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
Mr. Lane,
Yes, those contexts do count for understanding the background in which he speaks, but since we are parsing his work, it seems to make sense to actually provide context in the work in question. And then we'd look at his body of his work in general if need be. All your writing is to fill space so it looks like you're justified in handing out judgements. Your post before could have ended at "No, I haven't." It's like me saying Mr. Lane is completely orthodox and traditional because ... and then I'd write about all the great decisions and leadership of traditional priests and bishops, and show a line of solid teaching, and the reputation amongst trads for going to Mass and remaining relatively faithful. And that would suffice? Clearly if I was to examine your teachings, and judge you, I'd have to actually look at your teachings, and certainly more than soundbites. Funny how that works. And you'd agree that it would be unfair to judge you so boldly based on one sentence. Or how about a small 30 second clip from a debate? Step back and admit that you have just one sentence, and you haven't done the research. Perhaps your vehemence has clouded your ability to judge people fairly? Sorry I won't go with you and others in the chorus. I believe in Christ, so I know that He guides His Church by grace, and that whether you're right about a certain theory or not, I know that I am not justified to be handing out such strong criticisms as you on so little evidence! Thank God the Church has always been more just to individuals when judging them. And reading the gospels I can see that I want to be in a position of charity, knowing that I am judged as I judge, and that I shall be measured as I measure others, and that I have something in my own eye which needs to be taken out, which obscures my vision of God and others. I am not pleased on its face with the statements which are posted here and there that he has said, but, as posted in other places, having been burned too many times by traditionalist polemicists, I realize that I need to be just as critical of fellow traditionalists as I am of mainstream folks. Furthermore, I realize that harsh critiques when fundamentally unfounded weaken the Body of Christ and scandalize the faithful. (How many "traditionalists" I've already read who said they're going sede, or even away from the Faith, because of the polemic put out by some.) So somehow in our crusade to save souls we've driven people away. I guess you've got to crack a few eggs ... But really I don't even need to say my thoughts here. You've got one sentence, and a lot of vehemence. Not much, I reckon.
John Lane,

If you can show how my explanation of the passage still renders it heretical (and how it can't possibly mean anything I wrote) , I'll send you your stapler back:
[Image: ossls1.png]



(07-06-2012, 03:56 AM)jonbhorton Wrote: [ -> ]
(07-06-2012, 01:28 AM)TS Aquinas Wrote: [ -> ]
(07-05-2012, 11:53 PM)John Lane Wrote: [ -> ]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)

This is heretical.

To play devil's advocate, the underline doesn't indicate denial but minimizing for a further point. How would you respond to this?

I don't know how the perpetual virginity of Blessed Mary has anything to do with "healing and saving influence of the grace of the Savior on human nature" though.  Unless he's drawing the conclusion that it was necessary for Blessed Mary to remain immaculately intact in body and soul for the salvation of the world.

Seems the portion you have trouble with is a really heady way of saying Co-Redemptrix and Advocate.

And that we need to not get hung up on the physical understanding of virginity, though this should not be in dispute, and focus on what that virginal understanding internalized and thus affected and in doing so, in all the ways the BVM was and is, and as She serves as an Advocate and Co-Redemptrix.

Since the original quote was given without any context, how on earth can it be called heretical? Especially when it doesn't definitively deny or conflict with doctrine, and can even serve as an obtuse rendering of what traditional teachings are on the BVM.

Our Lady was the only person on earth who could truly and honestly understand or provide peace to Our Lord, to comfort Him honestly and without the pain of knowing the sin of the comforter. She was perfect in thought, word, and deed. All the things the rest of us have to mea culpa on.

She advocates for us in heaven. She softens the wrath that should surely follow the transgression of even Original Sin, much less mankind's full gainer into the Mortal Sin pool.

Focus on that, and the physical specifics question becomes a non-starter and obvious. Focus on the physical, lose sight of the spiritual concept in play.
(07-06-2012, 03:56 AM)jonbhorton Wrote: [ -> ]
(07-06-2012, 01:28 AM)TS Aquinas Wrote: [ -> ]
(07-05-2012, 11:53 PM)John Lane Wrote: [ -> ]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)

This is heretical.

To play devil's advocate, the underline doesn't indicate denial but minimizing for a further point. How would you respond to this?

I don't know how the perpetual virginity of Blessed Mary has anything to do with "healing and saving influence of the grace of the Savior on human nature" though.  Unless he's drawing the conclusion that it was necessary for Blessed Mary to remain immaculately intact in body and soul for the salvation of the world.

Seems the portion you have trouble with is a really heady way of saying Co-Redemptrix and Advocate.

And that we need to not get hung up on the physical understanding of virginity, though this should not be in dispute, and focus on what that virginal understanding internalized and thus affected and in doing so, in all the ways the BVM was and is, and as She serves as an Advocate and Co-Redemptrix.

