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
(07-11-2012, 12:10 AM)John Lane Wrote: [ -> ]Ignorance is the absence of due knowledge, not the same thing as nescience, which is the absence of knowledge per se.

So Our Lady was not nescient of anything which was useful or good for her to know, just like Adam before the fall.  St. Thomas explains the various kinds of "lacks of knowledge" in the Summa.

I've often wondered about that scene also, in the light of this doctrine.  The part that causes me some difficulty is that our Lady was "sorrowing" over the loss of Jesus, and it says that she and Joseph thought he was "with the company".  This seems to suggest that she thought something that was not true, but that's impossible.  She could think anything that was not true.  It would be good to check a Lapide or some other good exegete for the explanation.

Off the top of my head, Bishop Sheen said something along the lines of Mary was allowed to experience this mystery in order for her to experience the "loss of relationship" by which she would be able to understand sin without sinning herself.  
That's good, thank you Supplex.

And here's Cornelius a Lapide: http://www.catholicapologetics.info/scri.../2luke.htm

Quote: And Joseph and his mother knew not of it, because Jesus asked leave of His parents, who were lingering a little in Jerusalem from motives of devotion or business, to visit His relations, as if he were about to go on with them, and, having obtained permission, went to them, but soon withdrew quietly to the Temple—God so directing—in order that His parents, though at other times always solicitous about Him, should be unaware of this, and think that He was in the company of His kinsfolk.

Ver. 44.—But they, supposing him to have been in the company, went a day’s journey; and they sought Him among their kinsfolk and acquaintance, who had gone on, and with whom Mary and Joseph who were about to follow a little later, would that evening lodge and, as they thought, there find Jesus.

Ver. 45.—And when they found him not, they turned back again to Jerusalem, seeking Him. Jesus having been seen by none of His kinsfolk on the way, His parents understood that He must have remained in Jerusalem; and so they sought Him there with great anxiety. Origen gives the reason, and Theophylact and Titus follow him. “But did they seek Him so anxiously? Did they imagine that the Child had been lost, or had wandered from the way?” Far otherwise, “For this would not have been characteristic of Mary’s wisdom (she knew that Jesus was full of wisdom, yea, that He was God), and they could never have thought that the Child was lost, when they knew that He was Divine, but they sought Him lest by any means He might have gone away from them; lest perchance He had left them;” lest He should wish to remain not with them at Nazareth, but with others in Jerusalem, that He might there make haste to begin the ministry of teaching for which He had been sent by God. Origen adds, “They sought Him, lest perchance He might have gone away from them, lest He might have left them and betaken Himself elsewhere—or as seems most probable—lest He might have returned to heaven, to descend from thence when it should please Him . . . but she mourned because she was a mother, and the mother of a Son worthy of her immeasurable love—because He had departed without her knowledge, and quite contrary to her expectation.”

S. Antoninus adds that the mother of Jesus feared lest He might have fallen into the hands of Archeläus, the son of Herod the Infanticide, who would slay Him. Euthymius and Francis Lucas think she feared lest Christ might have wandered from the road, since He did not thoroughly know all the way. For, though He knew its turns and windings by His Divine and infused wisdom, yet, according to the experimental knowledge which He, as a child, was following, He did not know it. Whether this be correct I leave to theologians to decide.

OK, I think this explains it.  "And Joseph and his mother knew not of it, because Jesus asked leave of His parents, who were lingering a little in Jerusalem from motives of devotion or business, to visit His relations, as if he were about to go on with them, and, having obtained permission, went to them, but soon withdrew quietly to the Temple—God so directing—in order that His parents, though at other times always solicitous about Him, should be unaware of this, and think that He was in the company of His kinsfolk."

So He was in the company of His kinsfolk (in Jerusalem), but of course He then left that company and went to the temple.  Of this, His parents had no knowledge, nor was it due to them to know it.  

Scheeben (Vol II, page 28) says that Mary's state of being "full of grace" "is the model and pledge of the fitting supernatural equipment and dowry of the Church, especially of her infallibility and imperishableness."

So all suggestion of error in the intellect of Our Lady must be excluded.
(07-10-2012, 07:14 PM)Mithrandylan Wrote: [ -> ]
(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?

Seems like the most reasonable number at which to do so. Remind me when I get to 4,454.
(07-10-2012, 11:03 PM)SouthpawLink Wrote: [ -> ]Allow me to go on record as believing in the virginal integrity of Our Lady in the very act of her giving birth to Our Savior, as well as her immunity from birth pains (as she likewise was free from concupiscience and ignorance, two other effects of original sin, from which she was preserved).

