FishEaters Traditional Catholic Forums

(07-11-2012, 02:23 PM)Scriptorium Wrote: [ -> ]

(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.

Ray's exactly right.

To answer your questions, Ott is not contradicting himself, nor is he saying what you think he is saying.  I agree he is confusing, but he's often confusing, and this is mainly because he is writing in such an incredibly compressed manner.  He is NOT a good source for laymen!

To understand it, place firmly in your mind that the dogma is the miraculous birth of Our Lord.  This is what is meant by "virginity" in this context.  Then proceed to read the whole thing with that as the "key".

In the part you are focussing on, Ott is not questioning that "virginity" in birth must be a physiological fact (for it cannot be anything else - the marriage act is not in view, and neither is the vow of virginity, or anything else at all). 

He is merely pointing out that the dogma (the miraculous birth) cannot be inferred from the general concept "virginity".  Ott accepts that he can't "demonstrate that the dignity of the Son of God or the dignity of the Mother of God demands a miraculous birth." 

What he is doing is a purely technical procedure, seeking for the correct foundation of the dogma.  Obviously the real proof of any dogma is the argument from authority.  Our Lady's physical perfection was totally untouched by this birth.  De fide.  He looks to authority to establish the dogma, and that's why he proceeds to list so many, and such weighty, authorities, showing thereby that this dogma (the miraculous birth of Our Lord, which is another way of saying that Our Lady remained a virgin in that birth) is de fide by the general promulgation of doctrine.

Make sense now?

Mr. Lane, it isn't whether it makes sense to me or not. The original idea was you're calling someone a heretic and blasphemer. I don't think you have proven that. There are numerous places where Catholic teaching is explained in which there is a discussion of this matter as open for debate. (A 1960 decree, however, said not to discuss this issue in a way "...clearly opposed to the traditional doctrine of the Church and the devotional sense of the faithful.") And I further add again that we do not have the complete text of the Bishop, which gives you sandier ground on which to call names.

(07-11-2012, 04:45 PM)Ray M Facere Wrote: [ -> ]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."

You can't go on to quote what you think he says. Please refer to the original if you think the translation is wrong, and then we can all have more clarity here. Just don't quote as though you've confirmed this. You also dropped the commas which marked off clauses.

The original passage as given in the English translation is:

"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."

(07-11-2012, 09:47 PM)Scriptorium Wrote: [ -> ]The original passage as given in the English translation is:

"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."

Yes, so we can't go to Holy Writ and prove the dogma from that.  It isn't clear enough.

Instead, we go to authority as such - i.e. the Fathers, the popes, the councils.  And that is what Ott does.  De fide.

Also, you keep ignoring the fact that "virginity" in the context of the birth of Our Lord cannot relate to anything but the physiological factors. 

The Modernist, Gerhard Müller, appointed to head the CDF is responsible for the following assertions:

"[The perpetual virginity of Mary] is not so much about specific physiological proprieties in the natural process of birth (such as the birth canal not having been opened, the hymen not being broken, or the absence of birth pangs), but with the healing and saving influence of the grace of the Savior on human nature, that had been wounded by Original Sin. ... it is not so much about physiologically and empirically verifiable somatic Details." (Katholische Dogmatik für Studium und Praxis, Freiburg 52003, p. 498)

That is so obviously and blatantly heretical, that no amount of context could conceivably undo it.  He could say the precise opposite in the very next sentence, and it would save him from the guilt of heresy.

John,

Considering there is no way at this juncture for basically anyone here to know what was actually said in total, it's a moot point.

Ellipses in the part in question and no context?

What kinda scholar are you, but one with an agenda?

Even I, the unschooled laymen, submit myself to higher standards of sourcing than that.

Indeed, he could correct the full understanding, but we have no idea since it's chopped off and mutilated.

(07-12-2012, 02:07 AM)jonbhorton Wrote: [ -> ]Ellipses in the part in question and no context?

There are no ellipses in the sentence that counts.  It's directly heretical.

