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
(07-16-2012, 02:14 PM)JayneK Wrote: [ -> ]
(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 b


(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.

(I'm not attacking you.)

But isn't that part of the huge problem?  Saying that the documents of the Council cannot err removes the free will from the authors of the documents.  His argument sounds absurd and ridiculous. 

PS - You accidentally the rest of your sentence.
(07-16-2012, 02:17 PM)CollegeCatholic Wrote: [ -> ]
(07-16-2012, 02:14 PM)JayneK Wrote: [ -> ]
(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 b


(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.

(I'm not attacking you.)

But isn't that part of the huge problem?  Saying that the documents of the Council cannot err removes the free will from the authors of the documents.  His argument sounds absurd and ridiculous. 

PS - You accidentally the rest of your sentence.

The idea is that God protects His Church.  Even when people intend to put wrong ideas into Church teachings, the wording is ambiguous enough to allow them to be interpreted with a true meaning.  Any ill-intentioned authors still have free will and are responsible before God for those bad intentions, but He preserves the Church.

In the long run, the ambiguous language has got to go.  Nevertheless, God can use it for His purposes.

(I fixed my previous post and added the omitted words.)
(07-16-2012, 11:37 AM)JayneK Wrote: [ -> ]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? 

We have been waiting, what seven years?  Or is it more like fifty-seven?  At this point, I don't see how one can any more deny the signs of the times.  The pope may be trying to do good things, and I shan't stop praying for him and trying to think the best of him.  But I also won't do any more mental gymnastics on his account.  I'm crazy enough as it is.

Objectively I think it is undeniable that this pope has done both good and awful things.  As such, I shan't be denying it-- the more so as others try to assert the contrary.  It's just too dang important.

Quote: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.

I have studied very little of Abp. DiNoia, but when a pope makes decisions as schizophrenic as this one does, I hesitate to say that it "shows" anything about him.  I also believe DiNoia is just one more who wants to bring the SSPX around to conciliar thinking.  Quod avertat Deus!
(07-16-2012, 01:46 PM)JayneK Wrote: [ -> ]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.  

That is incorrect.  Bp. Fellay said that Bp. Muller's positions were questionable "at the least!"  That implies very much more, and if it does not say it outright, that certainly does not prevent the rest of us from calling a spade a shovel.

Honestly, I know it is EXTREMELY hard to face up to the fact that a lot of our bishops our heretics, especially if one then feels that one must resist them ad faciem versus.  But what else can we do?  Muller is clearly nothing short of a modern-day Nestorius.

I don't claim to have the courage to shout at him in the midst of Mass, as faithful Catholics did against Nestorius.  But as I see him, and in the measure my state allows, I must oppose him.
(07-16-2012, 02:14 PM)JayneK Wrote: [ -> ]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.

I can't see that as a major concession; it's a simple fact of history.  Read what the people in question wrote on the subject.  Stuff like, "We have written ambiguous documents, and we know how we shall interpret them afterward."  And now we all know, don't we?
(07-16-2012, 07:23 PM)JuniorCouncilor Wrote: [ -> ]
(07-16-2012, 01:46 PM)JayneK Wrote: [ -> ]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.  

That is incorrect.  Bp. Fellay said that Bp. Muller's positions were questionable "at the least!"  That implies very much more, and if it does not say it outright, that certainly does not prevent the rest of us from calling a spade a shovel.

Honestly, I know it is EXTREMELY hard to face up to the fact that a lot of our bishops our heretics, especially if one then feels that one must resist them ad faciem versus.  But what else can we do?  Muller is clearly nothing short of a modern-day Nestorius.

I don't claim to have the courage to shout at him in the midst of Mass, as faithful Catholics did against Nestorius.  But as I see him, and in the measure my state allows, I must oppose him.
Protestant!
Um...

Jansenist!
(07-16-2012, 02:25 PM)JayneK Wrote: [ -> ]The idea is that God protects His Church.  Even when people intend to put wrong ideas into Church teachings, the wording is ambiguous enough to allow them to be interpreted with a true meaning.  Any ill-intentioned authors still have free will and are responsible before God for those bad intentions, but He preserves the Church.

In the long run, the ambiguous language has got to go.  Nevertheless, God can use it for His purposes.

God can permit evil for His purposes, but not because there is some good in the evil.  Ambiguous language in Catholic teaching is evil.  Sometimes it does less harm than clear error  would do (good and intelligent men accept the "true side" of the ambiguity, rather then accepting clear error just because it is taught).  But other times the "false side"  tempts someone into error by parading as truth. Both sides may be seen.  Good men (like us, I think) may knowingly discard the "false side" but excuse it "(it is just ambiguous!)".  But evil men (eg smart Vatican II liberals) may embrace the "false side" and happily misuse and discard the "true side".

Clear error is easier to recognize, to denounce, and to fight then ambiguity. Ambiguity can be diabolical.
(07-16-2012, 08:39 PM)Doce Me Wrote: [ -> ]
(07-16-2012, 02:25 PM)JayneK Wrote: [ -> ]The idea is that God protects His Church.  Even when people intend to put wrong ideas into Church teachings, the wording is ambiguous enough to allow them to be interpreted with a true meaning.  Any ill-intentioned authors still have free will and are responsible before God for those bad intentions, but He preserves the Church.

In the long run, the ambiguous language has got to go.  Nevertheless, God can use it for His purposes.

God can permit evil for His purposes, but not because there is some good in the evil.  Ambiguous language in Catholic teaching is evil.  Sometimes it does less harm than clear error  would do (good and intelligent men accept the "true side" of the ambiguity, rather then accepting clear error just because it is taught).  But other times the "false side"  tempts someone into error by parading as truth. Both sides may be seen.  Good men (like us, I think) may knowingly discard the "false side" but excuse it "(it is just ambiguous!)".  But evil men (eg smart Vatican II liberals) may embrace the "false side" and happily misuse and discard the "true side".

Clear error is easier to recognize, to denounce, and to fight then ambiguity. Ambiguity can be diabolical.
THIS
(07-16-2012, 07:23 PM)JuniorCouncilor Wrote: [ -> ]
(07-16-2012, 01:46 PM)JayneK Wrote: [ -> ]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.  

That is incorrect.  Bp. Fellay said that Bp. Muller's positions were questionable "at the least!"  That implies very much more, and if it does not say it outright, that certainly does not prevent the rest of us from calling a spade a shovel.

Honestly, I know it is EXTREMELY hard to face up to the fact that a lot of our bishops our heretics, especially if one then feels that one must resist them ad faciem versus.  But what else can we do?  Muller is clearly nothing short of a modern-day Nestorius.

I don't claim to have the courage to shout at him in the midst of Mass, as faithful Catholics did against Nestorius.  But as I see him, and in the measure my state allows, I must oppose him.

I have no trouble at all facing that some bishops are heretics.  However, in any given case, there must be sufficient evidence of heresy to justify the accusation.  We do not have such evidence for Archbishop Muller.  In the absence of this evidence it is unjust to claim that he is a heretic .Perhaps further investigation would reveal enough evidence (although I doubt it) but all that can be said at this point is that his positions are questionable.  There is nothing the least courageous or virtuous about making inadequately supported claims. 
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