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, 08:25 PM)John Lane Wrote: [ -> ]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.

See below. I think it is quite clear that Ott holds that the question is undecided, provides the two cases, and leaves the question undecided, that is, "The dogma merely asserts the fact of the continuance of Mary's physical virginity without determining more closely how this is to be physiologically explained." If the case was closed, he would never have opened the article with this sentence, nor said, "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."


Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, by Dr. Ludwig Ott, Pages 205-206. Part 3, Chap.2, Sec. 5.2 Wrote:Mary bore her Son without any violation of her virginal integrity. (De fide on the ground of the general promulgation of doctrine.)

The dogma merely asserts the fact of the continuance of Mary's physical virginity without determining more closely how this is to be physiologically explained. In general the Fathers and the Schoolmen conceived it as non-injury to the hymen, and accordingly taught that Mary gave birth in miraculous fashion without opening of the womb and injury to the hymen, and consequently also without pains (cf. S. th. III 28, 2).

However, according to modern natural scientific knowledge, the purely physical side of virginity consists in the non-fulfilment of the sex act ("sex-act virginity") and in the non-contact of the female egg by the male seed ("seed-act virginity") (A. Mitterer). Thus, injury to the hymen in birth does not destroy virginity, while, on the other hand, its rupture seems to belong to complete natural motherhood. It follows from this that from the concept of virginity alone the miraculous character of the process of birth cannot be inferred, if it cannot be, and must not be derived from other facts of Revelation. Holy Writ attests Mary's active role in the act of birth (Mt. 1:25 ; Luke 2:7 : "She brought forth") which does not seem to indicate a miraculous process.

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.

Mary’s virginity during the birth of Jesus was contested in the Early Church by Tertullian (De carne Christi 23) and especially by Jovinian, an opponent of the Church ideal of virginal purity; and in modern times by Rationalists (Harnack calls it : “a Gnostic invention”).

Jovinian’s teaching (virgo concepit, sed non virgo generavit) was rejected at a Synod at Milan (390) under the presidency of St. Ambrose (cf. Ep. 42), which recalled the invocation of the Apostles’ Creed: Natus ex Maria virgine. Her virginity during the birth of Jesus is included in the title of honour “perpetual virgin” (aeiparthenos), which was given to Mary by the Fifth General Council at Constantinople (553) (D 214, 218. 227). The doctrine is expressly taught by Pope St. Leo I in the Epistola Dogmatica ad Flavianum (Ep. 28, 2) which was approved by the Council of Chalcedon; it was taught also by the Lateran Synod (649) and by Pope Pius IV (1555) (D 256, 993). Pope Pius XII in the Encyclical “Mystici Corporis” says : “It was she who gave miraculous birth to Christ our Lord (mirando partu edidit ).” The Church’s general teaching is expressed in her Liturgy also. Cf. the Responsorium to the fifth Lesson of the Feast of Christmas, and to the eighth Lesson of the Feast of the Circumcision of Our Lord.

Is. 7. 14 announces that the maiden (as a virgin) would give birth. The Fathers also, in a typical sense, refer to the virgin birth of Our Lord the words of the Prophet Ezechiel on the closed gates (Ez. 44, 2; cf. St. Ambrose Ep. 42, 6; St. Jerome, Ep. 49, 21); the words of the Prophet Isaias on the painless birth (Is. 66, 7; cf. St. Irenaeus, Epis. 54; St. John Damascene, De fide orth. IV 14): and the words of the Song of Songs on the closed garden and the sealed well (Hl. 4, 12; cf. St. Jerome, Adv. Jov. I 31. Ep. 49, 21).