When he defends himself, we can believe that at least he takes his reputation as a Catholic seriously, but his answer so far to the SSPX has been that he won't answer every silly objection. 

Mons. Bux tried to defend him, and did not provide any more context.  Why not?

Are you open to the possibility that immersion in the Conciliar milieu has not been a good preparation for identifying heresy?

As for my standard of scholarship, I apply the instructions given in Pascendi Dominici of St. Pius X.

Quote: [N]one is more skilful, none more astute than they, in the employment of a thousand noxious arts; for they double the parts of rationalist and Catholic, and this so craftily that they easily lead the unwary into error; and since audacity is their chief characteristic, there is no conclusion of any kind from which they shrink or which they do not thrust forward with pertinacity and assurance.
...
[ I]n their books you find some things which might well be expressed by a Catholic, but in the next page you find other things which might have been dictated by a rationalist.

But obviously, if you didn't know about the crisis in the Church, the most complete catastrophe in her history, a thousand times worse than the Arian crisis in every respect, then you wouldn't approach criminals like this with the same attitude.  You'd think, "Well, this chap has lived a peaceful life within the Church, and been raised progressively through various degrees of dignity, is personal friends with the pope, and has now reached the third highest position in the Church.  Any suggestion of heresy in his writings must be some kind of misunderstanding."

I understand that, but I think it's not an objective view, recognising facts.  It's either complete ignorance of fact, or wishful thinking.

Actually, the ascent in the post-conciliar Church of somebody who comes across as concerned with the true faith, such as Cardinal Ranjith, is the surprise and the exception.  He's hardly a bastion of orthodoxy either, but at least he looks like he has some real interest in it.  And lo!  What an exception!

As Ott says, the Fathers and saints could have expressed their beliefs based on an inadequate understanding of science. And he points out that none of those physiological factors are a sign of virginity. The dogma asserts nothing more than the fact that our Lady remained a virgin during the birth of our Lord. (See the quotes below.) There is certainly a push to extend this into a dogma concering the physical effects on her body, if any, but that is not at all part of the authoritative teaching at this point and forbidding dissent or discussion. The Bishop may be on weaker ground in regards to pain, and perhaps even in his mode of presentation, though we'd still need to see more. I still think the charge of heretic and blasphemer is unwarranted, uncharitable, and ungrounded in Church teaching inasmuch as one has liberty to examine the topic when done reverently and in a spirit of seeking truth and understanding. The Bishop may well have been imprudent. I don't feel qualified to condemn him, but based on the past teachings, I feel qualified to say that the sentence in itself is not heretical, but certainly would warrant more research and some suspicion as to what he is getting at. And so we've come full circle. The burden of proof is on the accuser.


St Ambrose, Epistle 42:

6.  But what is that gate of the sanctuary, that outward gate which looketh towards the East, which remains shut, and no man, it is said, shall enter in by it but the Lord, the God of Israel. Is not Mary this gate, by whom the Saviour entered into the world? This is the gate of righteousness, as He Himself said, Suffer us to fulfil all righteousness. Blessed Mary is the gate, whereof it is written that the Lord hath entered in by it, therefore it shall be shut after birth; for as a virgin she both conceived and brought forth.

7.  But why should it be incredible that Mary, contrary to the usage of natural birth, should bring forth and yet remain a virgin; when contrary to the usage of nature, the sea saw and fled, and the floods of Jordan retired to their source. It should not exceed our belief that a virgin should bring forth, when we read that a rock poured forth water, and the waves of the sea were gathered up like a wall. Nor need it, again, exceed our belief that a man should be born of a virgin, when a running stream gushed |285 forth from the rock, when iron swam upon the waters, and a man walked upon them.

http://www.tertullian.org/fathers/ambros...m#Letter42


Fifth General Council at Constantinople, 553

Uses the title of her, "ever virgin" (aeiparthenos).

http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/basis/const2.asp


Pope St. Leo I, Letter 28:

Doubtless then, He was conceived of the Holy Spirit within the womb of His Virgin Mother, who brought Him forth without the loss of her virginity, even as she conceived Him without its loss.

