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
(07-14-2012, 12:01 PM)JayneK Wrote: [ -> ]Jansenism was about as widespread in its time as modernism is in ours and about as destructive to the Faith.  

Oh my.  And you think others don't know their history?  ???
(07-14-2012, 07:32 PM)Dmorgan Wrote: [ -> ]
(07-14-2012, 06:22 PM)jonbhorton Wrote: [ -> ]All combined, the SSPX in total probably doesn't even meet the same numbers as just the Diocese of Frieburg, which serves around 2 million. Germany has over 25million+ Catholics.

The SSPX is a drop in the bucket. Would be bad for them to go into formal schism, but Germany is about to swirl like a turd down the sewer pipe.

Bishop Muller's appointment seems more likely to address Germany than the SSPX.

The baby with a bottle in his mouth may scream, but the hungry infant is the one which gets attention.

This may well be true, considering the amount of disidents that are active in the Priesthood in Germany. But it certainly has a precedent to follow; Martin Luther ring a bell?
Really, i cannot see a justification for making a marginally orthodox Bishop the head of CDF just to placate the dissenters in the germanic region. If they choose to leave, so be it. But the possible damage to the entire Church is much more important than some whinning heretics.

Weren't people saying that leftists in Germany were very upset about this appointment because Mueller is considered to be on the right over there? We should remember that the way in which trads view someone is generally not the way that person is viewed by most others. I think I saw someone here earlier today saying that radical feminist nuns love Paul VI and John Paul II.
Yeah, the way that I view JPII is different than a gray haired, liberal nun.
(07-14-2012, 06:08 PM)JayneK Wrote: [ -> ]
(07-14-2012, 05:13 PM)Jesusbrea Wrote: [ -> ]
(07-14-2012, 10:27 AM)JayneK Wrote: [ -> ]That respect is due to the Pope is just as much a part of our faith as the honour due to the Blessed Virgin.  This thread is an indirect attack on the Holy Father by claiming that he has appointed a heretic.  Our Lord did not give us His Mother to be used as a weapon against his Vicar on earth. 

It is not a claim, it is a fact. One word to describe your attitude is DENIAL. Of the many cardinals* that Benedict could had chosen for the role, even when non-traditional in the full sense of the word (Burke, Ranjith, even Cardinal Cañizares) he picks precisely THIS. Hell, Levada was a staunch thomist traditionalist in comparison.

*I might add, why not make Bishop Schneider a Cardinal and appoint him for the role?

The claim that Archbishop Muller is a heretic is not supported by sufficient evidence for it to be called a fact.   Some speculation that I have seen about his appointment suggests that it signals the Pope's intention to move against the rebellious liberal German bishops.  There have been enough complaints about Muller by liberals to give some credibiity to this speculation.

Many people in this thread do not seem even willing to consider the possibility that the Pope knows what he is doing. 

Yes it is, actually we have at least three different heresies, not just one, and documentation to back that up. If Benedict was so concerned with restoring Tradition he could have appointed a man fit for such an important task as preserving orthodoxy, but instead he goes for the worst possible candidate; so either he is terribly misguided or manipulable or he has an agenda, and not exactly a good one.

What would actually have to happen for people to wake up and smell the coffee?
(07-15-2012, 12:05 AM)Jesusbrea Wrote: [ -> ]
(07-14-2012, 06:08 PM)JayneK Wrote: [ -> ]The claim that Archbishop Muller is a heretic is not supported by sufficient evidence for it to be called a fact.   Some speculation that I have seen about his appointment suggests that it signals the Pope's intention to move against the rebellious liberal German bishops.  There have been enough complaints about Muller by liberals to give some credibiity to this speculation.

Many people in this thread do not seem even willing to consider the possibility that the Pope knows what he is doing. 

Yes it is, actually we have at least three different heresies, not just one, and documentation to back that up. If Benedict was so concerned with restoring Tradition he could have appointed a man fit for such an important task as preserving orthodoxy, but instead he goes for the worst possible candidate; so either he is terribly misguided or manipulable or he has an agenda, and not exactly a good one.

What would actually have to happen for people to wake up and smell the coffee?

There are accusations of three different heresies based on three different short quotes.  All three are out of context and from a translation.  This is simply inadequate evidence to declare anyone a heretic. 

And it is absurd to say that Archbishop Muller is the worst possible candidate.  While the overall quality of bishops has gone up lately, there are still dissident bishops.  There are many who would be worse even if these accusations against +Muller were true.
(07-14-2012, 04:57 PM)Gerard Wrote: [ -> ]What do you mean by score?

I mean that the true measure of a crisis is really how many people go to heaven or hell, which God only knows. So while we may lament many things in our modern world, we ultimately have a lack of true data of how to compare one crisis to another, not to mention that there are simply more people on earth now than ever before. It stands to reason that any crisis would be worse then the last just based on the sheer passage of time and the exponential growth of humanity. And we can say the same with restoration too. The counter-reformation was a period of expansion and growth in Catholicism that was unmatched in the past, even back to the early spread of the Faith. And when this crisis is resolved, the restoration will likewise be great. But really the things we see and experience are not the ultimate determiners of how deep a crisis is, because ours is a religion which is spiritual. They give us some valuable data, but the final story. It may well be that more people are going to heaven than in the past. We simply do not have complete data to judge. So I was pointing out that, in a sense, it is futile to posit on crisis against another. They are simply just too different in their particulars, and we don't have this ultimate data concerning the fate of souls in our knowledge. And since none of us were around in the time of the Arians, it really is a moot point, since our call to holiness is in our time, not in the time of the Arians. So the point may be useful to a historian, but on the practical front of the holy life, what the Arian crisis was like in comparison to our time is superfluous.