St. Ignatius of Antioch characterises, not merely Mary’s virginity, but also the bringing forth of her Son as a “mystery which must be proclaimed aloud” (Eph. 19, I). Christ’s virginal birth is accepted without question in the apocryphal writings of the second century (Odes of Solomon, 19, 7 et seq.; Proto-Gospel of St. James 19 et seq ; ascension into heaven of Isaias 11, 7 et seq.), and also by Church authors such as St. Irenaeus (Epis. 54 ; adv. haer. III 21, 4–6) ; St. Clement of Alexandria (Strom. VII 16, 93) ; Origen (In. Lev. hom. 8, 2; otherwise in Luc. hom. 14). St. Ambrose (Ep. 42, 4–7), St. Jerome (Adv. Jov. I 31 ; Ep. 49, 21) and St. Augustine (Enchir. 34) defend the traditional Church doctrine against Jovinian. For the illustration of the mystery the Fathers and Theologians employ various analogues—the emergence of Christ from the sealed tomb, His going through closed doors, the penetration of the ray of sun through glass, the birth of the Logos from the bosom of the Father, the going out of human thought from the human spirit.

Christ’s miraculous emergence from the unimpaired womb of the Virgin Mother finds its ultimate explanation in the Omnipotence of God. St. Augustine says : “in such things the whole ground of the mystery is the might of Him who permits it to happen” (Ep. 137, 2, 8). Cf. S. th. 111 28, 3.








(07-10-2012, 08:55 PM)John Lane Wrote: [ -> ]Muller says the dogma is not so much about the physiological details (typically vague Modernist comment).  However you slice it, this is heretical.  The dogma is absolutely about the physiological details, precisely because the virgin birth has nothing whatsoever to do with the marriage act, and therefore "virginity" in that context cannot refer to anything but the physiological integrity being preserved by a miracle.

1) You're still condemning based on partial evidence. Go get some context, and see if he is still vague. Also keep in mind that "nicht um" just means "not about" or "not because of". Since he is contrasting the physical properties and grace, we really would need to have more information to determine what he is saying.

2) It can refer to something else. What must be determined is what "virginal integrity" is. You're begging the question. The dogma only states that her virginity was not destroyed during childbirth. That doesn't necessarily assume a miracle. What is already implied here is the miracle of the conception of our Lord. Some have conceived that "virginal integrity" must imply a non-breaking of the hymen, an absence of birth pains, and a birth through her body like light (or something such like). That is precisely the question which is debated. If you can prove that "virginal integrity" must entail those qualities, then I think you're starting to make a case. We know, though, that the hymen is broken by virginal women all the time for innocent reasons. We know that our Lady was subject to pain just like any other person. And we know that child birth through the birth canal was part of God's plan in the Garden, and thus not below sanctified human nature. We also know that our Lady's virginity as explained in revelation always refers to her abstaining from sexual activity, and by extension the physical preludes to such activity.

(07-10-2012, 08:55 PM)John Lane Wrote: [ -> ]See how Modernists confuse everything and create doubt where there should be none?  See how they damage the faith by their speculations, their ambiguous language, their DOUBTS about everything?  We've seen it right here, amongst people who are more alert than the average pew-sitter.  It's terrifying.  And why is Muller dangerous?  Why are people inclined to try and beleive that his heretical ideas are somehow orthodox?  Because Benedict has given him one of the highest offices in the Church.  What a terrifying situation this whole thing is.

"To deceive, if possible, the Elect."

Or perhaps you are "wrongly interpret[ing] a truth of Revelation, that is, Mary's virginity, from an inadequate natural scientific point of view." Plainly the question is still open to debate about how our Lord was born, and how her physical body was affected (or not). I didn't see anyone denying our Lady's virginity here. You don't hold that things which are open to debate and exploration shouldn't be debated and explored, right? Someone presenting their thoughts, or asking questions, of things which the Church is ultimately silent on, is hardly cause for overreaction.
Quote:See below. I think it is quite clear that Ott holds that the question is undecided,

I don't think so... I also believe there is an error in the edition here. Ott is saying that the concept of physical integrity cannot derive from the revelation of perpetual virginity alone, because of the modern scientific understanding of virginity has made clear that the physical integrity doesn't have anything to do, strictly speaking, with virginity. However, he concedes that physical integrity is a part of the dogma and then states that this must derive from some other facts of Revelation. There is a misprint here that makes this confusion, but it's evident from the context:

"It follows from this that from the concept of virginity alone the miraculous character of the process of birth cannot be inferred, if it cannot be, and must not be derived from other facts of Revelation" From the context, the last "NOT" is clearly not meant to be there and is clearly a misprint. He is saying that while a miraculous birth cannot be inferred from perpetual virginity, it can be inferred from other facts of Revelation, which he then lists.

