Before I begin I would like to show my respect to the faithful and insightful Dr. Taylor Marshall for his contributions to the faith. He is holier and smarter than me, but that does not mean I agree with everything he says. I would like to dialogue with his position expressed on Jul 16th 2020 in his YouTube video entitled as seen above.
A lot of what he does I agree with. His prayer at the beginning of the episode and academic depth I look up to. There was a few details in the episode dealing with Vatican II that I disagree with though.
To mention some.
First, that Paul VI said Vatican II never promuglated any dogmatic definitions so that means there is a lot of its contents up for debate. (See this great article on the subject) https://www.catholicculture.org/commentary/pope-paul-vi-on-vatican-ii/
Basically, I don’t think anyone would argue that Vatican II used an extraordinary act of the Magisterium to proclaim dogma as Paul VI said. Yet, I would take it for granted that almost all would agree that Vatican II’s teaching fell (or has fallen) under the protection of ordinary magisterial acts. Especially considering that the subsequent Popes have been very pro Vatican II and they have repeated its teaching numerous times. This allows it to be considered protected against error under acts of ordinary Magisterium. (again check out the linked article) Thus, I think that Catholics owe a submission of intellect to Vatican II rather than a questioning attitude.
Secondly, I disagree with his critiques of Nostra Aetate. He mentions that it teaches questionable things about other religions including the fact that Buddhism can allow adherents to attain perfect liberation. Reading the entire paragraph were you have the questionable ideas about Muslims, Buddhism and Hinduism (paragraph 2) you get a powerful final thought. It says that Christ is the way truth and life in whom the fullness of religious life dwells. You have to read the sentences before that in light of its final idea. Hence, some translation don’t read Buddhism teaches a way to perfect detachment but proposes a way (Austin Flannery – Costello Publishing). See my more detailed defence in the link below. (Luther ‘taught’ a way to salvation also but that does not mean we agree) Perhaps Nostra Aetate could have been more careful on the wording (teaching – vs attempt to teach) but I will not venture beyond my wisdom to claim this of a sacred council. When you read the entire paragraph with its ending it is clear that it does not place all religions on the same level. https://defendingvatican2.wordpress.com/defending-vatican-ii/2-0-nostra-aetate/ (or go online and find some even better defences like https://www.firstthings.com/web-exclusives/2015/11/the-road-to-nostra-aetate, )
Thirdly, that the use of subsist in is a problem. That because Vatican II said the Church of Christ subsists in the Catholic Church it could also subsists elsewhere. (same words applied to Christ’s Divinity) See Tim Staples defend Vatican II on this point extremely well and shows that is not the correct interpretation. https://www.catholic.com/video/defending-vatican-ii
Don’t get me wrong I have great respect for Dr. Taylor Marshall, I just hope that he will use his great faith and intellect to defend Vatican II (or dialogue more on a pro Vatican II side) rather than critique it.
Overall lesson that I hope the reader takes away is that instead of finding error in Vatican II, try to find the good. When in doubt at least spend as much time listening to people defend Vatican II as you do those who critique its documents. I am be able to easily be defeated in my argument by someone like Dr. Marshall but there are a lot smarter people out there than me defending Vatican II to meet the match of any challenges.
For Dr. Taylor Marshall’s other critiques I hope you also do some personal research and listen to some intellectual pro Vatican II bishops before making any life changing choices.