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
(07-15-2012, 09:01 PM)JayneK Wrote: [ -> ]There is more involved in being the head of the CDF than dealing with the SSPX. 

Yes.  Unfortunately, from what I've seen so far, I rather think that is the part of the job he is best qualified for.  Which is very far from saying well qualified.
(07-15-2012, 09:43 PM)Jesusbrea Wrote: [ -> ]
(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.

He was chosen for CDF, personally, by the Pope. That's a bit different than a Bishop who was a good priest and then gets his crozier and goes rogue. (sound familiar? should sound familiar to both sides of the aisle)

You dissent and see no irony.

Where do I get a book written in German, and who do I trust to translate it? I don't sprechen.

All of us have consistently said we don't have a good understanding because there's no English translation available except from the same source calling Bishop Muller a heretic. Round and round she goes, where she stops, nobody knows! Without context, no point.

How come people don't want to at least give him the benefit of the doubt to explain himself when they can resort to ad hominems themselves? Maybe he doesn't want to clarify because he knows no clarification will suffice for those who will pick his explanation apart, still getting the language wrong, and saying, "well, he explained and it's still heretical, heretic!" Meanwhile, maybe they just can't read.

Copy/Paste Press, the Catholic Printing and Publishing giant where everything is exactly as Trent states it, with no original way of bringing that up to snuff or tuned to an audience: opening wherever myopic traditionalists get scared by critical reading skills and possibly having to respect the Holy Father.

(07-16-2012, 08:53 AM)JuniorCouncilor Wrote: [ -> ]
(07-15-2012, 09:01 PM)JayneK Wrote: [ -> ]There is more involved in being the head of the CDF than dealing with the SSPX. 

Yes.  Unfortunately, from what I've seen so far, I rather think that is the part of the job he is best qualified for.  Which is very far from saying well qualified.

There are some indications that this appointment signals the Pope's intention to go after dissident bishops.   How about waiting for a bit to see if this is true? 

Meanwhile Archbishop DiNoia was made Vice President of the Ecclesia Dei Commission showing the Pope's interest in having a man sympathetic to the SSPX in a key position.
(07-16-2012, 10:54 AM)jonbhorton Wrote: [ -> ]
(07-15-2012, 09:43 PM)Jesusbrea Wrote: [ -> ]
(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.

He was chosen for CDF, personally, by the Pope. That's a bit different than a Bishop who was a good priest and then gets his crozier and goes rogue. (sound familiar? should sound familiar to both sides of the aisle)

You dissent and see no irony.

Where do I get a book written in German, and who do I trust to translate it? I don't sprechen.

All of us have consistently said we don't have a good understanding because there's no English translation available except from the same source calling Bishop Muller a heretic. Round and round she goes, where she stops, nobody knows! Without context, no point.

How come people don't want to at least give him the benefit of the doubt to explain himself when they can resort to ad hominems themselves? Maybe he doesn't want to clarify because he knows no clarification will suffice for those who will pick his explanation apart, still getting the language wrong, and saying, "well, he explained and it's still heretical, heretic!" Meanwhile, maybe they just can't read.

Copy/Paste Press, the Catholic Printing and Publishing giant where everything is exactly as Trent states it, with no original way of bringing that up to snuff or tuned to an audience: opening wherever myopic traditionalists get scared by critical reading skills and possibly having to respect the Holy Father.

"The meaning of sacred dogmas must always be maintained which Holy Mother Church declared once and for all, nor should one ever depart from that meaning under the guise of or in the name of a more advanced understanding" (DS 3020) Vatican I.

Yep, as Trent states it.
(07-16-2012, 11:37 AM)JayneK Wrote: [ -> ]Meanwhile Archbishop DiNoia was made Vice President of the Ecclesia Dei Commission showing the Pope's interest in having a man sympathetic to the SSPX in a key position.

What makes him sympathetic to the SSPX?
(07-16-2012, 01:30 PM)Jesusbrea Wrote: [ -> ]"The meaning of sacred dogmas must always be maintained which Holy Mother Church declared once and for all, nor should one ever depart from that meaning under the guise of or in the name of a more advanced understanding" (DS 3020) Vatican I.

Yep, as Trent states it.

We do not have sufficient evidence to claim that Archbishop Muller is departing from the meaning of sacred dogmas.  Accusations of heresy are not justified. Bishop Fellay referred to  +Muller's positions as questionable.  That is how far one can reasonably go.  
(07-16-2012, 10:54 AM)jonbhorton Wrote: [ -> ]He was chosen for CDF, personally, by the Pope. That's a bit different than a Bishop who was a good priest and then gets his crozier and goes rogue. (sound familiar? should sound familiar to both sides of the aisle)

You dissent and see no irony.

So they said of St. Anastasius
(07-16-2012, 01:41 PM)CollegeCatholic Wrote: [ -> ]
(07-16-2012, 11:37 AM)JayneK Wrote: [ -> ]Meanwhile Archbishop DiNoia was made Vice President of the Ecclesia Dei Commission showing the Pope's interest in having a man sympathetic to the SSPX in a key position.

What makes him sympathetic to the SSPX?

He says of himself that he is sympathetic to the SSPX in this article: http://www.ncregister.com/daily-news/arc...t.-pius-x/

Quote:I never experienced the Council as a rupture. It’s interesting — only as I’ve begun to read this traditionalist literature and interpretation have I begun to understand that, in a certain sense, there are problems that are real. But if you cease to believe that the Holy Spirit is preserving the Church from error, you cut your moorings.

The councils cannot — whatever their interpretations may be by the left or right, or whatever the intentions of the authors were of the council documents — be led into error. All of the documents stand. Schism is not the answer. So I’m sympathetic to the society, but the solution is not breaking off from the Church.
It seems as though he is saying "I am sympathetic to the Society but I reject their arguments because the Church and Councils can never err."

This is also an intriguing statement
"The councils cannot — whatever their interpretations may be by the left or right, or whatever the intentions of the authors were of the council documents — be led into error."

Is he saying that even if the intentions of the authors were bad and of ill-will that they cannot err? 
(07-16-2012, 01:54 PM)CollegeCatholic Wrote: [ -> ]It seems as though he is saying "I am sympathetic to the Society but I reject their arguments because the Church and Councils can never err."

What he is rejecting is schism.  The SSPX is not in schism.  He seems to be saying is that he has been convinced by traditionalist arguments that there is a real problem.


(07-16-2012, 01:54 PM)CollegeCatholic Wrote: [ -> ]This is also an intriguing statement
"The councils cannot — whatever their interpretations may be by the left or right, or whatever the intentions of the authors were of the council documents — be led into error."

Is he saying that even if the intentions of the authors were bad and of ill-will that they cannot err? 

I think so.  As I understand his position, the Council documents must be interpreted in the light of Tradition even if that was not the intent of the authors.  This is actually a fairly major concession in that he recognizes the possibility that some Council authors had bad intentions.
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