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, 11:37 AM)JayneK Wrote: [ -> ]
(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.

Oh yes!!!! I'm just sure that B16 is going to go after those dissident bishops like a bulldog any day now!!!!! Finally, after almost 50 years someone is going to go after all those pedophile coddling Modernist Bishops that is the cause of all the trouble in the Church.
(07-17-2012, 12:18 AM)Gerard Wrote: [ -> ]
(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? 

Perhaps best not to talk about honor when one is willing to turn on Bishop Fellay the moment he doesn't pass the ideological purity test.
(07-17-2012, 12:29 AM)Crusading Philologist Wrote: [ -> ]Perhaps best not to talk about honor when one is willing to turn on Bishop Fellay the moment he doesn't pass the ideological purity test.

Get it right, Bishop Fellay turned, not me, not Williamson, not Fr. Pfeiffer, not Fr. Chazel, not Bp. Tissier de Maleraiss and the list goes on and on. 

You've got the same twisted idea that the Neo-Caths have re:The SSPX and the Popes.  Some prelate in a leadership position can betray you left and right whether it be the Pope or Superior General and to point out that betrayal is some kind of perverse disloyalty to a disloyal leader in the first place. 
It's like a Tarantino film. The Church comes down to just 3 Bishops and less than 2 million worldwide out of over 7 Billion. And ONLY they "get it". And even their leader is a traitor and not included in the total, being 4 consecrated Bishops.

And the ringmaster, Bishop Williamson, is booted from proceedings, like a pope amidst the shadow of an anti-pope.

I think it should be called "The Gates of Hell Prevaileth: Kill Truth"

As I said, lunacy. It's like, Protestant, yo.
(07-17-2012, 12:50 AM)jonbhorton Wrote: [ -> ]It's like a Tarantino film. The Church comes down to just 3 Bishops and less than 2 million worldwide out of over 7 Billion. And ONLY they "get it". And even their leader is a traitor and not included in the total, being 4 consecrated Bishops.

And the ringmaster, Bishop Williamson, is booted from proceedings, like a pope amidst the shadow of an anti-pope.

I think it should be called "The Gates of Hell Prevaileth: Kill Truth"

As I said, lunacy. It's like, Protestant, yo.

That doesn't make a lick of sense.  It's a random string of disconnected phrases vs. a deliberate thought, with "lunacy" tacked on the end like a bow. 
(07-17-2012, 12:50 AM)jonbhorton Wrote: [ -> ]It's like a Tarantino film. The Church comes down to just 3 Bishops and less than 2 million worldwide out of over 7 Billion. And ONLY they "get it". And even their leader is a traitor and not included in the total, being 4 consecrated Bishops.

You mean like during the Arian heresy, during which, according to historians (both Catholic and non-Catholic), at least 95% of the clergy were Arian?

It reminds me of a certain Jewish carpenter Who, with the exception of a couple loyal followers (St. John and His mother), seemed to be the only One Who actually "got it"; the rest wanted Him crucified. 

Do you propose a religion of popularity and numbers or of truth? Upon which does your faith rest?

(07-17-2012, 12:21 AM)Thomas58 Wrote: [ -> ]Oh yes!!!! I'm just sure that B16 is going to go after those dissident bishops like a bulldog any day now!!!!! Finally, after almost 50 years someone is going to go after all those pedophile coddling Modernist Bishops that is the cause of all the trouble in the Church.

:LOL:

This.
(07-05-2012, 11:53 PM)John Lane Wrote: [ -> ]The Modernist, Gerhard Müller, appointed to head the CDF is responsible for the following assertions:

"[The perpetual virginity of Mary] is not so much about specific physiological proprieties in the natural process of birth (such as the birth canal not having been opened, the hymen not being broken, or the absence of birth pangs), but with the healing and saving influence of the grace of the Savior on human nature, that had been wounded by Original Sin. ... it is not so much about physiologically and empirically verifiable somatic Details." (Katholische Dogmatik für Studium und Praxis, Freiburg 52003, p. 498)

This is heretical.

Quote: Scheeben's Mariology, vol. I, pp 110-112.

CHAPTER VII   MARY’S PERPETUAL VIRGINITY (1)

UNLIKE all other mothers, with whom motherhood is incompatible with virginity, the mother of the Redeemer remains a virgin consecrated to God in her very motherhood as well as in her whole life.  Indeed on account of the unique perfection of her virginity and of the unique sacredness of her person aid and whole being, which lays the foundation of her virginity and makes it complete, this woman must be called not merely "virgin" but specifically "the Virgin."

She had been so called already in the prophecy of Isaias regarding the mother of the Emmanuel and again in the Apostles’ Creed, where the virgin is placed with the Holy Ghost as one principle of the human birth of Christ.  Both texts likewise define the objective and highest form of the sacredness of Mary’s person and entire being, which is the basis of her virginity.  As bearer of God and instrument of the Holy Ghost she is taken possession of by God in the most sublime sense of the word and, as a chosen “spiritual vessel” and spiritual bride of God united to Him by marriage, she belongs to Him alone and without reserve.

