FishEaters Traditional Catholic Forums

Full Version: Gerhard Müller is indeed a heretic, and blasphemer
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38
The point that the SSPX analysis makes, I believe, is being lost here. The issue of non-injury to maintain virginal integrity is essential to the doctrine according to the Fathers. Therefore, as Ott says, we must insist that the Virgin Mary maintained physical integrity, without being concerned with the how part of how this is physiologically possible.

Muller said the dogma itself is "not so much concerned with specific physiological proprieties in the natural process of birth" -- therefore, he is wrong. The dogma IS concerned with such things. It just is not concerned with the details of how such things might be possible. I would note this is an error of fact, not necessarily immediately heresy, by the way.

I think the bigger issue is why someone would choose to separate themselves from the Fathers on something that it was not essential to separate on. Even if we suppose that an incorrect understanding of science led to the development of doctrine of the physical integrity, this does not lead to the conclusion that the doctrine as developed is wrong. Seems like a lack of confidence in God as the author of history to say that a truth could never be illuminated by an incomplete or incorrect scientific understanding.
(07-10-2012, 01:40 PM)Ray M Facere Wrote: [ -> ]The point that the SSPX analysis makes I believe is being lost here. The issue of non-injury to maintain virginal integrity is essential to the doctrine according to the Fathers. Therefore, as Ott says we must insist that the Virgin Mary maintained physical integrity, without being concerned with the how part of how this is physiological possible.

Muller said the dogma itself is "not so much concerned with specific physiological proprieties in the natural process of birth" -- therefore, he is wrong. The dogma IS concerned with such things. It just is not concerned with the details of how such things might be possible.

I think the bigger issue is why someone would choose to separate themselves from the Fathers on something that it was not essential to separate on. Even if we suppose that an incorrect understanding of science lead to the development of doctrine of the physical integrity, this does not lead the conclusion that the doctrine as developed is wrong. Seems like a lack of confidence in God as the author of history to say that a truth could never be illuminated by an incomplete or incorrect scientific understanding.
THIS
(07-10-2012, 01:40 PM)Ray M Facere Wrote: [ -> ]I think the bigger issue is why someone would choose to separate themselves from the Fathers on something that it was not essential to separate on. Even if we suppose that an incorrect understanding of science led to the development of doctrine of the physical integrity, this does not lead to the conclusion that the doctrine as developed is wrong. Seems like a lack of confidence in God as the author of history to say that a truth could never be illuminated by an incomplete or incorrect scientific understanding.

Although I tend to believe that the birth was without pain, less so that it wasn't vaginal, one can see how these facts really don't matter to anyone (as far as I can tell), unless you're writing a movie, or something. Really, that may be why people have steered away from the conclusions, because they have no real application to the life of the Christian besides motives of reverence. The case of our Lady's virginity, her immaculate conception, and the miracle of our Lord's conception point to our Lord for their reasoning, but whether our Lady's hymen was intact, or whether she had birth pains really seem to point to her without any real reference to our Lord, that is, it is not a necessary conclusion drawn from other dogmas of our Lord, but rather ideas people have posited based on her perpetual virginity as a general dogma. Also I can see how a theologian would want to refer a dogma back to Christ and His grace. We can loose sight of things by quibbling over physical properties of our Lady's private areas. But this then again goes back to the original one sentence quote. The Bishop may as well have prefaced his statement by explaining what he thinks.
(07-10-2012, 01:40 PM)Ray M Facere Wrote: [ -> ]The point that the SSPX analysis makes, I believe, is being lost here. The issue of non-injury to maintain virginal integrity is essential to the doctrine according to the Fathers. Therefore, as Ott says, we must insist that the Virgin Mary maintained physical integrity, without being concerned with the how part of how this is physiologically possible.

Muller said the dogma itself is "not so much concerned with specific physiological proprieties in the natural process of birth" -- therefore, he is wrong. The dogma IS concerned with such things. It just is not concerned with the details of how such things might be possible. I would note this is an error of fact, not necessarily immediately heresy, by the way.

But he is not saying that the dogma is not concerned with such things.  He is saying that the dogma is less concerned with these things than with the spiritual significance of her perpetual virginity.
From phone

Jayne the compartmentalization of truth is boldfaced modernism.  Talking about "spiritual truth" and "historical truth" in the terms ofDOGMA is gobldygook.  Only modernists divide them like that.  Read pascemdi
(07-10-2012, 03:24 PM)Mithrandylan Wrote: [ -> ]From phone

Jayne the compartmentalization of truth is boldfaced modernism.  Talking about "spiritual truth" and "historical truth" in the terms ofDOGMA is gobldygook.  Only modernists divide them like that.   Read pascemdi

We would need to see a lot more of the context of the quote to be justified in making a claim that it is an example of compartmentalization of truth.  We really don't have evidence of it in the quote itself.  I can't help feeling that all these condemnations we are seeing are grounded in an unhealthy eagerness to think ill of the Pope's appointee.  We should give him the benefit of the doubt and wait and see what he does.
I waa responding tto your explanation on behalf of mueller that the spiritual significance is more important than the historical or physical sigbificance.  There's nothing miraculous about spiritual virginity.

What abiut the resurrection?  I've hears abour the spiritual significance of that

I've also heard st Paul say that if Christ be not truly raised from the dead our faith is in vain and we are fools
(07-10-2012, 03:24 PM)Mithrandylan Wrote: [ -> ]From phone

Jayne the compartmentalization of truth is boldfaced modernism.  Talking about "spiritual truth" and "historical truth" in the terms ofDOGMA is gobldygook.  Only modernists divide them like that.   Read pascemdi

Indeed. It would be like saying the miracle of the loaves and fishes was a miracle of generosity or sharing, and not a physically miraculous multiplication which Our Lord performed.
(07-10-2012, 03:42 PM)Mithrandylan Wrote: [ -> ]I waa responding tto your explanation on behalf of mueller that the spiritual significance is more important than the historical or physical sigbificance.  There's nothing miraculous about spiritual virginity.

What abiut the resurrection?  I've hears abour the spiritual significance of that

I've also heard st Paul say that if Christ be not truly raised from the dead our faith is in vain and we are fools

If I were to say that the significance of Christ's resurrection as His victory over sin and death is more important than trying to understand the nature of His resurrected body, I would not be denying that He is truly raised from the dead.  Nor would I be adopting a modernist position.
(07-10-2012, 03:42 PM)Crusader_Philly Wrote: [ -> ]
(07-10-2012, 03:24 PM)Mithrandylan Wrote: [ -> ]From phone

Jayne the compartmentalization of truth is boldfaced modernism.  Talking about "spiritual truth" and "historical truth" in the terms ofDOGMA is gobldygook.  Only modernists divide them like that.   Read pascemdi

Indeed. It would be like saying the miracle of the loaves and fishes was a miracle of generosity or sharing, and not a physically miraculous multiplication which Our Lord performed.

This is not a good analogy at all.  There has been no denial that something miraculous happened.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38