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, 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.

Yes, this was the point I was trying to make.  Thank you for expanding and clarifying it.
(07-16-2012, 02:14 PM)JayneK Wrote: [ -> ]What he is rejecting is schism. 

Well in the Conciliar church only "schism" (i.e. disobedience to Modernists) is possible, because they don't believe in an objective rule of faith, so there is no possibility of heresy.

One never hears any accusations of heresy these days, or really for about forty years now.  Just the neologism "dissident" (usually directed at more consistent Modernists) or "schism" (usually directed at Catholics who hold fast to what the Church teaches).

Have a think about it.
(07-16-2012, 09:45 PM)JayneK Wrote: [ -> ]I have no trouble at all facing that some bishops are heretics. 

I envy you that.

Quote: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. 

Jayne, I have a great deal of respect for you-- if I didn't I wouldn't take the time to respond.  But I truly think this is nonsense.

The man tries his best to excuse at least one liberation theologian.  Publically, mind you.  In my mind, if you try to excuse someone who excuses liberation theologians, you are quite simply on the wrong side, at least on this point.  His excusing a liberation theologian would be wholly sufficient to make him savor of heresy.  There is simply no issue of translation here.  If there is ambiguity, I can't see how you aren't making it in order to avoid seeing what you don't want to see.

As to the Eucharist, his language is really not that ambiguous.  It's clear what he's trying to say-- he says it's bad, or dangerous, or whatever, for the faithful to speak of "the Body and Blood."  He speaks of the essence, not the accidents, of the bread and wine as still present.  Objectively, this is heresy.  The man is therefore either a heretic, or a fool.  Either way, he has less business being head of the CDF than you do.

The only one of the three issues on which there was any question in my mind as to whether he had written or spoken heresy or in support of heresy was the question of Our Lady's perpetual virginity, and I think that the discussion here has actually settled that against him.

Quote: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. 

Jayne, I happen to be a scholar, but I don't have to be one to recognize a heretic.  You are completely incorrect in saying that "all that can be said" is that his positions are questionable.  What Bp. Fellay said, which was the truth, is that such is the least that can be said.  Much more can be said, and there is no reason it shouldn't.

I'm not claiming to be courageous.  Quite the contrary.  What I'm claiming is that ordinary Catholics don't have the moral obligation to do mental backflips to avoid claiming their bishops are heretics, and that their pope promotes heretics.  It distorts their view of reality, and they just shouldn't do it.  Contra factum, etiam unum, non est argumentum.

And we have forty plus years of facta-- not just verba.
(07-16-2012, 07:18 PM)JuniorCouncilor Wrote: [ -> ]
(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.

I meant to wait and see if ++ Muller is in fact part of the Pope's plan to go after dissidents.  This man has not even been in office for a month, yet you and others have judged him.  Basing one's opinions on actual events is not a form of mental gymnastics.
Hey, if he comes down on dissident bishops, then I'll look at revising my judgment.  But I am judging based on his actions-- his past actions.  And he shows no intention of changing.  Quite the opposite.

Honestly, I can't judge the man for defending liberation theology?  Is there anything I could judge him for?  That's crazy talk.  Our Lord said, "Judge ye righteous judgment," not "judge ye no one never."  How are we supposed to avoid the ravening wolves if we obstinately deny their existence?  It's insane.
(07-16-2012, 09:53 PM)John Lane Wrote: [ -> ]
(07-16-2012, 02:14 PM)JayneK Wrote: [ -> ]What he is rejecting is schism. 

Well in the Conciliar church only "schism" (i.e. disobedience to Modernists) is possible, because they don't believe in an objective rule of faith, so there is no possibility of heresy.

One never hears any accusations of heresy these days, or really for about forty years now.  Just the neologism "dissident" (usually directed at more consistent Modernists) or "schism" (usually directed at Catholics who hold fast to what the Church teaches).

Have a think about it.
A very wise bishop said this: :eyeroll:

As far as the relationship between the Church and the Protestants he said: "We define our relationship to one another no longer actually with existing differences in teaching, life and constitution of the Church, but over the commonalities, which are fundamental, are where we stand."  He continued, "There is therefore -- not several churches together, but there are divisions within the one people of God and his house."