...

the childbearing of a virgin is the proof of Divine power

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/3604028.htm


Lateran Synod (649):

D. 256  Can. 3. If anyone does not properly and truly confess in accord with the holy Fathers, that the holy Mother of God and ever Virgin and immaculate Mary in the earliest of the ages conceived of the Holy Spirit without seed, namely, God the Word Himself specifically and truly, who was born of God the Father before all ages, and that she incorruptibly bore [Him?], her virginity remaining indestructible even after His birth, let him be condemned.

D. 503 Can. 3. Si quis secundum sanctos Patres non confitetur proprie et secundum veritatem Dei genitricem sanctam semperque Virginem et immaculatam Mariam, utpote ipsum Deum Verbum specialiter et veraciter, qui a Deo Patre ante omnia saecula natus est, in ultimis saeculorum absque semine concepisse ex Spiritu Sancto, et incorruptibiliter eam (eum?) genuisse, indissolubili permanente et post partum eiusdem virginitate, condemnatus sit (v.D.218).


Paul IV, Cum quorundam, 1555, D. 993

... that the same most blessed Virgin Mary was not the true mother of God, and did not always persist in the integrity of virginity, namely, before bringing forth, at bringing forth, and always after bringing forth, on the part of the omnipotent God the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit, with apostolic authority we demand and advise, etc.


Roman Catechism, 1566, ARTICLE III : "WHO WAS CONCEIVED BY THE HOLY GHOST, BORN OF THE VIRGIN MARY"

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.


Pius XII, Mystici Corporis, 1943

Within her virginal womb Christ our Lord already bore the exalted title of Head of the Church; in a marvelous birth she brought Him forth as the source of all supernatural life, and presented Him newly born, as Prophet, King and Priest to those who, from among Jews and Gentiles, were the first to come to adore Him.


1960 Monitum

This Supreme Sacred Congregation has had repeatedly to consider, with deep concern, recently published theological works in which the delicate question of the virginity "in partu" of the Most Holy Mary was treated with deplorable crudeness of expression, and, what is more serious, in open disagreement with the traditional doctrine of the Church and with the pious sense of the faithful.
In the plenary Congregation of Wednesday the 20th c. m., it therefore seemed necessary to the Eminent Fathers of the Holy Office because of their most grave responsibility to safeguard the sacred deposit of Catholic doctrine, to take care that for the future that the publication of similar dissertations concerning the aforementioned problem be forbidden.


VII, Lumen Gentium, 1964, 57

This union is manifest also at the birth of Our Lord, who did not diminish His mother's virginal integrity but sanctified it ...


Catechism of the Catholic Church, 1993

499 The deepening of faith in the virginal motherhood led the Church to confess Mary's real and perpetual virginity even in the act of giving birth to the Son of God made man.154 In fact, Christ's birth "did not diminish his mother's virginal integrity but sanctified it."155 and so the liturgy of the Church celebrates Mary as Aeiparthenos, the "Ever-virgin".156

(07-12-2012, 04:06 AM)John Lane Wrote: [ -> ]When he defends himself, we can believe that at least he takes his reputation as a Catholic seriously, but his answer so far to the SSPX has been that he won't answer every silly objection. 

Müller should reply to end the matter. If I made comments that Catholics thought were heterodox, I would immediately clarify them, or retract.

Quote:Mons. Bux tried to defend him, and did not provide any more context.  Why not?

Good point.

(07-12-2012, 12:26 PM)Crusader_Philly Wrote: [ -> ]

(07-12-2012, 04:06 AM)John Lane Wrote: [ -> ]When he defends himself, we can believe that at least he takes his reputation as a Catholic seriously, but his answer so far to the SSPX has been that he won't answer every silly objection. 

Müller should reply to end the matter. If I made comments that Catholics thought were heterodox, I would immediately clarify them, or retract.

Maybe he thinks we're all jackasses because we didn't read the book, took things out of context, and quote from Wikipedia.

Well, a congregation that he wants to "regularize" had one of their theologians write up something. That's what he responded to in the interview. Not I or other laymen.