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
Crusader_Philly what Resurrexi is pointing out is that a woman does not lose her virginity if her hymen breaks, nor does a woman's hymen being intact indicate that she is necessarily a virgin. In fact, according to the modern scientific understanding of what constitutes virginity the condition of the hymen bears no part. I would even venture to guess that id why +Müeller stated that the dogma doesn't go into physiological detail.
Jayne if thats your stance I can only conclude that you really don't know about modernism and I don't mean that in a condescending fashion

Read about it please.  Pascendi the syllabus of errors or partisans of errors by molichael davies.  There's other material as well and no shortage of sources on a site like this

Thanks for the dudcussion
Jayne,

I read the analogy. It would be problematic if you said that the physical aspect did not matter, etc.

(07-10-2012, 04:18 PM)GloriaPatri Wrote: [ -> ]Crusader_Philly what Resurrexi is pointing out is that a woman does not lose her virginity if her hymen breaks, nor does a woman's hymen being intact indicate that she is necessarily a virgin. In fact, according to the modern scientific understanding of what constitutes virginity the condition of the hymen bears no part. I would even venture to guess that id why +Müeller stated that the dogma doesn't go into physiological detail.

Yes, I know this. I will let what the theologians say stand over what Müller says.
(07-10-2012, 04:18 PM)GloriaPatri Wrote: [ -> ]Crusader_Philly what Resurrexi is pointing out is that a woman does not lose her virginity if her hymen breaks, nor does a woman's hymen being intact indicate that she is necessarily a virgin. In fact, according to the modern scientific understanding of what constitutes virginity the condition of the hymen bears no part. I would even venture to guess that id why +Müeller stated that the dogma doesn't go into physiological detail.

A modern prelate using medical sciences definition book to help us better understand the faith?

Well color me surprised!
(07-10-2012, 04:22 PM)Mithrandylan Wrote: [ -> ]Jayne if thats your stance I can only conclude that you really don't know about modernism and I don't mean that in a condescending fashion

Read about it please.  Pascendi the syllabus of errors or partisans of errors by molichael davies.  There's other material as well and no shortage of sources on a site like this

Thanks for the dudcussion

I have read the relevant documents concerning modernism.
(07-10-2012, 04:24 PM)Crusader_Philly Wrote: [ -> ]Jayne,

I read the analogy. It would be problematic if you said that the physical aspect did not matter, etc.

To say that one thing is less important than another is not at all the same as saying that it does not matter or it did not happen.
(07-10-2012, 04:26 PM)Mithrandylan Wrote: [ -> ]A modern prelate using medical sciences definition book to help us better understand the faith?

Well color me surprised!

Well, of course modern, enlightened doctors know more than dumb, backwards, and outdated theologians and their medieval theology.
(07-10-2012, 04:24 PM)Crusader_Philly Wrote: [ -> ]Jayne,

I read the analogy. It would be problematic if you said that the physical aspect did not matter, etc.

(07-10-2012, 04:18 PM)GloriaPatri Wrote: [ -> ]Crusader_Philly what Resurrexi is pointing out is that a woman does not lose her virginity if her hymen breaks, nor does a woman's hymen being intact indicate that she is necessarily a virgin. In fact, according to the modern scientific understanding of what constitutes virginity the condition of the hymen bears no part. I would even venture to guess that id why +Müeller stated that the dogma doesn't go into physiological detail.

Yes, I know this. I will let what the theologians say stand over what Müller says.

But Muller is a theologian, even if he is one with whom you disagree.

That's like saying, "I will let what the scientists say stand over what Hawking says."
As do I. I think what some are pointing out here, however, is that +Müeller's statement concerning the integrity of Our Lady's hymen is not necessarily heretical. Unless there is a dogmatic statement saying that Mary's hymen didn't break. Though I guess one could say because Mary was immaculate she suffered no pains in childbirth and thus her hymen was undamaged in the act of birthing Christ. But again I'm unaware of the Church proposing that to us de fide.

And Mith, I think the idea is that in the past the hymen was a convenient way of determining whether a female was a virgin or not, since the act of intercourse would likely break the hymen. But today it is known for a woman's hymen to break without her ever having lost her virginity. Knowing this to be true, then whether Our Lady's hymen broke or not is not essential to the dogma of Our Lady's perpetual virginity.
(07-10-2012, 04:32 PM)GloriaPatri Wrote: [ -> ]As do I. I think what some are pointing out here, however, is that +Müeller's statement concerning the integrity of Our Lady's hymen is not necessarily heretical. Unless there is a dogmatic statement saying that Mary's hymen didn't break. Though I guess one could say because Mary was immaculate she suffered no pains in childbirth and thus her hymen was undamaged in the act of birthing Christ. But again I'm unaware of the Church proposing that to us de fide.

As I understand his statement, it would not be heretical even if there were such a dogmatic statement.  He is not denying the existence of any physiological properties, just saying that this is not the most important aspect of Mary's perpetual virginity.
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