I don't have a problem with those doctrines, if that is what I mistakenly made it look to be. I'm actually a Montfortian in my belief of the Virgin, very serious about my devotion to her and what is said of her. If Card Muller meant to minimize her bodily perfection for harm of said doctrine, then I shall pray that he retracts and confesses this sin. If he minimized it for emphasis on her internal and spiritual perpetual virginity then I don't see the problem, as long as the physical perpetual virginity is upheld after he concludes his point. Real problem here is that he is using the modernistic confusion speak that can be interpreted in many different ways, he's going to need to come out publicly and clarify what he meant. Though for now it might be best to give him the benefit of the doubt but no one can deny what he says is suspect.
I wonder if anyone ever thought about how quickly Catholic writing would be stunted, and little hints, insight, and everything else would be lost, if people just wrote books like they were copying and pasting from Pre-Vatican II Council documents, etc.

Look for the doctrine first. If there is no way to reconcile, read in larger context. Some things on their own, while appearing heretical, are simply not- in context.

Since I have no desire to go out and buy a book to prove John Lane wrong, I think it should be up to him to do so and report back on all the nuggets he finds.

If I don't have an answer to my proposal by tomorrow evening, the stapler loses a staple.
Denial isn't just a river in Africa.
(07-07-2012, 10:46 PM)JuniorCouncilor Wrote: [ -> ]Denial isn't just a river in Africa.

Denial isn't a river in Africa at all. The Nile is. Heretic.

See what I did there?
I do.



It's so beautiful!!!


OK, maybe not so much.
(07-07-2012, 10:29 PM)TS Aquinas Wrote: [ -> ]Real problem here is that he is using the modernistic confusion speak that can be interpreted in many different ways, he's going to need to come out publicly and clarify what he meant. Though for now it might be best to give him the benefit of the doubt but no one can deny what he says is suspect.
It has been the Church's giving "the benefit of the doubt" that has got us in this crisis.

Modernists and some heretics always dodged the bullet by being given the benefit of doubt regarding their ambiguous texts/declarations.




double post
Funnily enough, Alex, if you look in Deuteronomy 22: 22-29, you'll find benefit of the doubt present in God-given Law.

Consider the context and consequence of the time and culture, and indeed still in the Middle East, for being deflowered before marriage. It's not talking about rape, except in the defense of the young woman in the field who had no one to cry out to, so, there would be no way to prove she was not just a hussy, but had been raped- benefit of the doubt. The others? Not so much.

We have literally one paragraph with no context. If this man is to be outright called a heretic and blasphemer, then the evidence damn well better meet such a bar as is raised by the charged.

And we don't see that. Just people, once again, looking for a reason to froth about crap they can't change and probably don't actually understand it anyway.

Nothing in the paragraph is outright in conflict with doctrine, it just examines an aspect of it and in doing so uses very subtle language to wrap in multiple aspects of the BVM.

I bet I could make Obama sound like an outright good Christian with a paragraph's worth of something he said. But that'd be a total farce.

The theme is really deduced to: people think Pope Benedict XVI is a heretic, and so when he appoints a man to a position, they look for "heresy" in their work. And then they pounce on something, blast it on the internet, and no one ever gets to read the part 3 lines above or below their conveniently chopped "quote". And those are the lines which prove the assertion wrong, generally.

When the quoted portion doesn't even declare anything overtly heretical, and can be read in a way which is perfectly in line with Tradition, the accusation stinks of slander and stupidity on the part of the accuser.

Here's an example of what I suspect the OP or his source did:

Original:
Quote:The error consists in thinking that they are saved by their religion.  They are saved in their religion but not by it. There is no Buddhist church in heaven, no Protestant church. This is perhaps hard to accept, but it is the truth. I did not found the Church, but rather Our Lord the Son of God.  As priests we must state the truth.

Example Version:
Quote:... they are saved by their religion. There is ... Buddhist church in heaven ... Protestant church. This is perhaps hard to accept, but it is the truth. I did not found the Church, but rather Our Lord the Son of God.  As priests we must state the truth.
Source:http://www.sspxasia.com/Documents/Archbishop-Lefebvre/OpenLetterToConfusedCatholics/Chapter-10.htm

Whoa nelly! Totally different, eh?

Even the original quote portion, without the broader context, might TOTALLY throw some people off- especially if they were looking for heresy and didn't read in context, or wanted to just mock up some BS.

Hence, for goodness sake, despite the controversy, give the man the benefit of the doubt. Maybe look up this book is you're gonna go there. Read it.

Or trust quotes on the internet without making a valid attempt to look up what it was in its entirety. Convenient worldview is convenient.

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