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
(07-10-2012, 04:17 PM)JayneK Wrote: [ -> ]
(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.

Muller is clearly a modernist. Afterall, keep in mind that he was appointed by a modernist...
(07-10-2012, 04:45 PM)SpiritusSanctus Wrote: [ -> ]
(07-10-2012, 04:17 PM)JayneK Wrote: [ -> ]
(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.

Muller is clearly a modernist. Afterall, keep in mind that he was appointed by a modernist...

It should be noted that forum rules forbid accusing the Pope of heresy or being a heretic.
(07-10-2012, 04:45 PM)SpiritusSanctus Wrote: [ -> ]Muller is clearly a modernist. Afterall, keep in mind that he was appointed by a modernist...

I do not believe the Pope to be a heretic which is what he would be if he were a modernist. I love and trust the Pope.  I do not greet his decisions with automatic suspicion.  
(07-10-2012, 01:28 AM)John Lane Wrote: [ -> ]
(07-09-2012, 11:36 PM)jonbhorton Wrote: [ -> ]We have no frigging clue what Muller was saying because so far the only quote produced is impossible to deduce anything in regards to heresy.

That's your opinion, but you discredit yourself completely with what you proceed to explain concerning membership in the Church and salvation.  You wouldn't know a heresy if it leaped out of your cornflakes and tickled your nose.


(07-09-2012, 11:36 PM)jonbhorton Wrote: [ -> ]You people confound me.

No, you don't need us.  You confound yourself perfectly well without any help at all.  :)
It's in plain English. As I said before, not everything said can be expected to be a copy/paste from Trent.

Either way, you're a sedevacantist, so have fun finding the truth in your vegemite.
I'll take my chances with obedience and not starting with everything not CMRI/JohnLane is heretical and gate of hell prevailingish.
I actually. Got a kick out of the vegemite line

Although. Mr. Lane attens sspx not cmri
Quote: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.

Of course, but he is wrong. The physical integrity seems to be as important as the spiritual significance of her perpetual virginity ... at least the Fathers thought you couldn't have one without the other. I don't see the point in disputing them on this, even if their scientific understanding of virginity was wrong. There are plenty of allusions in Scripture that also indicate it may be important for the proof of our Lord as the Messiah. That would go beyond the speculation for reverence that Scriptorum mentioned.

Quote: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.

Based on the citations in this thread, I don't see how you can claim this is true. The Fathers say that the physical integrity of Our Lady is a part of the dogma -- which means, we must affirm it. I don't see the problem affirming it, regardless of our modern scientific understanding of virginity. Plus, it really doesn't matter that physical integrity can be violated in other ways like stress, since the dogma affirms that Our Lady's physical integrity was not violated.

Quote:I would even venture to guess that id why +Müeller stated that the dogma doesn't go into physiological detail.

That may be the case, but the physical integrity is apparently a part of the doctrine. I've already pointed out that it's a denial of confidence in God to say that because our scientific understanding of somatic details has changed that this somehow negates what has been declared to be an integral part of the dogma.

Quote: 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.

Scriptorum posted earlier in this thread the relevant citation from Ott on physical integrity. Ott classes this teaching as "de fide" on the basis of the Universal Ordinary Magisterium.

Quote: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.

Your conclusion does not follow from your premise as I have pointed out above. God is the author of history and we should have confidence that he correctly illuminated a fact, which we are to accept on faith, even if it was developed in an era when science was inaccurate or incomplete.
Personally I would find it to make more sense if Mary's hymen didn't break because she was not stained with sin, and thus would not have suffered pain during childbirth, not because she was and is a virgin. But, as always, I submit myself to the Magisterium.
(07-10-2012, 05:01 PM)Mithrandylan Wrote: [ -> ]I actually. Got a kick out of the vegemite line

Although. Mr. Lane attens sspx not cmri

His website (or the website he links to: http://www.strobertbellarmine.net/) has him as a keynote speaker at the CMRI conference, and he's a sedevacantist. Is this the SSPX position? Does one retain membership in the supposed guard of the Catholic faith when denying the sitting Pope? Or does he just warm a pew and have access to Sacraments whose authority to make happen proceeds from the One who placed the Pope he denies?

I have no use for him. He's no better than the Dimond Brothers, just has a cool Aussie accent. Maybe he could form a Sede wrestling team with them and tag team us all with fake Catholic clotheslines.

(07-10-2012, 05:01 PM)Mithrandylan Wrote: [ -> ]I actually. Got a kick out of the vegemite line

Although. Mr. Lane attens sspx not cmri

Lol
(07-10-2012, 05:08 PM)Crusader_Philly Wrote: [ -> ]
(07-10-2012, 05:01 PM)Mithrandylan Wrote: [ -> ]I actually. Got a kick out of the vegemite line

Although. Mr. Lane attens sspx not cmri

Lol

It was funny wasn't it?
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