Skip to main content

Does Taylor Marshall partially accept Cardinal Muller's apparent False Idea on Francis's Teachings?

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."
(http://www.thecounciloftrent/ch24.htm)
 

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."
[http:www.ewtn.com/v/experts/showmessage_print.asp?number=379439&language=en]

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.


 

Comments

Rudy said…
What is your problem with Taylor Marshal? You criticize him for insignificant reasons. He asks questions and gives some alternative answers.
Don’t know if your trying to exhibit your intellectual prowess or what, but this has gotten silly.

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 | cocatholicconference.org   [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. pic.twitter.com/npCuPzdnxP — 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 . [http://callmejorgebergoglio.blogspot.com/2021/08/what-could-be-so-important-that-francis.html] Who is Archbishop Edgar Robinson Peña Parra ? Parra according to the Catholic Herald is Francis's "right-hand man"[https://catholicherald.co.uk/roman-curia-the-popes-new-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