Then he concludes the study by saying, "Christ’s miraculous emergence from the unimpaired womb of the Virgin Mother finds its ultimate explanation in the Omnipotence of God. St. Augustine says : “in such things the whole ground of the mystery is the might of Him who permits it to happen” (Ep. 137, 2, 8). Cf. S. th. 111 28, 3."

Therefore, he is saying that while the perpetual virginity is not linked to the physical integrity as was once thought from an erroneous understanding of science, it is nevertheless part of the dogma. If we accept physical integrity, then it logically follows that Christ's birth was miraculous.
(07-11-2012, 02:16 AM)Resurrexi Wrote: [ -> ]
(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.

Catholic dogma leaves open the question of Mary's death before rising to Heaven.
(07-11-2012, 01:19 PM)Ray M Facere Wrote: [ -> ]
Quote:See below. I think it is quite clear that Ott holds that the question is undecided,

I don't think so... I also believe there is an error in the edition here. Ott is saying that the concept of physical integrity cannot derive from the revelation of perpetual virginity alone, because of the modern scientific understanding of virginity has made clear that the physical integrity doesn't have anything to do, strictly speaking, with virginity. However, he concedes that physical integrity is a part of the dogma and then states that this must derive from some other facts of Revelation. There is a misprint here that makes this confusion, but it's evident from the context:

"It follows from this that from the concept of virginity alone the miraculous character of the process of birth cannot be inferred, if it cannot be, and must not be derived from other facts of Revelation" From the context, the last "NOT" is clearly not meant to be there and is clearly a misprint. He is saying that while a miraculous birth cannot be inferred from perpetual virginity, it can be inferred from other facts of Revelation, which he then lists.

Then he concludes the study by saying, "Christ’s miraculous emergence from the unimpaired womb of the Virgin Mother finds its ultimate explanation in the Omnipotence of God. St. Augustine says : “in such things the whole ground of the mystery is the might of Him who permits it to happen” (Ep. 137, 2, 8). Cf. S. th. 111 28, 3."

Therefore, he is saying that while the perpetual virginity is not linked to the physical integrity as was once thought from an erroneous understanding of science, it is nevertheless part of the dogma. If we accept physical integrity, then it logically follows that Christ's birth was miraculous.

I don't have any errata for my edition. Maybe I can track down the German. But you and Mr. Lane are misreading the last paragraph. It isn't a conclusion to the argument, but a conclusion to one side of the argument. He says it finds its "ultimate explanation." He is contrasting it to a natural explanation. Funny enough, it sounds like Muller.
From the Roman Catechism:

"Besides, what is admirable beyond the power of thoughts or words to express, He is born of His Mother without any diminution of her maternal virginity, just as He afterwards went forth from the sepulchre while it was closed and sealed, and entered the room in which His disciples were assembled, the doors being shut; or, not to depart from every­day examples, just as the rays of the sun penetrate without breaking or injuring in the least the solid substance of glass, so after a like but more exalted manner did Jesus Christ come forth from His mother's womb without injury to her maternal virginity. ...  From Eve we are born children of wrath; from Mary we have received Jesus Christ, and through Him are regenerated children of grace.  To Eve it was said: In sorrow shalt thou bring forth children.  Mary was exempt from this law, for preserving her virginal integrity inviolate she brought forth Jesus the Son of God without experiencing, as we have already said, any sense of pain" (Part I, art. 3).

http://www.catholicapologetics.info/thec...ed03.shtml

See also: http://home.earthlink.net/~mysticalrose/...npartu.htm
Quote: But you and Mr. Lane are misreading the last paragraph. It isn't a conclusion to the argument, but a conclusion to one side of the argument. He says it finds its "ultimate explanation."

