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 dogma of Mary's perpetual virginity, as defined by the Church, simply means that Mary never engaged in sexual intercourse. The dogma itself not necessarily imply that Mary's hymen remained unbroken through the process of her giving birth to Christ, even if some Fathers and saints have stated that Mary's hymen did not break during the nativity of our Lord.

I've been told that there are all sorts of non-sexual ways a young woman's hymen can break, including excessive amounts of stress. A broken hymen does not destroy one's virginity.
(07-10-2012, 03:49 PM)Resurrexi Wrote: [ -> ]The dogma of Mary's perpetual virginity, as defined by the Church, simply means that Mary never engaged in sexual intercourse. The dogma itself not necessarily imply that Mary's hymen remained unbroken through the process of her giving birth to Christ, even if some Fathers and saints have stated that Mary's hymen did not break during the nativity of our Lord.

I've been told that there are all sorts of non-sexual ways a young woman's hymen can break, including excessive amounts of stress. A broken hymen does not destroy one's virginity.

It is not up to us to determine this. Why else is "Post partum Virgo inviolata permansisti" said?
(07-10-2012, 03:49 PM)JayneK Wrote: [ -> ]
(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.

Exactly. They will say that a miracle indeed occurred. "it was not so much that Christ physically multiplied bread and fish, but all of his disciples shared what little they had with one another, so that none was hungry." This, they will say, was the true miracle. A miracle of sharing, of generosity amongst "the people of God."

The physical aspects probably won't be denied, but everything has to be constantly reinterpreted or re-understood in order for the teachings to be "relevant." Also called renewal.
Jayme id hope by now that you'd know modernism doesn't usually explicitly deny anything.  Ultimately it obscures and blurs truth so thar a person can subjectively decide what it is.   And that seems to be happening here.  Draw doubt and confusion on a dogma and watch people quickly regard it as nothing more than a spurutual truth--- in other words a fairy tale
(07-10-2012, 03:55 PM)Crusader_Philly Wrote: [ -> ]
(07-10-2012, 03:49 PM)JayneK Wrote: [ -> ]
(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.

Exactly. They will say that a miracle indeed occurred. "it was not so much that Christ physically multiplied bread and fish, but all of his disciples shared what little they had with one another, so that none was hungry." This, they will say, was the true miracle. A miracle of sharing, of generosity amongst "the people of God."

The physical aspects probably won't be denied, but everything has to be constantly reinterpreted or re-understood in order for the teachings to be "relevant." Also called renewal.

What this sort of thing does is to redefine miracle.  In effect, it does deny that a miracle, as conventionally defined, happened.  This is nothing like the statement being made by Muller.  I just gave an analogous argument as applied to the Resurrection a couple of posts ago.
(07-10-2012, 03:58 PM)Mithrandylan Wrote: [ -> ]Jayme id hope by now that you'd know modernism doesn't usually explicitly deny anything.  Ultimately it obscures and blurs truth so thar a person can subjectively decide what it is.   And that seems to be happening here.  Draw doubt and confusion on a dogma and watch people quickly regard it as nothing more than a spurutual truth--- in other words a fairy tale

This is getting pretty Kafkaesque.  A person is guilty of modernism if we decide they are guilty of modernism, regardless of their actual words,  because modernists never say what they really mean anyhow.
Jayne if you draw doubt confusion or otherwise obscure thPhysical reality of a dogma you render the " spiritual aignificance" of it down to almost nothing.

There's nothing spiritually significant about something that never happened.

No one knows how miracles happen.  But we know they happen and the reality of them in terms of dogma is essential.  O wouldn't have a problem with a starement like " we don't know how x happened but by the power of God it did and by His grace we know it to be true."

There's a dufference betwen a statement like that and what we're dealing with hete
(07-10-2012, 04:06 PM)JayneK Wrote: [ -> ]
(07-10-2012, 03:58 PM)Mithrandylan Wrote: [ -> ]Jayme id hope by now that you'd know modernism doesn't usually explicitly deny anything.  Ultimately it obscures and blurs truth so thar a person can subjectively decide what it is.   And that seems to be happening here.  Draw doubt and confusion on a dogma and watch people quickly regard it as nothing more than a spurutual truth--- in other words a fairy tale

This is getting pretty Kafkaesque.  A person is guilty of modernism if we decide they are guilty of modernism, regardless of their actual words,  because modernists never say what they really mean anyhow.

No we don't decide.  We look at what the church has taught and measure these modern claims against the yardstick of tradition
(07-10-2012, 03:51 PM)Crusader_Philly Wrote: [ -> ]
(07-10-2012, 03:49 PM)Resurrexi Wrote: [ -> ]The dogma of Mary's perpetual virginity, as defined by the Church, simply means that Mary never engaged in sexual intercourse. The dogma itself not necessarily imply that Mary's hymen remained unbroken through the process of her giving birth to Christ, even if some Fathers and saints have stated that Mary's hymen did not break during the nativity of our Lord.

I've been told that there are all sorts of non-sexual ways a young woman's hymen can break, including excessive amounts of stress. A broken hymen does not destroy one's virginity.

It is not up to us to determine this. Why else is "Post partum Virgo inviolata permansisti" said?

Mary remained inviolate because she did not lose her virginity even after Christ's birth, i.e., she never engaged in sexual intercourse after Christ was born, in contrast to the way some have interpreted Matthew 1:25. She never had sex with St. Joseph, or with anyone else for that matter.

Mary was ever-virgin and never had sex; it wasn't just that Christ was conceived without sexual intercourse.
(07-10-2012, 04:12 PM)Mithrandylan Wrote: [ -> ]
(07-10-2012, 04:06 PM)JayneK Wrote: [ -> ]
(07-10-2012, 03:58 PM)Mithrandylan Wrote: [ -> ]Jayme id hope by now that you'd know modernism doesn't usually explicitly deny anything.  Ultimately it obscures and blurs truth so thar a person can subjectively decide what it is.   And that seems to be happening here.  Draw doubt and confusion on a dogma and watch people quickly regard it as nothing more than a spurutual truth--- in other words a fairy tale

This is getting pretty Kafkaesque.  A person is guilty of modernism if we decide they are guilty of modernism, regardless of their actual words,  because modernists never say what they really mean anyhow.

No we don't decide.  We look at what the church has taught and measure these modern claims against the yardstick of tradition

There is no clear evidence of modernism in his statement.  You then claim that this itself is evidence of modernism.  This sort of argument has nothing to do with looking at Church teaching.
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