(07-14-2012, 04:57 PM)Gerard Wrote: [ -> ]It doesn't really matter if everyone goes to Hell except the Blessed Mother.  Our Lord has His victory of sin and death regardless of the numbers.

Since Jesus came to save souls, I think it matters. The salvation of souls is what our Faith is all about, and should influence every decision we make. Jesus' name itself means salvation. Jesus came to save actual people from sin and death, not just to have victory over abstract concepts. One may even understand our current crisis as our Lord allowing Satan a long-lease, in order that souls may be saved.
(07-15-2012, 07:26 AM)JayneK Wrote: [ -> ]
(07-15-2012, 12:05 AM)Jesusbrea Wrote: [ -> ]
(07-14-2012, 06:08 PM)JayneK Wrote: [ -> ]The claim that Archbishop Muller is a heretic is not supported by sufficient evidence for it to be called a fact.   Some speculation that I have seen about his appointment suggests that it signals the Pope's intention to move against the rebellious liberal German bishops.  There have been enough complaints about Muller by liberals to give some credibiity to this speculation.

Many people in this thread do not seem even willing to consider the possibility that the Pope knows what he is doing. 

Yes it is, actually we have at least three different heresies, not just one, and documentation to back that up. If Benedict was so concerned with restoring Tradition he could have appointed a man fit for such an important task as preserving orthodoxy, but instead he goes for the worst possible candidate; so either he is terribly misguided or manipulable or he has an agenda, and not exactly a good one.

What would actually have to happen for people to wake up and smell the coffee?

There are accusations of three different heresies based on three different short quotes.  All three are out of context and from a translation.  This is simply inadequate evidence to declare anyone a heretic. 

And it is absurd to say that Archbishop Muller is the worst possible candidate.  While the overall quality of bishops has gone up lately, there are still dissident bishops.  There are many who would be worse even if these accusations against +Muller were true.



I'm not sure it's that absurd, based on his comments about the SSPX in the past.







Well, all i can really say is that it would appear that the rhine is continuing to flow into the Tiber! I see no good coming from this. I really hope i am wrong.
(07-15-2012, 11:04 AM)St. Pius of Trent Wrote: [ -> ]
(07-15-2012, 07:26 AM)JayneK Wrote: [ -> ]And it is absurd to say that Archbishop Muller is the worst possible candidate.  While the overall quality of bishops has gone up lately, there are still dissident bishops.  There are many who would be worse even if these accusations against +Muller were true.

I'm not sure it's that absurd, based on his comments about the SSPX in the past.

There is more involved in being the head of the CDF than dealing with the SSPX. 
(07-15-2012, 07:26 AM)JayneK Wrote: [ -> ]
(07-15-2012, 12:05 AM)Jesusbrea Wrote: [ -> ]
(07-14-2012, 06:08 PM)JayneK Wrote: [ -> ]The claim that Archbishop Muller is a heretic is not supported by sufficient evidence for it to be called a fact.   Some speculation that I have seen about his appointment suggests that it signals the Pope's intention to move against the rebellious liberal German bishops.  There have been enough complaints about Muller by liberals to give some credibiity to this speculation.

Many people in this thread do not seem even willing to consider the possibility that the Pope knows what he is doing. 

Yes it is, actually we have at least three different heresies, not just one, and documentation to back that up. If Benedict was so concerned with restoring Tradition he could have appointed a man fit for such an important task as preserving orthodoxy, but instead he goes for the worst possible candidate; so either he is terribly misguided or manipulable or he has an agenda, and not exactly a good one.

What would actually have to happen for people to wake up and smell the coffee?

There are accusations of three different heresies based on three different short quotes.  All three are out of context and from a translation.  This is simply inadequate evidence to declare anyone a heretic. 

And it is absurd to say that Archbishop Muller is the worst possible candidate.  While the overall quality of bishops has gone up lately, there are still dissident bishops.  There are many who would be worse even if these accusations against +Muller were true.
.

How could he be any different from the dissident bishops? perhaps he doesn't go against Church's teaching on sexual morality (as far as I know), but a dissident is not necessarily a public rebel, all that it takes is that he dissents from perennial Catholic teaching (and dogma). How come not one of the most fervent defenders of this man offer a "better" translation? how come those who supposedly have a better understanding of this man's writings, don't offer the texts in full context so that us unbelievers are put to ridicule?, how come HE doesn't want to clarify the meaning of the texts in question, evading the issue with ad hominems and such? (especially when there is occasion of scandal).

When all or one of the above happens (given that it is satisfactory), I'll recant, but as it stands, actually it is not very surprising.
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