As I'm sure you know from reading Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, the style that Ott uses is to present evidence to contrary teachings on all points of dogma and then refute it with teachings of Revelation. I remain convinced that is what is happening in this paragraph and the last point is a conclusion of the entire subject -- as is the case with the other entries in the book.

Quote:He is contrasting it to a natural explanation

I assume you're talking about the natural birth explanation ... which Ott gives a bit of evidence for by citing Mt. 1:25 ; Luke 2:7, and then quickly pivots to saying, "But the Fathers, with few exceptions, vouch for the miraculous character of the birth." He goes on to say that it is difficult to show that the Fathers were not simply mistaken on scientific understanding, but then he cites specific magisterial interventions to push the scales towards a conclusion. Finally, as I said, I believe he concludes the entire topic with a thesis in favor of the miraculous birth on the basis of the "omnipotence of God."
More info for thought.

And an interesting article with a certain take, including an interesting comment of why Jesus would even need to gestate in the womb at all for nine months.

http://catholic.net/index.php?option=dedestaca&id=2385&grupo=Prayers


Summ Theo, III, Q. 35 Wrote:Article 6. Whether Christ was born without His Mother suffering?

Objection 1. It would seem that Christ was not born without His Mother suffering. For just as man's death was a result of the sin of our first parents, according to Genesis 2:17: "In what day soever ye shall eat, ye shall [Vulgate: 'thou shalt eat of it, thou shalt] die"; so were the pains of childbirth, according to Genesis 3:16: "In sorrow shalt thou bring forth children." But Christ was willing to undergo death. Therefore for the same reason it seems that His birth should have been with pain.

Objection 2. Further, the end is proportionate to the beginning. But Christ ended His life in pain, according to Isaiah 53:4: "Surely . . . He hath carried our sorrows." Therefore it seems that His nativity was not without the pains of childbirth.

Objection 3. Further, in the book on the birth of our Saviour [Protevangelium Jacobi xix, xx] it is related that midwives were present at Christ's birth; and they would be wanted by reason of the mother's suffering pain. Therefore it seems that the Blessed Virgin suffered pain in giving birth to her Child.

On the contrary, Augustine says (Serm. de Nativ. [Supposititious), addressing himself to the Virgin-Mother: "In conceiving thou wast all pure, in giving birth thou wast without pain."

I answer that, The pains of childbirth are caused by the infant opening the passage from the womb. Now it has been said above (28, 2, Replies to objections), that Christ came forth from the closed womb of His Mother, and, consequently, without opening the passage. Consequently there was no pain in that birth, as neither was there any corruption; on the contrary, there was much joy therein for that God-Man "was born into the world," according to Isaiah 35:1-2: "Like the lily, it shall bud forth and blossom, and shall rejoice with joy and praise."

Reply to Objection 1. The pains of childbirth in the woman follow from the mingling of the sexes. Wherefore (Genesis 3:16) after the words, "in sorrow shalt thou bring forth children," the following are added: "and thou shalt be under thy husband's power." But, as Augustine says (Serm. de Assumpt. B. Virg., [Supposititious), from this sentence we must exclude the Virgin-Mother of God; who, "because she conceived Christ without the defilement of sin, and without the stain of sexual mingling, therefore did she bring Him forth without pain, without violation of her virginal integrity, without detriment to the purity of her maidenhood." Christ, indeed, suffered death, but through His own spontaneous desire, in order to atone for us, not as a necessary result of that sentence, for He was not a debtor unto death.

Reply to Objection 2. As "by His death" Christ "destroyed our death" [Preface of the Mass in Paschal-time, so by His pains He freed us from our pains; and so He wished to die a painful death. But the mother's pains in childbirth did not concern Christ, who came to atone for our sins. And therefore there was no need for His Mother to suffer in giving birth.

