Reason and Theology Review of Dr. Taylor Marshall on Pope Francis and Vatican II

Review of Taylor Marshal on Pope Francis and Vatican II with Michael Lofton – YouTube

Now I don’t agree with everything that Michael Lofton says, but he makes some very very great points.

He goes into detail showing how Dr. Taylor Marshall drops the ball on Vatican II and Pope Francis.

He shows that saying Vatican II does not have any anathemas is not a great point to make. (Other councils did not either)

He shows that Vatican II did teach dogma and that you cannot disregard that without going down Martin Luther’s path.

There is not just optional and infallible teaching with nothing in between. There is a lot in between. Many things that it teaches may not be infallible but are still magisterial teachings! And we need to have a religious submission to the magisterium and Pope and ecumenical councils.

Lofton says that you are in sin if you dissent from the council. He challenges those who say that Vatican II broke from tradition that you should prove to him those points. Prove it. Show that previous council and teaching really were of a greater and more authoritative weight.

We have not only many years of Popes accepting the teaching plus the authority of the Council itself. That is a lot! It takes a lot of authority to go against that. There is not discontinuity in the texts with the past. It is impossible to prove that V2 is in error.

Are Vatican II’s teachings infallible and binding, or fallible and optional?

Vatican II FAQs – Word on Fire

This is a false dilemma. First, as stated in question 3, Vatican II does affirm infallible dogmas of the faith. These affirmations require the assent of faith on the part of Catholics.

But even when they are not affirming infallible dogma, the Second Vatican Council presents the teachings of the ordinary and universal Magisterium through an ecumenical council of the Church. This means that these teachings are assisted by the Holy Spirit (CCC 688), are promulgated by the pope in communion with the “authentic teachers of the apostolic faith endowed with the authority of Christ” (CCC 888), and require “religious assent which, though distinct from the assent of faith, is nonetheless an extension of it” (CCC 892). In short, the teachings are guarded from doctrinal error and are binding on all Catholics; they are not optional.

(Also Dr. Taylor Marshall making comments on Hermeneutics of Continuity and Pope Francis’ comments on an interview – – irrelevant — interviews don’t matter as much as what he says in his weightier and more authoritative texts which he says he does.)

3 thoughts on “Reason and Theology Review of Dr. Taylor Marshall on Pope Francis and Vatican II

    1. Thanks that is a good distinction.

      I think it contrasts with the assent of faith. Basically, something in scripture that is clear or something taught with extraordinary dogma require the assent of faith as it is bound of very directly with the deposit of faith – if you disagree or do not hold it basically means you are not holding to the faith. religious assent is the next step down. It is not quite super clear (but approaching so) in scripture and Tradition and may need a little working out, but because it is a repeated or firmly to be held, something as taught by those who govern it is almost at the point of being require by faith. (Due to its solemnity and content dealing with serious faith like material) Thus, a religious person should assent because although there is the remote possibility that there are some mistake in the teaching the chances are low and the cause of going against it may lead to grave disobedience against the church. In contrast, as things get more fuzzy we drop down to points we should simply have respect for because they are being taught by bishops but they may be changed in future or are only distantly related to scripture (like a practice of money and interest) You can disagree with such teaching – but should do so respectfully and with care. There has been some change and the rules of bible maybe not so clear for us today. The lowest level is point were we can hold different onions as valid altogether. No one really is saying we should hold to this or that and the tradition offers many points to think about. These are probably more local type issues like saying the luminous mysteries or not perhaps.

      At least that is the way I think it should be understood.

      Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: