FishEaters Traditional Catholic Forums

(07-12-2012, 01:27 PM)Scriptorium Wrote: [ -> ]

(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.

You mean he doesn't have the time to come on Fishaters and all the other traddy forums and correct out of context misunderstanding because he has better things to do?

Everyone knows the CDF must count on the extremely refined scholarship of lay traddies and SSPX theologians who can't even get certain doctrine right to be correct!

How many here would call him a heretic and blasphemer to his face? Not many, but I do believe John Lane would. Or would they be demure and say "your excellency", not much else, and then come back and rant about the interaction? More likely.

Scriptorum -- I agree with you on matters of prudence and I don't think we should be quick to label anyone a heretic, but I disagree with you on this statement:

Quote: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.

It's clear that the dogma DOES contain the physical integrity of Our Lady, even if this cannot be proven from the premise of her perpetual virginity alone. Suarez, for instance, on the issue, says that Christ could have had a natural birth (pass through the birth canal) via some supernatural means other a miraculous arriving as a beam through glass. This could be for instance, by a supernatural widening of the natural canal that didn't destroy the physical integrity. These are the kinds of physiological details that Ott and others are clear about leaving open. However, you'll notice that in all these Thomistic examples, the physical integrity is emphasized and affirmed as if it were beyond question.

I found a new comprehensive analysis of the dogma in German which you may want to take a look at (http://www.katholisches.info/2012/07/11/...of-muller/). Among the more interested things I can glean from the article are the following:

1. There was a 1960 admonition of the Holy Office, in the discussion about the virginitas in intrapartum against currents opposed to the traditional Thomistic understanding
2. The article traces a line from Mitterer to Karl Rahner, who also advanced a proposition similar to what Müller does. The article claims this makes Müller's view at least tenable in light of Rahner's complete "orthodoxy," but I doubt many here would accept that premise ;)
3. The author goes on to say that the SSPX has a valid point in pointing out that the traditional understanding of the dogma is concerned with physiological details
4. There is tension between the true natural birth of Christ and the physical integrity of Our Lady (notice, however, how this presupposes the physical integrity) ... this is resolved by Suarez's theory as I mentioned above -- a natural birth process accomplished by supernatural means

I think the key thing that you appear to be missing is the sense of dogma as defined by the Fathers. To them virginitas in intrapartum has a definitive physical meaning. Therefore, we MUST accept, with deference to the sense that they understood the dogmatic teaching, that their conclusions were true even if "virginitas" doesn't have anything strictly speaking to do with "virginitas in intrapartum," as modern physiological understandings have shown.

By the way, the author of the German article I linked above, has read the entire work in question, and says the sense in which Müller presents the issue IS at odds with the traditional understanding. In light of the "removing from context" comments, I thought that should be pointed out. The author is quick to point out -- and I agree with him -- that even the SSPX analysis does not claim Müller as a heretic, but merely some of his presentation as verging on heretical. This reflects the true Catholic spirit at which such things should be evaluated in the absence a definitive judgment by the Church.

(07-12-2012, 01:32 PM)jonbhorton Wrote: [ -> ]You mean he doesn't have the time to come on Fishaters and all the other traddy forums and correct out of context misunderstanding because he has better things to do?

Hah!  Better things to do.  This ass of a bishop is contemplating ways in which to diminish Our Lord's Incarnation and Our Lady's physical integrity.  That's a great use of his time.

Quote: Everyone knows the CDF must count on the extremely refined scholarship of lay traddies and SSPX theologians who can't even get certain doctrine right to be correct!

You have to be patient with the "development" doctrine.  The CDF would do well to hash things out a la FE.  They certianly don't protect the faith with the way they do it now. 

Quote:How many here would call him a heretic and blasphemer to his face? Not many, but I do believe John Lane would. Or would they be demure and say "your excellency", not much else, and then come back and rant about the interaction? More likely.

More would than you think.  And I'm on the fence as to whether testing out the physiological integrity of his sphincter when a crozier gets rammed up it would effect his integrity as a bishop.  It might be directly related to his piety and function as a bishop. 

(07-12-2012, 02:15 PM)Ray M Facere Wrote: [ -> ]By the way, the author of the German article I linked above, has read the entire work in question, and says the sense in which Müller presents the issue IS at odds with the traditional understanding. In light of the "removing from context" comments, I thought that should be pointed out. The author is quick to point out -- and I agree with him -- that even the SSPX analysis does not claim Müller as a heretic, but merely some of his presentation as verging on heretical. This reflects the true Catholic spirit at which such things should be evaluated in the absence a definitive judgment by the Church.

