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
(07-12-2012, 05:28 PM)Ray M Facere Wrote: [ -> ]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.

Good point, Ray.
(07-12-2012, 04:19 PM)jonbhorton Wrote: [ -> ]I have yet to read the Pope "intellectually" exercise his brain by thinking about essentially raping a consecrated bishop with a crozier.

It has nothing to do with rape.  It's about the physiological integrity. According to the principles laid out by the Holy Father, if a person takes care to make sure it's clean, it could be the "first step" towards morality if it were done say, by a gay prostitute who had used it.  Understand?

Quote: You're sick. You're deranged.

No, no, no.  You aren't qualified to make that determination.  Others would prefer to wait and get a larger context before making a judgement like that. And you're just a commentor on "Fishaters." 

Quote: 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.

Again, rash judgement on your part. You enable prelates who don't protect children from harm, and erode belief in the Catholic "line of thought."  And frankly, I don't think you know half of your faults. 

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

Motards?  Is that a conflation between the words "Mohammedan" and "Retard"

Let's get this straight. You want to let everyone know your disdain for Mohammedans by conflating them with the mentally handicapped?  To denigrate them you compare them with God's children who are special?  The one who never offend Him? 

Good going. You are so righteous it's amazing.

Quote: Ask Gaddafi.

Ask him after the final judgment when you, he and all the modernists can comisserate. 

Quote: I say again, you're sick.

Coming from you, that's a compliment. It seems your job is to enable pervert bishops who run around contemplating the destruction of the Blessed Mother's privates. 

You then put an act on as if your offended by someone showing how pathetic your excuse making is. 

Then you show us your true character with the "Motards" line.  Nice to see you take shots using the defenseless. 




Gerard, nothing you say can rationalize that you just took yourself, publicly, into declaring a desire to rape a man with a crozier signifying his office out of some retarded desire to hate him.

We can trade insults back and forth but it ain't gonna hurt me.

I have my full name and often my address online when addressing mohammedanism. You hide behind a moniker and insult, and joke about raping, bishops to make a point which is just lost in itself because of the lack of context with which to view this quote.

Your implied comment about the Great Judgement, which I assume means going to hell, since I doubt you think "Modernist Heretics" go to heaven, is sad. Who knows, maybe I will go to hell. Surely I deserve it, and if I die out of a state of grace, I can't say I wasn't warned. But wow, man, wow. Really?

The more I participate in this forum, the more I'm convinced it's nothing but a cesspool. It's worse than CAF in so many ways. At least the actual FE site is good.

Given a PM I received earlier in the day, a threat actually, and a passive aggressive one at that, I gotta say I love the Church but want nothing to do with traddies themselves until they prove they aren't 9/11-conspiracy-theorist, nutty, cowards-- especially the Williamson cult.

No matter how you rationalize, you basically said you want to rape a man with a crozier out of spite for a position he holds which you don't actually know he holds and only accuse him of holding.

That's by definition just psychopathic and perverted. It's very mohammedan.

Who knows, maybe Gaddafi made peace with God and an act of perfect contrition and he will get your crown while you take his former spot in hell. What a sad yet ironic twist that would be... and totally doctrinal too. Read Romans 11, boaster.
(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.

Thanks for the link. It's lengthy, so I'll have to get to it a little later.


(07-12-2012, 05:28 PM)Ray M Facere Wrote: [ -> ]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.

Keep in mind that the teachings say virginity during birth, that's it, and from there one can read physical preservation implicitly in it. That is, the one clear concept here is virginity, and from there we need to investigate further what that entails (and that's the debate). But that is a reading into it at this point. None of those quotes say anything about the hymen, or about the birth canal. That's why I think he was within rights to have a varying opinion. Now some Fathers and saints have explicitly taught the physical aspects, but none of that has been explicitly affirmed by the Magisterium, although we can see that the Catechism of Trent supported a pain-free birth, and Pius XII a "miraculous" birth. Think of the Immaculate Conception which was even still debated when the feast was on the calendar and there were indulgences attached to it. The Pope at that time decreed that mutual condemnations would cease, wanting to promote a peaceful debate about what was still mostly in doubt. And remember that many many were wrong about that one, including the leading lights of our history, and probably a few inquisitors. I have no horse in this race, since my view is quite malleable on this point of the physical birth of our Lord, but I have spoken up because I felt that the amount of "righteous indignation" was unwarranted, especially in the context of a theological work, which  probably never was conceived by the creator as an "everyman's" text to be read. I also read dogmas in a minimalist sense, in the sense of Thomas More I guess, "What does it say." Anything over and above is interpretation, which has a value, albeit less authority and more freedom to explore. However worthy it may be, there is freedom within the bounds of prudence and obedience.

(07-12-2012, 02:15 PM)Ray M Facere Wrote: [ -> ]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.

