the Church as
well as for the Triumph of the Kingdom of the Sacred Heart of the Jesus
and the Immaculate Heart of Mary.