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, 09:08 PM)Gerard Wrote: [ -> ]
(07-12-2012, 09:06 PM)Mithrandylan Wrote: [ -> ]Still no cornfield?

I would have thought by now.  Oh well.

Clearly that is the aim.

I guess we've proven our case - Muller is a heretic.

Oh, and that beautiful monitum from the Holy Office convicts numerous people here of blasphemous indelicacy, so that would be another reason to hide this thread as fast as possible.

Quote: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.

I'm not sure Ludwig Ott escaped this either, in terms of crudeness of expression.  Such a contrast with the beautiful approach of St. Thomas Aquinas and indeed, every theologian before the 20th century.  No wonder we had Vatican II.
(07-13-2012, 02:03 AM)John Lane Wrote: [ -> ]No wonder we had Vatican II.

. . . as well as the destruction of the Holy Office, which was then replaced by the CDF.

In light of the monitum, it is ironic that this "indelicacy" should come from the head of this very institution.
(07-13-2012, 02:03 AM)John Lane Wrote: [ -> ]
Quote: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.

I'm not sure Ludwig Ott escaped this either, in terms of crudeness of expression.  Such a contrast with the beautiful approach of St. Thomas Aquinas and indeed, every theologian before the 20th century.  No wonder we had Vatican II.

You have a very strange definition of "crude". I don't recall reading anyone on this thread speaking crudely about Our Lady, and I doubt many fisheaters would.
Mr. Lane, you're doing everything to keep up your condemnation. You have provided only one text since the beginning which is vague, just a little less so than others. Interesting since you charged others with being vague. If the dogma is so iron-clad then why hasn't anyone in the Vatican taught it plainly? Why beat around the bush with vague terms or terms open to varying meanings like "integrity", or even "miraculous". Does it at all make you take a second glance when every statement points to virginity, but virginity has nothing to do in the end with bodily characteristics? And you attempt to impugn people here who seem from my perspective to be interested in discussing the topic without any detraction from the Church's authoritative teaching, nor any irreverence (as though the human body in itself is crude or dirty). There is nothing crude about discussing anatomical details when they are the crux of the issue. Think, it was Fathers who broached the topic, not anyone here. And if we are to have reasons for the faith within us, it is within rights to question when something doesn't make sense, needs clarification, or is just wrong. That's how our understanding develops. People of good will can engage like this and not lose faith at all. I haven't. Has anyone else? And feel free to read Thomas below in which he freely discusses nocturnal emissions, orgasm, and the breaking of the hymen. And we can't be faulted for wanting to use more precise terminology instead of vague words which the reader has to sift out the meaning. Either way, the reader ends with the same images in the mind, and the topic is not being conducted like street talk or bar talk. It isn't crass or lewd. I end my contribution. I think I have shown that the original charge is not warranted, further research is needed to understand what the Bishop thinks, and there is freedom to discuss the point without sinning or being at variance with the doctrines of the Church. Let us respect what some Fathers and saints have taught and believed, but withhold condemnations, especially in light of the fact that the Pope himself has appointed him. If this was an error of judgement, we'll soon see. I wish you and others well.

http://www.newadvent.org/summa/3152.htm
(07-13-2012, 02:03 AM)John Lane Wrote: [ -> ]
Quote: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.

I'm not sure Ludwig Ott escaped this either, in terms of crudeness of expression.  Such a contrast with the beautiful approach of St. Thomas Aquinas and indeed, every theologian before the 20th century.  No wonder we had Vatican II.

I would pay $200 for an English translation of all of the gloriously orthodox decisions made by the Holy Office over the centuries.  :inlove:
(07-13-2012, 02:30 AM)INPEFESS Wrote: [ -> ]
(07-13-2012, 02:03 AM)John Lane Wrote: [ -> ]No wonder we had Vatican II.

. . . as well as the destruction of the Holy Office, which was then replaced by the CDF.

In light of the monitum, it is ironic that this "indelicacy" should come from the head of this very institution.

It is indeed an ironic tragedy that the head of what was once the Holy Office should be found leading Catholics to heresy.
(07-13-2012, 11:41 AM)Scriptorium Wrote: [ -> ]If the dogma is so iron-clad then why hasn't anyone in the Vatican taught it plainly? Why beat around the bush with vague terms or terms open to varying meanings like "integrity", or even "miraculous". Does it at all make you take a second glance when every statement points to virginity, but virginity has nothing to do in the end with bodily characteristics?

Many dogmas, being mysteries, have a large element of what you see as "vagueness".  Take a look at Trent's definition of the Mass as "the same sacrifice" as Calvary and then look at the literature that spawned, as theologians have deepened our understanding of it.  One could easily describe much of the controversy over it as "trying to work out what the dogma means".

The fact that "virginity" in this context cannot relate to the marriage act has been pointed out at least three times by me on this thread, and several times by others also.  It's a vital point.  You think that makes the dogma less clear.  Actually, it's one of the points that sheds light upon it.  It has nothing to do with the vow, with purity of heart, with abstaining with relations with man, etc.  It is about Our Lady's physical integrity.  The dogma is the miraculous birth of Our Lord.  Yes, there are things we don't know, but the very things we do know are the ones chosen, as a class, by Muller as the object of his doubt.  He's a heretic.

It seems obvious at this point that your own inability to grasp these things is a result of your own ignorance of the dogma.  If you could just read what Scheeben says, and believe it, you'd read Muller's words in the light of the Church's doctrine and your hair would stand on end.
For what it's worth Fr. Gaudron (SSPX) defends his criticisms. I would note also his deference to charity at the end of the interview.

http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2012/07...ds-to.html
Quote:You have a very strange definition of "crude". I don't recall reading anyone on this thread speaking crudely about Our Lady, and I doubt many fisheaters would.

This discussion has gone to great lengths that it has become tiresome to read every single word of every single reply posted.  However, from the my POV which I glanced over now and then, I have seen how Our Lady, the holy Mother of God, has been insulted to no end with the tiresome arguments about her virginity, a dogma infallibly pronounced and declared by the Magisterium for ages.  If there is an uncertainty about what we fail to understand about a doctrine, it is best to be silent than posit and put forward propositions that have already been settled by the Church.  That Mary IS ever-Virgin is now and has always been an article of faith.  

From what I have glanced about, there have been more than a "few" Fisheaters who have been myopic enough not to see the crude treatment of Our Lady.  Enough already.   This displeases her Son.
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