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
(07-13-2012, 11:34 PM)Vincentius Wrote: [ -> ]
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.
THIS THIS THIS
(07-13-2012, 11:34 PM)Vincentius Wrote: [ -> ]
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.

That is the fruit of Bishop Mullers "mullings"  as long as he yaps about things like this and hides like a serpent in his words, he will cause enormous harm.  People like this (and I include the Holy Father in this) are "doctrinal vandals" they are careful enough not to give straightforward heresy, but they paint layers of offensive "coloring" onto pristine doctrine and therefore make it ugly and unremarkable to the person who does not know it in an unmarred state. 
(07-13-2012, 11:34 PM)Vincentius Wrote: [ -> ]
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.

No one has ever doubted that Mary is ever Virgin. People have questioned whether an intact hymen is a necessarily part of virginity and if a miraculous birth means Christ did not pass through the Virgin's birth canal. Even Ott, as Scriptorium showed, questions whether this is part of the dogma or simply the result of the Church Fathers' limited knowledge of physiology.

Mr Lane has provided quotes saying that Mary is "ever Virgin" and Christ's birth was miraculous. No one disputes that. They're disputing whether that is concerned with the particular physiological state of Mary's body, and whether what +Muller said is therefor heresy. Given that Mr. Lane has accused the head of the CDF and numerous posters of being insensitive, crude, and heretical one would think he could provide something a bit more specific.

The definition of "virgin" that I know means someone has never had sexual intercourse. Who here denied that the BVM is ever-virgin?
The more I read the information being put forth, the more I see the Bishop just explaining things from the perspective that the miraculous nature of the birth of Christ is not about physiological details for the focal point. Yes, it's established, so let's move forward... right? After all, like I said before, Catholic writing isn't a copy and paste job. It builds on things. There comes a time for many people when they just consider certain things established and unnecessary to focus on. Look at the progression of any writer or thinker, especially a theologian. Do they start off with a catechetical recap of all related doctrine in every book? Not necessarily and probably not. If a writer is established in his field, he doesn't just end up writing one big book that is released with all previous aspects each time he writes a "new" book. He might not even remind the reader of those things. Again, context is just paramount here.

If Jesus went from womb to arms, as has been posited, then this is just explaining what has been accepted in that regard:

Bold: Set up by discounting natural process of birth: saying birth was miraculous and not natural in the sense of the [underlined] portion having taken place.

Underlined: What is held in the Virgin Birth

Bold/Underlined: Exploring the beauty of what this miracle meant

Italic: bringing focus away from thought about Our Lady in a setting which is not the case as a conclusion- she didn't give birth naturally, but miraculously, so, nothing to check. However, he makes this point in the [underlined] portion.

Quote:"[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)

(07-14-2012, 12:55 AM)Aragon Wrote: [ -> ]No one has ever doubted that Mary is ever Virgin. People have questioned whether an intact hymen is a necessarily part of virginity and if a miraculous birth means Christ did not pass through the Virgin's birth canal. Even Ott, as Scriptorium showed, questions whether this is part of the dogma or simply the result of the Church Fathers' limited knowledge of physiology.

This is an example of the indelicacy condemned by the Holy Office, and not to be found in theological writings or Church documents until just before Vatican II, and which the Holy Office clearly was condemning.

What part of that can you not grasp?  

As for the rest of your post, why is this impossible for you to accept?  "This permanent and perfect virginity of the body of Mary is de fide."

Muller denies that the dogma is concerned with physiological integrity.  That's heretical.  You don't recognise it as heresy because you don't actually know what the dogma is.


(07-14-2012, 12:55 AM)Aragon Wrote: [ -> ]The definition of "virgin" that I know means someone has never had sexual intercourse. Who here denied that the BVM is ever-virgin?

Let me tell you, since you refuse to learn by yourself, how to treat this matter in a Catholic way.  "The definition of 'virgin' is somebody who has not engaged in the marriage act."  Try using those words or similar, from now on, please.