Reply to Objection 3. We are told (Luke 2:7) that the Blessed Virgin herself "wrapped up in swaddling clothes" the Child whom she had brought forth, "and laid Him in a manger." Consequently the narrative of this book, which is apocryphal, is untrue. Wherefore Jerome says (Adv. Helvid. iv): "No midwife was there, no officious women interfered. She was both mother and midwife. 'With swaddling clothes,' says he, 'she wrapped up the child, and laid Him in a manger.'" These words prove the falseness of the apocryphal ravings.


Summ Theo, III, Q. 28 Wrote:Article 2. Whether Christ's Mother was a virgin in His birth?

Objection 1. It would seem that Christ's Mother was not a virgin in His Birth. For Ambrose says on Luke 2:23: "He who sanctified a strange womb, for the birth of a prophet, He it is who opened His Mother's womb, that He might go forth unspotted." But opening of the womb excludes virginity. Therefore Christ's Mother was not a virgin in His Birth.

Objection 2. Further, nothing should have taken place in the mystery of Christ, which would make His body to seem unreal. Now it seems to pertain not to a true but to an unreal body, to be able to go through a closed passage; since two bodies cannot be in one place at the same time. It was therefore unfitting that Christ's body should come forth from His Mother's closed womb: and consequently that she should remain a virgin in giving birth to Him.

Objection 3. Further, as Gregory says in the Homily for the octave of Easter [xxvi in Evang., that by entering after His Resurrection where the disciples were gathered, the doors being shut, our Lord "showed that His body was the same in nature but differed in glory": so that it seems that to go through a closed passage pertains to a glorified body. But Christ's body was not glorified in its conception, but was passible, having "the likeness of sinful flesh," as the Apostle says (Romans 8:3). Therefore He did not come forth through the closed womb of the Virgin.

On the contrary, In a sermon of the Council of Ephesus (P. III, Cap. ix) it is said: "After giving birth, nature knows not a virgin: but grace enhances her fruitfulness, and effects her motherhood, while in no way does it injure her virginity." Therefore Christ's Mother was a virgin also in giving birth to Him.

I answer that, Without any doubt whatever we must assert that the Mother of Christ was a virgin even in His Birth: for the prophet says not only: "Behold a virgin shall conceive," but adds: "and shall bear a son." This indeed was befitting for three reasons. First, because this was in keeping with a property of Him whose Birth is in question, for He is the Word of God. For the word is not only conceived in the mind without corruption, but also proceeds from the mind without corruption. Wherefore in order to show that body to be the body of the very Word of God, it was fitting that it should be born of a virgin incorrupt. Whence in the sermon of the Council of Ephesus (quoted above) we read: "Whosoever brings forth mere flesh, ceases to be a virgin. But since she gave birth to the Word made flesh, God safeguarded her virginity so as to manifest His Word, by which Word He thus manifested Himself: for neither does our word, when brought forth, corrupt the mind; nor does God, the substantial Word, deigning to be born, destroy virginity."

Secondly, this is fitting as regards the effect of Christ's Incarnation: since He came for this purpose, that He might take away our corruption. Wherefore it is unfitting that in His Birth He should corrupt His Mother's virginity. Thus Augustine says in a sermon on the Nativity of Our Lord: "It was not right that He who came to heal corruption, should by His advent violate integrity."

Thirdly, it was fitting that He Who commanded us to honor our father and mother should not in His Birth lessen the honor due to His Mother.

Reply to Objection 1. Ambrose says this in expounding the evangelist's quotation from the Law: "Every male opening the womb shall be called holy to the Lord." This, says Bede, "is said in regard to the wonted manner of birth; not that we are to believe that our Lord in coming forth violated the abode of her sacred womb, which His entrance therein had hallowed." Wherefore the opening here spoken of does not imply the unlocking of the enclosure of virginal purity; but the mere coming forth of the infant from the maternal womb.

Reply to Objection 2. Christ wished so to show the reality of His body, as to manifest His Godhead at the same time. For this reason He mingled wondrous with lowly things. Wherefore, to show that His body was real, He was born of a woman. But in order to manifest His Godhead, He was born of a virgin, for "such a Birth befits a God," as Ambrose says in the Christmas hymn.

