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

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

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

"The same Globalists who installed Biden... installed the Zelensky regime... [&] those who did not volunteer for this are Literal Human Shields for the Zelensky/Soros government... [if] Trump had survived the election coup in 2020 we would have no Ukraine war"

Above: Ukrainian President Zelensky (2nd from left) and three other men perform a homoerotic skit on Ukrainian television.    What is the Real Agenda of the corrupt Joe & Hunter Biden's Russiagate backing of the Trudeau-like Obama corrupt Ukraine Operatives in their Warmongering Posturing? "If President Trump had survived the election coup in 2020 we would have no Ukraine war (because he respects Russia’s legitimate security interests and wants to disband NATO)." - Scott Lively Constitutional lawyer Scott Lively thinks that the "same globalists who installed Biden... installed the Zelensky regime in Ukraine... [and] those who did not volunteer for this are literal human shields for the Zelensky/Soros government": The use of human shields in warfare of any kind is a horrifying satanic tactic, and, ironically, it is most effective against people who are truly humane. The tactic uses our humanity against us, because we don’t want the innocent t