I saw a comment at Rorate Caeli from someone who read the whole thing in German and he said that the overall sense was not heretical and the quote only seemed questionable because it was out of context.

Anyhow, I agree with you that denouncing Archbishop Muller as a heretic is going too far, even if one finds his comment questionable.

(07-12-2012, 02:50 PM)Gerard Wrote: [ -> ]

(07-12-2012, 01:32 PM)jonbhorton Wrote: [ -> ]You mean he doesn't have the time to come on Fishaters and all the other traddy forums and correct out of context misunderstanding because he has better things to do?

Hah!  Better things to do.  This ass of a bishop is contemplating ways in which to diminish Our Lord's Incarnation and Our Lady's physical integrity.  That's a great use of his time.

Quote: Everyone knows the CDF must count on the extremely refined scholarship of lay traddies and SSPX theologians who can't even get certain doctrine right to be correct!

You have to be patient with the "development" doctrine.  The CDF would do well to hash things out a la FE.  They certianly don't protect the faith with the way they do it now. 

Quote:How many here would call him a heretic and blasphemer to his face? Not many, but I do believe John Lane would. Or would they be demure and say "your excellency", not much else, and then come back and rant about the interaction? More likely.

More would than you think.  And I'm on the fence as to whether testing out the physiological integrity of his sphincter when a crozier gets rammed up it would effect his integrity as a bishop.  It might be directly related to his piety and function as a bishop. 

Well, he'd obviously find a crowd ready to really take him on. At least the sede makes an argument, while you pontificate anally violating a consecrated Bishop with a symbol of his office.

Thanks for pointing out the true nature of those here who argue these SSPX/other positions.

(07-12-2012, 03:53 PM)jonbhorton Wrote: [ -> ]Well, he'd obviously find a crowd ready to really take him on. At least the sede makes an argument, while you pontificate anally violating a consecrated Bishop with a symbol of his office.
Thanks for pointing out the true nature of those here who argue these SSPX/other positions.

What are you getting upset about?

It's not pontificating at all, it's just an intelectual exercise.  There's nothing heretical in my speculation.  You probably don't understand what I was driving at. Maybe if I supply some more context, you would, but I don't feel obligated to address every stupidity about what I write. 

My position is the same as the Pope's. 

(07-12-2012, 04:10 PM)Gerard Wrote: [ -> ]

(07-12-2012, 03:53 PM)jonbhorton Wrote: [ -> ]Well, he'd obviously find a crowd ready to really take him on. At least the sede makes an argument, while you pontificate anally violating a consecrated Bishop with a symbol of his office.
Thanks for pointing out the true nature of those here who argue these SSPX/other positions.

What are you getting upset about?

It's not pontificating at all, it's just an intelectual exercise.  There's nothing heretical in my speculation.  You probably don't understand what I was driving at. Maybe if I supply some more context, you would, but I don't feel obligated to address every stupidity about what I write. 

My position is the same as the Pope's. 

I have yet to read the Pope "intellectually" exercise his brain by thinking about essentially raping a consecrated bishop with a crozier.

You're sick. You're deranged.

Seek help, stay away from children, and get right. I may have my issues and I know I have my faults, but your line of thought is mohammedan, not Catholic.

Motard's followers like raping men, even if with objects.

Ask Gaddafi.

I say again, you're sick.

I'm still not convinced that the preservation of the Virgin's hymen while giving birth is a divinely revealed dogma. Where has the Church infallibly taught this? Even a majority of Church Fathers who discuss Mary's perpetual virginity do mention it (of which I've not seen evidence), I'm still not sure if that's a consensus.

Quote:Where has the Church infallibly taught this? Even a majority of Church Fathers who discuss Mary's perpetual virginity do mention it (of which I've not seen evidence), I'm still not sure if that's a consensus.

Ask yourself what "physical virginity" means to the Fathers and you'll have your answer. Look at post #206 in this thread -- Scriptorum cites sources stringing from St. Ambrose to the Catechism of the Catholic Church -- all of which allude to a physical preservation. To his list, I would repeat what he earlier quoted from St. Thomas, plus INPEFSS quotes from the Council of Lateran under Martin (Canon 3) -- also cited by J. Lane to kick off the thread:

Quote: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 [see n. 218].

What do the authors of this condemnation mean when they say "incorruptibly bore [Him], her virginity remaining indestructible even after His birth" -- it is not a reference to simply marriage act virginity, but physical integrity as well. As I have repeated several times, just because integrity, strictly speaking is not the sine qua non of virginity, does not mean that the dogmas are not asserting integrity.