Reply to Objection 3. Some have held that Christ, in His Birth, assumed the gift of "subtlety," when He came forth from the closed womb of a virgin; and that He assumed the gift of "agility" when with dry feet He walked on the sea. But this is not consistent with what has been decided above (Article 14). For these gifts of a glorified body result from an overflow of the soul's glory on to the body, as we shall explain further on, in treating of glorified bodies (XP, 82): and it has been said above (13, 3, ad 1; 16, 1, ad 2) that before His Passion Christ "allowed His flesh to do and to suffer what was proper to it" (Damascene, De Fide Orth. iii): nor was there such an overflow of glory from His soul on to His body.

We must therefore say that all these things took place miraculously by Divine power. Whence Augustine says (Sup. Joan. Tract. 121): "To the substance of a body in which was the Godhead closed doors were no obstacle. For truly He had power to enter in by doors not open, in Whose Birth His Mother's virginity remained inviolate." And Dionysius says in an epistle (Ad Caium iv) that "Christ excelled man in doing that which is proper to man: this is shown in His supernatural conception, of a virgin, and in the unstable waters bearing the weight of earthly feet."
(07-11-2012, 02:13 PM)Ray M Facere Wrote: [ -> ]I assume you're talking about the natural birth explanation ... which Ott gives a bit of evidence for by citing Mt. 1:25 ; Luke 2:7, and then quickly pivots to saying, "But the Fathers, with few exceptions, vouch for the miraculous character of the birth." He goes on to say that it is difficult to show that the Fathers were not simply mistaken on scientific understanding, but then he cites specific magisterial interventions to push the scales towards a conclusion. Finally, as I said, I believe he concludes the entire topic with a thesis in favor of the miraculous birth on the basis of the "omnipotence of God."

Okay, then why does he say "The dogma merely asserts the fact of the continuance of Mary's physical virginity without determining more closely how this is to be physiologically explained." If he concludes that there is more than this mere fact being asserted, then why contradict himself? Why say also "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." Why even discuss these matters? I am sure you've seen other dogmas in which he doesn't discuss much at all, like the male priesthood. So why create doubts in the reader if his line of thought is that the matter is decided? That's why I read it as undecided in the explanation of how our Lady remained a virgin during the birth.

Ott also mentions Mitterer, who:

"In the 1950s, Albert Mitterer cautioned against so emphasizing the physical quality of virginity that one lost sight of the goodness of Mary's role as mother and her giving birth to Jesus. Freedom from 'child bearing pain' does not necessarily entail freedom from the act of child bearing."

http://www.ewtn.com/library/ANSWERS/DURBIRTH.HTM
Quote:Okay, then why does he say "The dogma merely asserts the fact of the continuance of Mary's physical virginity without determining more closely how this is to be physiologically explained

Ott affirms modern science says that you cannot derive the concept of non-injury (and as consequence, miraculous birth) strictly from an affirmation of perpetual virginity. This might raise some doubt as to where non-injury as an aspect of Revelation came from. However, he goes on to say  "It follows from this that from the concept of virginity alone the miraculous character of the process of birth cannot be inferred and must be derived from other facts of Revelation." So while you can't get to the physical integrity (and as consequence miraculous birth) from the modern understanding of virginity, there are other aspects of Revelation that fill the gaps ... which he then lists.

Quote:Why say also "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."

He's merely acknowledging here the argument of the critics of the dogma and concedes that you cannot get physical integrity/miraculous birth strictly ("alone") from the perpetual virgin starting point. But this doesn't mean the Fathers were wrong in their conclusion of physical integrity, which is what I said earlier in this thread.

Quote:Ott also mentions Mitterer

As far as I can tell, he mentions Mitterer only to affirm the change in scientific understanding of virginity.
(07-11-2012, 04:45 PM)Ray M Facere Wrote: [ -> ]As far as I can tell, he mentions Mitterer only to affirm the change in scientific understanding of virginity.

Yeah. It's not like those who hold Müller in suspect are trying to lose sight of non-physical aspects. At worse, they are being too hard in order to defend what they see is an attack on the Faith.
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