He continued, "On the contrary: The Doctrine [On 'Dominus Jesus'] is "far away from that", the Protestants adhere to the being of the church"
Quote:We define our relationship to one another no longer actually with existing differences in teaching, life and constitution of the Church, but over the commonalities, which are fundamental, are where we stand.

The "no longer" makes it seem as if there has been a change.
Dominus Jesus teaches that Protestant and schismatic sects are more or less good and praiseworthy, which doctrine was condemned by Pius XI in Mortalium Animos.

The reason that some liberals didn't like Dominus Jesus was because they insist that these sects are not "more less" but "equal to" the Church.

It wasn't heretical enough for them.  They like their heresy really clear and direct.
(07-16-2012, 10:02 PM)JuniorCouncilor Wrote: [ -> ]The man tries his best to excuse at least one liberation theologian.  Publically, mind you.  In my mind, if you try to excuse someone who excuses liberation theologians, you are quite simply on the wrong side, at least on this point.  His excusing a liberation theologian would be wholly sufficient to make him savor of heresy.  There is simply no issue of translation here.  If there is ambiguity, I can't see how you aren't making it in order to avoid seeing what you don't want to see.

Liberation theology is genuine Catholic truths mixed with some wrong assumptions and focus.  It is possible to study it and pull out the good elements.  I did not see anything heretical in his comments on liberation theology.

(07-16-2012, 10:02 PM)JuniorCouncilor Wrote: [ -> ]As to the Eucharist, his language is really not that ambiguous.  It's clear what he's trying to say-- he says it's bad, or dangerous, or whatever, for the faithful to speak of "the Body and Blood."  He speaks of the essence, not the accidents, of the bread and wine as still present.  Objectively, this is heresy.  The man is therefore either a heretic, or a fool.  Either way, he has less business being head of the CDF than you do.

No this is not what he said.  (I already did some posts on this and I am tired of going over the same ground.)

(07-16-2012, 10:02 PM)JuniorCouncilor Wrote: [ -> ]The only one of the three issues on which there was any question in my mind as to whether he had written or spoken heresy or in support of heresy was the question of Our Lady's perpetual virginity, and I think that the discussion here has actually settled that against him.

I have been following that discussion and I saw no such thing settled.

Quote:
Quote: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. 

Jayne, I happen to be a scholar, but I don't have to be one to recognize a heretic.  You are completely incorrect in saying that "all that can be said" is that his positions are questionable.  What Bp. Fellay said, which was the truth, is that such is the least that can be said.  Much more can be said, and there is no reason it shouldn't.

I'm not claiming to be courageous.  Quite the contrary.  What I'm claiming is that ordinary Catholics don't have the moral obligation to do mental backflips to avoid claiming their bishops are heretics, and that their pope promotes heretics.  It distorts their view of reality, and they just shouldn't do it.  Contra factum, etiam unum, non est argumentum.

And we have forty plus years of facta-- not just verba.

If you are a scholar then you do not have the excuse of ignorance.  You should understand what a reasonable standard of evidence is.  It is not possible to justly accuse a person based on a translation of his work because the problematic elements may have been introduced by the translator.  And it is especially not possible when all we have are out of context snippets.

It is absurd to label this as mental backflips.  It is normal critical thinking.
(07-16-2012, 10:10 PM)JuniorCouncilor Wrote: [ -> ]Hey, if he comes down on dissident bishops, then I'll look at revising my judgment.  But I am judging based on his actions-- his past actions.  And he shows no intention of changing.  Quite the opposite.

Honestly, I can't judge the man for defending liberation theology?  Is there anything I could judge him for?  That's crazy talk.  Our Lord said, "Judge ye righteous judgment," not "judge ye no one never."  How are we supposed to avoid the ravening wolves if we obstinately deny their existence?  It's insane.

You should be withholding  judgment until he has been in office for some time.  We do not know how he will perform as head of CDF, only speculation based on (often poorly understood) past actions.  You are not making righteous judgments but rash ones.
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