The highest perfection of the quality of virginity, as it is contained in the Christian idea of “the Virgin,” comprises permanence.  Otherwise Mary cannot be called virgin, much less “the Virgin.”  She is virgo perpetua.  This perfection of virginity comprises three essential parts: (1) bodily integrity and purity (virginitas corporis or carnis);  (2) the virtue of virginity or the permanent virginal inclination (virginitas mentis);  (3) the virginity of heart, i.e., freedom from all carnal motions and sensations (virginitas sensus seu animae).

Mary’s perpetual virginity was denied only by those heretics who denied also the divinity of Christ, such as the Ebionites, Arians, and rationalist Protestants, or by those who display a great wantonness in the domain of morals; such as Helvidius and Jovinianus.  The Reformers opposed the perpetual virginity of spirit, at least so far as the vow is concerned, and partly also the virginitas in partu, without denying the divinity of Christ.  But they minimized the living efficacy of the divinity of Christ, even for His own humanity, and they wished to avoid in the vow of Mary the ideal of consecrated virginity.

Mary's Bodily Virginity

The absolute perfection of the bodily virginity of the mother of Jesus, with regard to that act through which she outwardly appeared as the mother of Christ, is usually thus defined: Mary was a virgin in the birth, before the birth, and after the birth.  This order shows that, whereas with other mothers the violation of the bodily integrity is strikingly obvious in the birth, Mary’s integrity was miraculously preserved in the birth of her Son and supposes and reflects the virginal conception of her Son.  Furthermore it guarantees the perpetual continuation of her integrity to the exclusion of any other human conception.

The absolute bodily virginity can also be determined with reference to the conception which made her the mother of Christ, namely, that her virginity was not violated in, before, or after the conception of Christ.  Thus, it is shown that the basis of her motherhood is also the basis of her perpetual virginity, just as in the first case the external revelation of her motherhood comes to the fore as a sign and guaranty of her perpetual virginity.

This permanent and perfect virginity of the body of Mary is de fide, especially since the definition by the Fifth Ecumenical Council (can. 2), and by the Lateran Council under Martin I (can. 3). (2)

1.   Literature; St. Thomas, IIIa, q.28 29, and Suarez, op. cit., disp. 5 8; St. Peter Canisius, op. cit., 1, 2; Petavius, op. cit., De Incarn., 1, 14; Trombelli, Mariae ss. vita ac gesta, Part 1, diss. 9 and 10.  Especially for Mary’s marriage:  Lombardus, In 4  S., dist. 30; and St. Thomas and St. Bonaventure.

2.   Denzinger, nos. 214, 256.

http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=693888&page=5

"From Thomas Casey of Catholic Answers Forum
                                                                                                  MODERATOR WARNING

Anyone who makes an accusation that a Prince of the Church and the Prefect of the Sacred Congregation forged documents or committed what amounts to a crime, without producing the evidence, will be banned without warning. Such an allegation is quite serious and we will not allow anyone to use CAF as a platform for this purpose. Such an allegation goes beyond uncharitable, it is illegal unless you can prove it. Please stop.
__________________
FORUM RULES



Mary, Mother of Wisdom, be with us as we navigate through faith"


He He I couldn't resist!! :LOL: :LOL: :LOL: :LOL: :LOL: :LOL: :LOL: :LOL: :LOL:
(07-16-2012, 10:32 PM)JuniorCouncilor Wrote: [ -> ]
(07-16-2012, 10:20 PM)JayneK Wrote: [ -> ]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.

While the doctrines under discussion are a matter of faith, figuring out what Archbishop Muller really said about them is a matter of reason.  One does not need to be a scholar to see that all we have to go are a few heavily edited quotes, translated and and taken from their context by an SSPX priest.  Considering that ++Muller has said some very negative things about the SSPX, the Society is not where I would go for a disinterested translation and assessment of his work.  While I dare say that SSPX priests try to be honest and fair, they are only human.  It is not likely that they are not influenced by hostility. 

Against this testimony from those whom we have every reason to believe are hostile towards towards him, we balance the other evidence.  Archbishop Muller has the reputation of being a conservative theologian and has been attacked by liberal theologians.  Msgr. Bux (a highly qualified theologian) has vouched for the orthodoxy of the work in question.  The Vicar of Christ, who is familiar with his work, has seen fit to appoint him to a position of trust.

You ignore this other evidence and rely solely on presumably hostile testimony to condemn a man of one of the most serious sins known to humanity.  The more serious the accusation the more careful we must be in making it.  I am not calling for a scholarly standard of evidence here, but for a just standard.  One does not need to be a scholar to understand how little basis there is for this accusation.

(07-16-2012, 10:32 PM)JuniorCouncilor Wrote: [ -> ]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.

There is nothing inherently heretical or wrong with liberation theology. It denies no truths of the Faith.  Some have applied it in bad ways.  (Similarly, some have taken traditional Catholicism to a point of sedevacantism or schism.)  I have seen speculation that the appointment of ++Muller indicates an intention of the Pope to restore liberation theology to something that is applied in a good and orthodox way.  Archbishop Muller's knowledge of liberation theology certainly makes this possible.
(07-16-2012, 10:36 PM)JuniorCouncilor Wrote: [ -> ]
(07-16-2012, 10:31 PM)JayneK Wrote: [ -> ]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.

It is highly unlikely that you have spent 8 years thinking about Archbishop Muller and his ability to be the head of the CDF.  I suspect that this is a judgment that you have in a matter of days or less.  You are violating every principle I know about how to determine the truth.
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