Like I said, you are reading into this. You may be right, but the teachings do not assert any physical qualities. Allusions are not dogmas.  In fact, they don't assert anything physical at all. The quality "virginity" is said to be "incorruptible" and "indestructible". We read physicality into that. If it isn't explicitly stated, then it isn't explicitly meant. We can't go back and read into their minds. Certainly the physical aspects are part of the Church's teaching on a wide scale, and on the pious level, but you can't find in any of these teachings I listed a statement about the hymen or the birth canal, nor even the word physical and body. There's more development needed in this teaching.
(07-12-2012, 06:15 PM)jonbhorton Wrote: [ -> ]Gerard, nothing you say can rationalize that you just took yourself, publicly, into declaring a desire to rape a man with a crozier signifying his office out of some retarded desire to hate him.

I don't need to rationalize anything to disprove your ridiculous framing of what I wrote.  You can use my comment as a distraction all you want, but you just come off as someone hysterical grasping for straws in order to marginalize me. Not going to work but keep trying. 

Quote: We can trade insults back and forth but it ain't gonna hurt me.

I'm not interested in "hurting" a pleasant little guy like yourself.  I'm pointing out the lunacy you betray and the double standard you promote. 

Quote: I have my full name and often my address online when addressing mohammedanism.

So what? That's just an ego gone crazy as far as I'm concerned. I could put up my name and address or even come up with a phoney name and address. Who cares? 
You must be some kind of youngin' who doesn't understand the value of privacy or a pen name. I guess Mark Twain or "The Author of the Letter of the Hebrews" are not credible.

Quote: You hide behind a moniker and insult, and joke about raping, bishops to make a point which is just lost in itself because of the lack of context with which to view this quote.

The thing by the whatchamacallit by the hoozit.  What are talking about? Get your mind straight and get back to me when you start making sense. You come off hysterical.  You're just ticked off because some of us can name that tune in fewer notes than you can. 

Quote: Your implied comment about the Great Judgement, which I assume means going to hell, since I doubt you think "Modernist Heretics" go to heaven, is sad.

I implied nothing. You inferred something. 

Quote:  Who knows, maybe I will go to hell. Surely I deserve it, and if I die out of a state of grace, I can't say I wasn't warned. But wow, man, wow. Really?

Oh spare me your overly pious crap. It stinks of incredulity. It's like you're reading out of badly written manual for manipulation.

Quote: The more I participate in this forum, the more I'm convinced it's nothing but a cesspool.

With you spewing crap all over it like you've been doing, I can see why. If you're that upset, don't participate. Otherwise get over your squeamishness. 

Quote: Given a PM I received earlier in the day, a threat actually, and a passive aggressive one at that, I gotta say I love the Church but want nothing to do with traddies themselves until they prove they aren't 9/11-conspiracy-theorist, nutty, cowards-- especially the Williamson cult.

First, I think you are deliberately coming off as an overly hysterical drama queen and I doubt the veracity of your story of "threats" based on your exaggeration of my satire of the Bishop's perverse meditations on Our Lady's physicality. 

Second, whether you "want anything to do" with "traddies" is not my concern. You want to bait us into fights, you act hysterical over nothing, you defend the indefensible. I doubt your Catholicity in and of itself. 

You use the same childish tactics of the worst enemies of the Church, infiltration, defend the radicals, go ballistic in indignation at any opportunity no matter how small. 


Quote: No matter how you rationalize, you basically said you want to rape a man with a crozier out of spite for a position he holds which you don't actually know he holds and only accuse him of holding.

Maybe I'll write it out in German and publish it with 900 pages of fluff around it, then you'll suspend your rash judgement. But it is funny how you're trying to spin a common colloquialism into a literal desire of mine. Classic tactic! 

Quote: That's by definition just psychopathic and perverted. It's very mohammedan.

Funny, I was just thinking the same thing about you. You really come off as someone who hates the Mohammedans because you see a reflection of yourself in them.  Very, very mohammedan of you.

If I recall, the Smurfs were of a similar cultural condition. Very smurfy of the them and they thought they were smurferific but it turns out they were totally smurfed. 


Quote: Who knows, maybe Gaddafi made peace with God and an act of perfect contrition and he will get your crown while you take his former spot in hell. What a sad yet ironic twist that would be... and totally doctrinal too. Read Romans 11, boaster.

I was just paraphrasing Bishop Sheen in one of the stories he related... oh well, I guess he was a "traddie" radical boaster as well. 
Still no cornfield?
(07-12-2012, 09:06 PM)Mithrandylan Wrote: [ -> ]Still no cornfield?

I would have thought by now.  Oh well.
(07-12-2012, 05:29 PM)Crusader_Philly Wrote: [ -> ]
(07-12-2012, 05:28 PM)Ray M Facere Wrote: [ -> ]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.

Good point, Ray.

Seconded.
(07-12-2012, 01:32 PM)jonbhorton Wrote: [ -> ]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.

No, you were right with the first guess.  I'd tell him what he wrote was heretical, and if he didn't retract it he'd rightly be regarded as a heretic by all, just as I regard him as a heretic already, since he cannot be ignorant of the Church's teaching on this matter.

(07-12-2012, 06:15 PM)jonbhorton Wrote: [ -> ]The more I participate in this forum, the more I'm convinced it's nothing but a cesspool. It's worse than CAF in so many ways.
Who is keeping you here Jon?
By all means go to CAF.

:tiphat:




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