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
Jbh that topic is for the cornfield
Well another dogmatic topic turned into a sedevacantist discussion.

JUST GREAT!

well at least the FE modernists that were justifying Bp. Mullers declarations will be off the hook once this thread is moved to the cornfield.

Damn!  This thread was very revealing (on the black and white dogmatic issues).
Gottmituns, I think its unnecessary to accuse other posters of being modernists. And Jon, I also think its unnecessary to attack Mr. Lane for being a sede. That has no bearing on his argument. And now I'm done. Good day everyone and God bless.
Is lukewarm a better term?
Sedes are as bad as heretics: they destroy trust in the Papacy. Watch me not cry a river if this topic goes to the cornfield.

At any rate, the OP was utter crap, so let it burn in the cornfield where all the Children of the Corn can let their perfect blond hair and blue eyes run free.

(07-10-2012, 06:04 PM)jonbhorton Wrote: [ -> ]Sedes are as bad as heretics: they destroy trust in the Papacy. Watch me not cry a river if this topic goes to the cornfield.
NO they are not. And yes, this will go to the cornfield.  In no small part, thanks to you.

(07-10-2012, 06:04 PM)jonbhorton Wrote: [ -> ]At any rate, the OP was utter crap, so let it burn in the cornfield where all the Children of the Corn can let their perfect blond hair and blue eyes run free.
This was a good thread. a Very revealing thread.  How black and white matters of dogma are painted with many shades of grey by some.
This "relative" mindset has infected even the most "trad" circles within the Catholic church.
(When I read some of the heterodox statements in justifying doubtful heretical declarations, moreover, regarding Our blessed Lady, Our Mother, I cringed. I still cringe remembering those posts)
How dare any and all of you who typed those things. I have no doubt that, this way of thinking is tolerated because to some "It offends no one".
Probably no one here on earth. But what about in Heaven?

[Image: CoronationMary.jpg]
Pray.




Thanks again Jon! :eyeroll:


(07-10-2012, 05:59 PM)GottmitunsAlex Wrote: [ -> ]Is lukewarm a better term?

I don't think one should bismirch another posters character in any way. Quite franly, it's childish. And that goes in both directions.
Alex, I'm sure a carbon copy of the OP will come up again in 2-3 weeks if this thread is placed in the cornfield. Maybe you could start one. I'll even stay out and let y'all froth yourselves into a stupendous frenzy.

Breathe, relax.

No one was insulting Our Lady in the thread. Sheesh.
(07-10-2012, 05:30 PM)Supplex Wrote: [ -> ]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!

You seem to imply that birth pains and/or giving birth by the natural means are "stained." The immaculate quality of our Lady comes from her being free from the stain of sin. She was subject to many other effects of sin, though, including being able to undergo suffering, and dying; however, she was free from concupiscence also. What we need to get out of our mind is that birth pains and natural birth are somehow tainted or below the dignity of one free from sin. Keep in mind also that for all intents and purposes Adam and Eve would have conceived and bore children just as we do if they hadn't sinned. Their bodies had all the same parts and operations. The Lord God gave the blessing and command to multiply. The key is that the birth would have been a joy instead of a toil and labor, in addition to the worries of physical harm and the possibility of death. Natural birth is completely "immaculate" and there is nothing wrong or shameful in it. That proves nothing concerning our Lady, but we must dispel the misconception that sexuality and by extension conception and birth of its nature are sinful or "dirty". Our Lady kept herself solely for our Lord. The dignity of her virginity is that she continually chose at every moment to consecrate her life to our Lord, and to forego any of the pleasures of the marriage bed, or the ones which come from having and rearing children.
(07-10-2012, 06:21 PM)GloriaPatri Wrote: [ -> ]
(07-10-2012, 05:59 PM)GottmitunsAlex Wrote: [ -> ]Is lukewarm a better term?

I don't think one should bismirch another posters character in any way. Quite franly, it's childish. And that goes in both directions.

But what's the fun in saying anything at all if you aren't going to establish how cool and authoritative you are by handing down dime-store anathemas like it's going out of fashion?
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