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, 10:20 PM)JayneK Wrote: [ -> ]Liberation theology is genuine Catholic truths mixed with some wrong assumptions and focus.  

As is heresy.

Quote:It is possible to study it and pull out the good elements.

One can do the same thing with heresy.  Happens every time my brother (a Protestant) and I talk religion.

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

Can't blame you, but for my part, I'm pretty sure of what I read.  Sure enough to make the accusation.

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

I doubt not.  We seem to be at loggerheads.

Quote:If you are a scholar then you do not have the excuse of ignorance.  

Agreed.  But neither do I need it.

Quote: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.  

Nonsense.  All that is required is that you have a translator that you can trust.  I do:  the priests of the SSPX.  Your standard is very high-- I don't necessarily say too high for scholarship, but I will say too high for a large number of people who are respected as scholars in our country.  And again, this is not an issue of scholarship, it is an issue of faith, and as such, it CANNOT be necessary to be a scholar to judge it.

By their fruits you will know them.  The fruits of liberation theology are Marxism, socialism, communism, atheism.  If Gerard Muller supports liberation theology, it is reasonable to assume he knows what he's doing.  Even if he doesn't he has absolutely no business being head of the CDF.  And the man who put him there ought to know that.

I guarantee that he will not have the excuse of ignorance, if I do not.
(07-16-2012, 10:31 PM)JayneK Wrote: [ -> ]
(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.

If forty plus years of their actions, of which I've spent the last eight thinking assiduously on these issues, is not enough to make a reasonable judgment, then my chances of salvation are indeed slim.

Listen, Jayne, I'm not an over-confident or rash person-- quite the opposite.  Usually I have to accuse myself of being too slow to do the right thing, because I'm no fan of conflict.

The truth must set us free, however painful it may be.
(07-16-2012, 10:36 PM)JuniorCouncilor Wrote: [ -> ]If forty plus years of their actions, of which I've spent the last eight thinking assiduously on these issues, is not enough to make a reasonable judgment, then my chances of salvation are indeed slim.

Listen, Jayne, I'm not an over-confident or rash person-- quite the opposite.  Usually I have to accuse myself of being too slow to do the right thing, because I'm no fan of conflict.

The truth must set us free, however painful it may be.

Listen to him, Jayne.  He's being reasonable.
(07-16-2012, 09:48 PM)JayneK Wrote: [ -> ]
(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.

My own point (sorry it was not made explicit) is that Bishop Muller may be no less dangerous to the Church if he is "only" ambiguous and not heretical.

Apparently he seems "only ambiguous" to various people on this thread. But to people who are inclined to pooh-pooh what the Virgin Birth IS, in its central meaning of Mary's physiological purity and integrity during and after birth (the miraculous birth), he is music to their ears.  To people who believe it, he is a temptation to think less of it.  To people who are inclined to think irreverently of it, he is an excuse to use phrases such as "empirically verifiable somatic Details", and other words not so reverent as "miraculous birth". He says we should think of "the healing and saving influence of the grace of the Savior on human nature, that had been wounded by Original Sin".  Of course we should, but this is not even speaking directly of Mary herself, let alone of what the Perpetual Virginity is!

By his ambiguity he draws men to error far more effectively than if he had said "The Virgin Birth is a myth". If only he had said the latter, he would have been condemned before he got in the door.  Now  he is the head of the CDF.  Ambiguity - between truth and error - is diabolical here.
(07-16-2012, 10:20 PM)JayneK Wrote: [ -> ]
(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.
One cannot discuss against pride. Or is it denial?
There cannot be ambiguity.





So, what you're saying Alex, is the #1, the President, has placed in charge of that vehicle with which to carry out orders, being the sub, a captain. A... vicar if you will, since the President can't command the sub in person (assuming he could- for analogy he can, because he is Christ) and do everything else. The Captain acts in that sub in the name of the President, and on his particular authority as a captain.

And at least 3 Popes have kept doing the same thing in increments, slowing down the pendulum while others are freaking out that it ever swung.

Three Popes, and the Magisterium, have continually said what is around is doctrinal and valid. That doesn't make it better. Just like we the United States (RIP) could go to a Jeffersonian model and it would be purely American, but it wouldn't be a step forward- mainly because most people couldn't grow mold if they actually tried. But just because Hamilton was a Federalist doesn't mean Hamiltonian policies are purely implemented today. We are promised purity in truth in the Church as taught. Not so in American politics or the military.

What it comes down to, is someone is wrong. You'll say it's Bishop Mueller. I say it's the SSPX. Why? Because not even the SSPX purely practices the faith. They get off into wacked out stuff all the time. Listening to Bishop Williamson is great on certain subjects. He's on it. On others, he's a pure lunatic.

So, per your video, shut the f up indeed.
(07-16-2012, 11:32 PM)GottmitunsAlex Wrote: [ -> ]

Yes, ambiguity is not politically useful.
(07-16-2012, 01:46 PM)JayneK Wrote: [ -> ]
(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.  

Let's look at what Bishop Fellay acutally said: "Numerous writings of Bishop Mueller on the real transubstantiation of bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Christ, on the dogma of Our Lady’s virginity, on the need of conversion of non-Catholics to the Catholic Church… are questionable, to say the least! There is no doubt that these texts would have been in the past the object of an intervention of the Holy Office, which now is the very Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith presided by him.

Bp Fellay goes quite a bit farther than merely saying that Mueller's writings are "questionable", but also would have been subject to an intervention of the Holy Office in the past. Also it is not just his writings on the dogma of Our Lady's virginity which are questionable, so it is not a single incident that is in question.
(07-16-2012, 11:57 PM)jonbhorton Wrote: [ -> ]What it comes down to, is someone is wrong. You'll say it's Bishop Mueller. I say it's the SSPX. Why? Because not even the SSPX purely practices the faith. They get off into wacked out stuff all the time. Listening to Bishop Williamson is great on certain subjects. He's on it. On others, he's a pure lunatic.  

Well, that's a crock.  I challenge you to back it up.  I think he is not a lunatic and I believe you cannot defend your statement rationally.  Nobody who blathers on about Williamson and his "lunacy" or "craziness" seems to be able to do anything more than spout off like a boring, unintelligent jackass. 

Will you be the one brave soul who can accurately present Williamson's positions on whatever controversy and prove that he's a "lunatic" as you say?  Or will you skulk away like the other cowards who throw their insults without any integrity or honor? 
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