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
I can totally see a Protestant using "Capernaism" to claim that Our Lord didn't really mean what He said about transubstantiation in John 6.

This whole thing stinks of Protestantism.
Thread revisited.  On April 29, 2012, I OP'ed:  "Joe, please say this ain't so"

http://catholicforum.fisheaters.com/inde...457.0.html

Quote:Pope Appoints Archbishop of Washington, Cardinal Wuerl

Quote:Cardinal Donald Wuerl, Archbishop of Washington Appointed to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith

One week ago, Pope Benedict XVI appointed Cardinal Donald Wuerl, Archbishop of Washington, as a member of the Vatican’s Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. One of the most important tasks of this congregation is to “promote and safeguard the doctrine on faith and morals throughout the Catholic world” (adw.org).

This is the guy who would not withhold the Holy Eucharist to whoever asks, right?

Something terribly rotten in Denmark, er, the Vatican.

Didn't happen.  But something worse did. 
Mr. Lane, have you read any of Bishop Muller's work in question, except the soundbite quote used in online articles and blogs?
Whats with Benedict and his heretic buddies?
(07-06-2012, 06:56 PM)Scriptorium Wrote: [ -> ]Mr. Lane, have you read any of Bishop Muller's work in question, except the soundbite quote used in online articles and blogs?

No, I haven't. 

1.  He writes just like Kasper, Rahner, Ratzinger, and all the other Modernists.  To anybody who is familiar with Catholic theological writing, and Modernist writing, it is as recognisable as a New York cab.

2.  Mons. Bux had the opportunity to supply additional context, in defence of Muller, yet he didn't.  Why not?  Obviously because Muller's meaning has not been misrepresented - he casts doubt on the physical truths relating to Our Lady's perpetual virginity.  That is heretical.

Bux also throws dust in the eyes by suggesting that there is some problem whereby people are over-naturalising the dogma, and that Muller is addressing this problem.  This is such a typical tactic of these liars.  Just like when they claimed that the faithful weren't involved in the liturgy before V2, and were crying out for the vernacular, etc.  It wasn't true, and when the result of the New Mass was that most Catholics stopped going to church at all, they didn't reverse the reforms, they just blamed other factors and ploughed on regardless. 

Do you recall the arguments used to justify the lies about ecumenism?  That all those good Protestants were offended by the intolerance of the Church, and would fly into her arms if she were more "charitable".  What was the result?  Conversions ceased.  It's the same with every single thing the liars said, and if one thought they were sincere before, their actions afterwards, when the results were catastrophic, proved their malice.
(07-06-2012, 11:44 PM)John Lane Wrote: [ -> ]No, I haven't. 

1.  He writes just like Kasper, Rahner, Ratzinger, and all the other Modernists.  To anybody who is familiar with Catholic theological writing, and Modernist writing, it is as recognisable as a New York cab.

2.  Mons. Bux had the opportunity to supply additional context, in defence of Muller, yet he didn't.  Why not?  Obviously because Muller's meaning has not been misrepresented - he casts doubt on the physical truths relating to Our Lady's perpetual virginity.  That is heretical.

Bux also throws dust in the eyes by suggesting that there is some problem whereby people are over-naturalising the dogma, and that Muller is addressing this problem.  This is such a typical tactic of these liars.  Just like when they claimed that the faithful weren't involved in the liturgy before V2, and were crying out for the vernacular, etc.  It wasn't true, and when the result of the New Mass was that most Catholics stopped going to church at all, they didn't reverse the reforms, they just blamed other factors and ploughed on regardless. 

Do you recall the arguments used to justify the lies about ecumenism?  That all those good Protestants were offended by the intolerance of the Church, and would fly into her arms if she were more "charitable".  What was the result?  Conversions ceased.  It's the same with every single thing the liars said, and if one thought they were sincere before, their actions afterwards, when the results were catastrophic, proved their malice.

This ties in well with the "tactic" of producing a strawman problem in order to create a strawman heresy.

Strawman Problem: Then Card. Ratzinger's description of the "problem" of people thinking Christ is only locally present in the tabernacle and then insulting the very idea. 

The real purpose: It gets the language of insulting the Real Presence in the tabernacle out there in a way similar to a form of neurolinguistic programming.

The protection from condemnation: It gives plausible deniability on its face. Objectively nothing unseemly is going on in terms of the formula.

The next phase: The detonation. He can be quoted or misquoted or "misunderstood" by the radicals and they can full bore heap scorn on belief in the Real Presence of Our Lord in the Eucharist. Richard McBrien gets to go to town. No corrections will be given to him. The result: souls are mislead.

The secondary assualt on traditional defenses: The absurdity of the first premise in the strawman argument is almost always ignored out of "benefit of the doubt." It's a sleight of hand, trick of misdirection.  Trads know instinctively there is something wrong in the disparaging treatment of what is a phantom problem. But they give the benefit of the doubt that no one would be so stupid to believe the premise in the first place, so they make the mistake of assuming it's a direct vs. an indirect attack against the Real Presence and defend it on those faulty grounds. 

The use of the conservatives: The conservatives will defend it as orthodox because they will not see the underlying "tactic" of misdirection. So, they will defend the formulation and therefore enable the radicals and liberals to continue their work. (Richard McBrien is reputed to have once said that the conservatives were doing the work for the liberals by attacking traditionalists.)
(07-06-2012, 11:44 PM)John Lane Wrote: [ -> ]No, I haven't. 

1.  He writes just like Kasper, Rahner, Ratzinger, and all the other Modernists.  To anybody who is familiar with Catholic theological writing, and Modernist writing, it is as recognisable as a New York cab.

