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
Mr. Horton,

I would like to inform you that sedevacantism is a banned topic. Moreover, you cannot bash sedevacantists.

Finally:
Jonbhorton Wrote:Does one retain membership in the supposed guard of the Catholic faith when denying the sitting Pope?

Please see:

F.X. Wernz, P. Vidal: “Finally they cannot be numbered among the schismatics, who refuse to obey the Roman Pontiff because they consider his person to be suspect or doubtfully elected on account of rumours in circulation.” (Ius Canonicum, 7:398, 1943)

Rev Ignatius Szal: “Nor is there any schism if one merely transgress a papal law for the reason that one considers it too difficult, or if one refuses obedience inasmuch as one suspects the person of the pope or the validity of his election, or if one resists him as the civil head of a state.” (Communication of Catholics with Schismatics, 1948)

De Lugo: “Neither is someone a schismatic for denying his subjection to the Pontiff on the grounds that he has solidly founded [‘probabiliter’] doubts concerning the legitimacy of his election or his power [refers to Sanchez and Palao].” (Disp., De Virt. Fid. Div., disp xxv, sect iii, nn. 35-8)
Jbh

I don't know but I know mr lane artends sspx and has for a good wile now by his own admission

And cmri and other sede groups don't have much of a worldwide spread.  If mr lane is in australia its likely there's no cmri

In case you havnt noticed organised svism is more or less an ameerican thing
I'm not discussing sedevacantism, I'm discussing the a sedevacantist is poisoning the well. Anything he says is automatically suspect because HE, as I demonstrated, supports sedevacantism.

It's also against the rules to call a Pope a heretic, but it seems like that's the new black around here.

Does someone who attends SSPX with a sedevacantist position represent the teaching of the SSPX? It's a simple question.
If people here aren't willing to apply guilt by association to a sedevacantist, how can they equitably apply it to anyone, Bishops and Popes included, who have engaged in association with others they don't like for whatever reason?

The only way for the SSPX-laity here to be consistent, it seems, is to shut up. Otherwise, they just ball one fist while making a peace sign with the other.
[quot

e author=jonbhorton link=topic=3452014.msg33766151#msg33766151 date=1341955189]
I'm not discussing sedevacantism, I'm discussing the a sedevacantist is poisoning the well. Anything he says is automatically suspect because HE, as I demonstrated, supports sedevacantism.

It's also against the rules to call a Pope a heretic, but it seems like that's the new black around here.

Does someone who attends SSPX with a sedevacantist position represent the teaching of the SSPX? It's a simple question.
[/quote]

No the sspx is not officially sedevacantist but some who attend their masses are

I've heard some of their priests are but I can't testify to that
To say that a sedevacantist is spreading poison, and that there is guilt by association of simply being a sede is pure nonsense. I challenge you to demonstrate why they should be treated as non-Catholics and/or with assumed weariness. Especially in light of the sources I provided above.
(07-10-2012, 05:07 PM)GloriaPatri Wrote: [ -> ]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.

Since Our Lady is the lady of purity, and since the Fathers have said she is Immaculate and incorrupt, then why not defend that? It's not like modern science can do anything about it since the Blessed Virgin was assumed into heaven body and soul. It is not like they can extract The Blessed Virgins body from the ground or some tomb. The Mother of God deserves all "benefits of the doubt", and not from some modernists who only know gobbledegoop. She deserves to be Immaculate!
(07-10-2012, 05:25 PM)Crusader_Philly Wrote: [ -> ]To say that a sedevacantist is spreading poison, and that there is guilt by association of simply being a sede is pure nonsense. I challenge you to demonstrate why they should be treated as non-Catholics and/or with assumed weariness. Especially in light of the sources I provided above.

People do it all the time here and on other sites. You see, they are judge, jury, and executioner. On the other hand when it comes to having modernism pointed out non-sedes (many, not all) are willing to give the accused a pass. Oh well.
I agree that the question is essentially moot, but I'm not sure if speculating on the question, or even asserting that the hymen is not integral to the doctrine of the perpetual virginity, makes one a heretic or blasphemer. Now, +Müeller's statement on the Real Presence is far more troubling and is, IMO, more deserving of a 15 page thread...
Well, basically because he isn't some dude who is suspect of a single Pope. He claims at least back to Pope Paul VI the seat is vacant. That means that the visible Church no longer represents the Church since the 60's, having put out, as he claims, multiple false doctrines.

John Lane's opening statement at the 2006 debate about sedevacantism spells out clearly that he doesn't believe Pope Benedict XVI is even a Bishop, just a priest. Ergo, he delves into blasting EVERYTHING about the Church since Pope Paul VI.

If the gates of hell haven't prevailed, according to him, how does he explain the gates of hell? In a purely spiritual sense? Does the physical not matter in terms of the Church's destruction?

Where is the real Catholic Church's HQ if not in Rome, and who is the Vicar of Christ?

In the past, when anti-popes reigned, wasn't there always a legitimate pope who got shoved aside? If not, how do we believe the list of all 265 legit popes? If this is the case, where is the real Pope?

If there is no real Pope, and the Magesterium is corrupt and lying, putting out false doctrine, just what in the hell do we follow? Individual priests and Bishops with no higher authority?

Sounds Protestant. Sounds Old Catholic. Sounds like basically every other retarded group that split off and then died in a few generations, leading to even more wacky ideas springing from the fetid corpse of that original group.

Sede's are suspect from the moment they're known as sede's, particularly the way the current crop approaches 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