Could you please cite any magisterial declaration (such as a papal or conciliar statement) teaching that Mary was preserved from ignorance?
First, thank you, Crusader Philly.  :)

(07-10-2012, 11:51 PM)Crusading Philologist Wrote: [ -> ]Slightly off topic, but what does it mean to say that the Virgin Mary was immune from ignorance? Obviously, the scene in Luke in which St. Joseph and the Virgin Mary do not understand Christ when he tells them that he must go about his Father's business would seem to go against this. I'm not rejecting the idea, but I would like to see a source or something if anyone has one.

It's a little late for me to type out the paragraph right now, but I would refer you to Can. J. M. Hervé's Manuale Theologiæ Dogmaticæ vol. II, sec. 644/3, p. 617, 1934 edition.

Resurrexi,
No, at the moment I cannot.  Nevertheless, I see it as a theological conclusion which is at least virtually revealed (Mary was preserved from original sin...), if not formally so (Mary was free from these other punishments of original sin, therefore...).
(07-11-2012, 01:59 AM)SouthpawLink Wrote: [ -> ]Resurrexi,
No, at the moment I cannot.  Nevertheless, I see it as a theological conclusion which is at least virtually revealed (Mary was preserved from original sin...), if not formally so (Mary was free from these other punishments of original sin, therefore...).

I see no dogmatic evidence that Mary was preserved from the effects of original sin.

Mary was, of course, preserved from original sin; however, the Fathers (or at least those who talked about the end of Mary's earthly life) unanimously hold that Mary died, as does the liturgical and artistic witness of the faithful throughout the centuries. Death is, of course, an effect of original sin.
(07-11-2012, 02:16 AM)Resurrexi Wrote: [ -> ]I see no dogmatic evidence that Mary was preserved from the effects of original sin.

It's the universal doctrine of the Church.  It's certainly immediately deducible from the dogma of the Immaculate Conception, just as the dogma of the Assumption is.  See Pius XII's argument along this line in his bull defining the latter:  http://www.ewtn.com/faith/teachings/marye2.htm


(07-11-2012, 02:16 AM)Resurrexi Wrote: [ -> ]Mary was, of course, preserved from original sin; however, the Fathers (or at least those who talked about the end of Mary's earthly life) unanimously hold that Mary died, as does the liturgical and artistic witness of the faithful throughout the centuries. Death is, of course, an effect of original sin.

Scheeben tells us, "Epiphanius, the first to speak definitively about the end of Mary's life, declared that it is not known what death Mary died, and whether in truth she really did die." (Vol. II, p. 153.)  Epiphanius wrote in the 4th century.

But more importantly, if Mary died (as I believe she did), the theologians are absolutely definite that it was not as an effect of Original Sin.
Do you admit her freedom from concupiscience and from birth pains?  To my knowledge, both teachings come to us from the Fathers.  The Church further asserts the Blessed Virgin's impeccability, which was extrinsic (as opposed to Christ's intrinsic impeccability).  All are corollaries to the Immaculate Conception.  Her immunity from ignorance is another corollary to this dogma.

I concede that the Blessed Virgin died, but it can and has been argued that it was befitting of her to do so in order to more fully conform to her Son, Who Himself died upon the Cross.

http://www.catholicculture.org/culture/l...m?id=34765

"[Theologians] admit that she was not bound by the law of mortality because of her exemption form sin..." (Fr. John Hardon, Modern Catholic Dictionary: Mary's Death).
Sedes Sapientiae, ora pro nobis
(07-10-2012, 07:32 PM)Supplex Wrote: [ -> ]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.

There is a correspondence between the toil of Adam and the birth pains of Eve. They are the same words in Hebrew. Adam was to work in the Garden, to till and keep the Garden, and Eve was to have children. Adam is cursed in the soil, from whence his body came, and Eve was cursed in bearing man, from whence she came. Our Lady did not experience full exemption from the effects of original sin. She still was subject to sorrow, fear, crying, hunger, death, etc., just as our Lord was. Her immaculate conception preserved her from original sin. So she was born in a state of sanctifying grace. Furthermore, most hold that she was free of sin throughout her life, and also free of concupiscence. But she, like our Lord Himself, was subject to all the other defects of the human condition. So on its face, she would not be exempt from the toil and pain of childbirth, nor scarring of the skin. If God granted her that special privilege, we'd have to prove that from some other point of revelation. Our Lady's state of body was not as Adam and Eve's was in the Garden, nor was our Lord's. He only gained a glorified body after the resurrection, and it follows that our Lady did not have a glorified body until she was assumed at her death.
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