Actually, there are two aspects to the concept "virginity" - the spiritual and the physical.  There are three dogmas here, and together they make another, a fourth if you like.  1.  Our Lady conceived Our Lord virginally (by the overshadowing of the Holy Ghost).  3.  Our Lady remained a virgin from after the birth of Our Lord until her Assumption.  2.  Our Lady brought forth Our Lord in a miraculous manner, so that her body remained "virginal".  Another way of expressing this is that Our Lord's birth was miraculous, not natural.  Each necessarily implies the other.

Therefore, 4., she is "perpetually virgin", spiritually and physically.  

Here's how the Catholic Encyclopedia summarises this part of the dogma:

Quote:- that the supernatural influence of the Holy Ghost extended to the birth of Jesus Christ, not merely preserving Mary's integrity, but also causing Christ's birth or external generation to reflect his eternal birth from the Father in this, that "the Light from Light" proceeded from his mother's womb as a light shed on the world; that the "power of the Most High" passed through the barriers of nature without injuring them; that "the body of the Word" formed by the Holy Ghost penetrated another body after the manner of spirits.

Scriptorium doesn't understand Ott.  He thinks Ott is allowing that questions can be raised about whether "virgin birth" implies physiological integrity.  This is the wrong way 'round.  Ott allows that a "virgin birth" does not in itself imply a miraculous birth.  This is a purely technical point which relates to how the dogma of the miraculous birth is proved.  It is not, and cannot be, an admission that it can be questioned whether physiological integrity was in fact preserved, because THAT IS the dogma of the virgin birth.

Further, the Holy Office stepped in after these horrible new technical points were made, and condemned the procedure.

Finally, Ott is objectively a confusing text.  This can be seen in many places, but if you doubt it go and have a look at how he treats the necessity for salvation of entering the Church.  He actually writes, that there is salvation outside the Church, which is, technically, heretical.  I qualify that with "technical" because it is evident that he doesn't mean "outside" but "inside by desire" but the point is that he is a very confusing writer, due in large part to his attempting something nobody had ever done before, which is to compress all of the Church's dogma into one volume.  Hopefully nobody will ever try it again, it's impossible, and people who won't read what the Church teaches continue to go back to Ott for proof texts for their heresies and errors.
I have to get going so I'll have to respond to the rest of your post later, Mr. Lane. But just to point out that the words "hymen" or "sexual intercourse" are not crude or disrespectful; they're the correct terms for what we're talking about. I'm at a loss as to why you think they're dirty or indelicate.
(07-14-2012, 02:16 AM)Aragon Wrote: [ -> ]I'm at a loss as to why you think they're dirty or indelicate.

I don't think they're dirty.  I think that their use in connection with Our Lady is indelicate.  Go and read the Fathers and St. Thomas, and the various texts of the popes and councils, and you'll see the care that the Church and her authorised representatives have always taken not fall into the "crudity" that the Holy Office was appalled by in 1960.

In traditional literature, when referring to the condition of Our Lady, it is always said, She was "with child."  The crude medical term for that wonderful condition is not employed.  Yet it appears in modern books regularly.  That's the kind of difference I'm talking about. 
Once again, post partum Virgo inviolata permansisti. It's not complicated.
(07-14-2012, 02:27 AM)Crusader_Philly Wrote: [ -> ]Once again, post partum Virgo inviolata permansisti. It's not complicated.

But what makes you think that a child traveling through the birth canal violates a woman's virginity? Why must Our Lord have passed miraculously from Our Lady's womb to her arms in order to preserve her virginity? Surely only the marital act violates a woman's virginity, because the definition of virginity is never having had engaged in sexual intercourse.
To maybe put the point forward a different way: is a 13 year old girl whose hymen breaks while she's riding horses any less of a virgin because of it? Because this happens very frequently with girls, and by your logic their virginity would be compromised.
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