2.  Mons. Bux had the opportunity to supply additional context, in defence of Muller, yet he didn't.  Why not?  Obviously because Muller's meaning has not been misrepresented - he casts doubt on the physical truths relating to Our Lady's perpetual virginity.  That is heretical.

Bux also throws dust in the eyes by suggesting that there is some problem whereby people are over-naturalising the dogma, and that Muller is addressing this problem.  This is such a typical tactic of these liars.  Just like when they claimed that the faithful weren't involved in the liturgy before V2, and were crying out for the vernacular, etc.  It wasn't true, and when the result of the New Mass was that most Catholics stopped going to church at all, they didn't reverse the reforms, they just blamed other factors and ploughed on regardless. 

Do you recall the arguments used to justify the lies about ecumenism?  That all those good Protestants were offended by the intolerance of the Church, and would fly into her arms if she were more "charitable".  What was the result?  Conversions ceased.  It's the same with every single thing the liars said, and if one thought they were sincere before, their actions afterwards, when the results were catastrophic, proved their malice.

While the circumstantial evidence is compelling in some points, what you have posted hardly provides you and others with grounds to brand this man a "heretic and blasphemer". So quick to judge, with one sentence? Does it at all prick your interested that his quote is essentially begun mid-sentence "... nicht um abweichende physiologische Besonderheiten ..."? Something is missing -- nicht um ... sondern um -- we're not given the main clause of this sentence as far as I can see. There is no main topic which the not/but clauses apply to. And, of course, no context! (The first rule of exegesis is context!) Does it at all strike you as rash to condemn someone when it is fully open to theological discussion and opinion how Mary is perpetually a virgin in her body? It can even easily be seen in the German that he could be wishing not to deny one, but to assert another over and above that, i.e., pointing the way back to Christ and His grace, that the physical characteristics of our Lady do not suffice to explain the mystery. But that is my conjecture. The point is we don't know! Either way, you and others are way too rash, way too uncharitable, and driving people away from the traditionalists movement, at least those who have the sense not to accept every soundbite from the various polemicists. It is right to call for a clarification, or, rather, better for us to do our own homework and have a nicely fleshed out article with the full context, with an unbiased look at what he said. The lack of substance in the debate is appalling too. It's like watching the comments underneath an article about some Hollywood scandal. Completely ephemeral. Just giving you my critique. As someone who trusts prima facie that the Holy Father would not promote a "heretic and blasphemer", especially one he knows (!), I feel more of an obligation to justify my criticisms or judgements. I know you have your views already in line to reject his appointment before it is even spoken, one may assume that one is just looking for material to flesh out the rejection, but you've shown that you essentially know nothing but one sentence in the matter. Any objective reader would then see that you have not done your homework, and you aren't justified to give your negative judgement of heresy and blasphemy. Having wonder, and wanting more information is vastly different than condemnation. Your lack of charity and prudence in the matter stands out. I truly do pray that we find in the context complete vindication of his soundbite quotes, so that we'd be humiliated and realize our errors.
I just wiki'd the good bishop:
I remember the Peter Kramer case, but I didn't know Bp. Muller was the head of the diocese at the time.
(amongst other things)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerhard_Ludwig_M%C3%BCller
(07-07-2012, 01:59 PM)Scriptorium Wrote: [ -> ]As someone who trusts prima facie that the Holy Father would not promote a "heretic and blasphemer", especially one he knows (!), I feel more of an obligation to justify my criticisms or judgements. I know you have your views already in line to reject his appointment before it is even spoken, one may assume that one is just looking for material to flesh out the rejection, but you've shown that you essentially know nothing but one sentence in the matter.

Context?  How about the context of the worst crisis the Church has undergone in 2000 years?  Benedict appoints Catholics to all positions in the Church?  Please.

If there were context which could alter what the sentence says, it would be given by Muller or his defenders.  But this too is a theme we've witnessed for fifty years.  Heretics express heresies; conservative defenders arrive and explain how there was no heresy, usually by claiming, implausibly, that the heretics really meant to express Catholic doctrine, but the heretics don't defend themselves.  Instead, they pursue their heretical course.  Whether it was religious liberty, communion in the hand, ecumenism, or the New Mass, the same process was audaciously carried out.

Ecumenism ended with the Assisi blasphemy (recently repeated and explicitly commemorated by Benedict).  Did any of the morons who defended it turn around and say, "Oh, hang on, you know, I better retract my condemnation of all those trads for being constipated Victorian pedants, these men really do believe all religions are more or less good and praiseworthy!"  No, they just adopted the newest lie - the heads of false religions didn't come to pray together, they came together to pray.  Or something.

And the apostasy continues.

The same with religious liberty.  When Paul VI forced Catholic countries to take the Name of Our Lord Jesus Christ out of their constiitutions in the name of religious liberty, did the conservative defenders who had insisted that Vatican II expressed Catholic doctrine retract and admit that Paul VI doesn't agree with them?  No, of course not. 

That's the context, and there's been a thousand of you before, taking this kind of appointment out of context, as if Rome is filled with orthodox men, and mounting a defence of heresy by SPECULATING that there might be some exculpatory material of which you have no knowledge. 

Who is responsible for that text?  Muller.  He wrote it, he had it published.  Did he ask you to explain it?  No.  Let him suffer the just outrage of Our Lady's servants until he is so humiliated he retracts it.  That would be straight up and just.  It would be immeasurably better than appointing yourself his obfuscator, so that the outrage is blunted and he can continue to wreck the faith of others.
Thank you for your clarity and your persistence, Mr. Lane.
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