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, 04:52 PM)JayneK Wrote: [ -> ]
(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.  

That's your problem. You need to get over the fantasy that modernists can be trusted. I don't trust someone who implies Christ is not present in the Eucharist, or criticizes DOGMATIC TEACHINGS of previous Popes.

This isn't about him being a heretic, I am not going into a "banned topic" here. I'm merely saying I don't trust him, thus why I'm a supporter of the other three Bishops to begin with.
(07-10-2012, 06:41 PM)Crusading Philologist Wrote: [ -> ]
(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?

So do you change your avatar every 2,227 posts?
(07-10-2012, 06:35 PM)Scriptorium Wrote: [ -> ]
(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.

What I meant was Muller didn't have to seperate the topic at all, he could of just stated what the church states.

But, to answer your comment, I would say that child birth in and of itself is not stained with sin, but the suffering, pain, and even physical scars or changes are punishments from God as stated in Genesis. Before the punishment they were just told to reproduce and be fruitful, which again says nothing wrong with child birth. Since the Blessed Virgin was made without original sin then she would be exempt from this too.

Genesis 3:16 To the woman also he said: I will multiply thy sorrows, and thy conceptions: in sorrow shalt thou bring forth children, and thou shalt be under thy husband's power, and he shall have dominion over thee.

Haydock commentary: Ver. 16. And thy conceptions. Septuagint, "thy groaning." The multifarious sorrows of childbearing, must remind all mothers (the blessed Virgin Mary alone excepted) of what they have incurred by original sin. If that had not taken place, they would have conceived without concupiscence, and brought forth without sorrow. (St. Augustine, City of God xiv. 26.)--- Conceptions are multiplied on account of the many untimely deaths, in our fallen state. Power, which will sometimes be exercised with rigor. (Haydock) --- Moses here shews the original and natural subjection of wives to their husbands, in opposition to the Egyptians, who, to honour Isis, gave women the superiority by the marriage contract. (Diodorus i. 2.) (Calmet)

http://haydock1859.tripod.com/id329.html

concupiscence: Strong sexual desire, or lust.

sorrow: Mental anguish, or pain caused by injury, loss, or despair.


(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.

1. This is a banned topic. 2. Make a thread in the cornfield backing up what you are saying.
Cp I imagine you lit up a camel and turned on some j cole when yoy read that
(07-10-2012, 07:52 PM)Mithrandylan Wrote: [ -> ]Cp I imagine you lit up a camel and turned on some j cole when yoy read that

Lol.

Don't smoke camels unless I'm bumming off someone. Marlboro or Benson Hedges. I might just do this right now...haha

Look I'm about to blow up!!!
Hmmm.  Always fashiouned you as a camel guy. 

I was a pall mall smoker.  Might want to consider the switch.  About a buck or more cheaper per pack with a much longer burn and imo pall malls taste better
(07-10-2012, 07:58 PM)Mithrandylan Wrote: [ -> ]Hmmm.  Always fashiouned you as a camel guy.   

I was a pall mall smoker.  Might want to consider the switch.  About a buck or more cheaper per pack with a much longer burn and imo pall malls taste better

I'll look into it.
(07-10-2012, 11:37 AM)Aragon Wrote: [ -> ]But the Fathers, with few exceptions, vouch for the miraculous character of the birth. However, the question is whether in so doing they attest a truth of Revelation or whether they wrongly interpret a truth of Revelation, that is, Mary's virginity, from an inadequate natural scientific point of view. It seems hardly possible to demonstrate that the dignity of the Son of God or the dignity of the Mother of God demands a miraculous birth.

See, that makes a lot more sense to me.
[/quote]

Could somebody please post the rest of this section of Ott?

Your understanding of this seems completely wrong.

Ott is not saying that the physiological integrity is in doubt.  He's merely pointing out that the theological proof has been questioned by some.  That is, the mode of proof.  This is technical theology, seeking to place the the technical principle in the correct place.  It's actually very confusing for non-specialists.

What you need to focus on is what Ott does next.  He raises this technical question, then he goes on to show with many proofs that the birth of Jesus Christ was miraculous.

A miraculous birth can only mean one thing, that the physiological changes wrought by a natural birth are avoided, which is what the Fathers say.

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