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, 10:53 PM)Doce Me Wrote: [ -> ]
(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.

We have no better evidence for claiming that he is ambiguous than for claiming that he is heretical.  From what we have seen, there is no way to tell how clear he was being in the original language and in context.  We must also consider how clear his work would have been to its intended audience.  A person with no training in theology might not understand St. Thomas Aquinas, but that would not make it reasonable to accuse St. Thomas of ambiguity.
(07-17-2012, 12:21 AM)Thomas58 Wrote: [ -> ]
(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.

Our current Pope was going after pedophiles while he was still Cardinal.  And he has already removed some dissident bishops.  You have good reason to be sure.  You have less reason to be sarcastic.
(07-17-2012, 07:02 AM)JayneK Wrote: [ -> ]You are violating every principle I know about how to determine the truth.

Wow, if that's what you think, then I guess we really have nothing left to talk about.
JayneK Wrote: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.

In ages past, the See of Rome summarized the works of suspected priests into propositions which she would then condemn.  She was biased against them due to their heterodoxy, and was therefore not disinterested in the assessment of their works.  Should we assume that the SSPX priest in question hasn't read Mueller's works or that he has poor comprehension and also that he has poor translating skills?  Why should we assume all of this?

Being attacked by liberal Catholics does not guarantee that the one attacked is conservative (i.e. orthodox).  George Weigel is considered by many to be a conservative Catholic and yet he's been filmed on TV denying the Social Kingship of Christ.  And I've seen more than enough of Pope Benedict's works as a priest to not trust him regarding matters relating to the purity of the Faith, but I cannot get into that for obvious reasons.

The Catholic Church used to teach that we had to avoid bad books, but now we're expected to read them to make absolutely sure that they do not promote heresy, rather than relying on the testimony of good and holy priests as to the nature of their heterodoxy.  I don't get it.
(07-19-2012, 10:33 AM)SouthpawLink Wrote: [ -> ]
JayneK Wrote: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.

In ages past, the See of Rome summarized the works of suspected priests into propositions which she would then condemn.  She was biased against them due to their heterodoxy, and was therefore not disinterested in the assessment of their works.  Should we assume that the SSPX priest in question hasn't read Mueller's works or that he has poor comprehension and also that he has poor translating skills?  Why should we assume all of this?

Being attacked by liberal Catholics does not guarantee that the one attacked is conservative (i.e. orthodox).  George Weigel is considered by many to be a conservative Catholic and yet he's been filmed on TV denying the Social Kingship of Christ.  And I've seen more than enough of Pope Benedict's works as a priest to not trust him regarding matters relating to the purity of the Faith, but I cannot get into that for obvious reasons.

Archbishop Muller called for the disbanding of the SSPX.  This means that assessments of his work from the SSPX labour under a conflict of interest.  If this were a court case, we would not call an expert witness who had reason for a personal grudge against the defendant, no matter how skilled he was.  It is a simple principle of justice that one avoids situations of conflict of interest.

You seem prepared to assume Msgr. Bux "hasn't read Mueller's works or that he has poor comprehension and also that he has poor translating skills."  Why do you assume this? 

What it boils down to is you do not trust the Pope.  I, however, do trust the Pope, so your view is not convincing to me.
(07-19-2012, 10:46 AM)JayneK Wrote: [ -> ]You seem prepared to assume Msgr. Bux "hasn't read Mueller's works or that he has poor comprehension and also that he has poor translating skills."  Why do you assume this? 

I don't assume that.  I doubt anybody does assume it.

What we note is that Bux couldn't find any of that magical "context" that would make Muller's heterodoxy look orthodox.

Yet you assume it exists.  Why is that?
(07-19-2012, 11:05 AM)John Lane Wrote: [ -> ]
(07-19-2012, 10:46 AM)JayneK Wrote: [ -> ]You seem prepared to assume Msgr. Bux "hasn't read Mueller's works or that he has poor comprehension and also that he has poor translating skills."  Why do you assume this? 

I don't assume that.  I doubt anybody does assume it.

What we note is that Bux couldn't find any of that magical "context" that would make Muller's heterodoxy look orthodox.

Yet you assume it exists.  Why is that?

Why assume that Msgr Bux could not find the context that proves ++Muller's orthodoxy?  Perhaps it was too long or too complex to be followed by the untrained, so, rather than quote it, he simply said that it exists.
(07-19-2012, 11:11 AM)JayneK Wrote: [ -> ]Why assume that Msgr Bux could not find the context that proves ++Muller's orthodoxy?   Perhaps it was too long or too complex to be followed by the untrained, so, rather than quote it, he simply said that it exists.

Well that's all very creative, Jayne.  Creativity is a necessary attribute of people who set out to defend the indefensible, of course.

Now, where did Mons. Bux say that the context of those quotes shows that they weren't heterodox?
http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2012/07...e.html?m=1

"The Catechism of the Catholic Church states that the physical aspect of virginity is due entirely to the fact that Jesus was conceived without human seed, but by the action of the Holy Spirit. It is a divine work that exceeds all understanding and human possibility. The Church professes the real and perpetual Virginity of Mary but does not enter into physical details; neither does it seem that the Councils and the Fathers stated otherwise" (Msgr. Bux).

The above statement is problematic because it does not uphold the physical integrity of Our Lady's virginity in partu, as the Fathers and Councils did (attested to by the theologians quoted earlier in this thread).  And let's not forget the authoritative teaching of the Roman Catechism, quoted earlier, on the matter, either.

So yes, I do have good reason to assume that Msgr. Bux, like Bishop Mueller, has poor comprehension regarding the dogmas of the Catholic Faith.  It therefore makes sense that Msgr. Bux would approve of Bishop Mueller's work.

"In this matter, those also turn aside from the right path, who think that the deposit of truth such laborious trouble, and with such lengthy study and discussion, that a man's life would hardly suffice to find and take possession of it" (Pope Pius XI, Mortalium Animos, n. 8.).

I go further than simply not trusting Pope Benedict, but again, that's neither here nor there.
(07-19-2012, 11:29 AM)John Lane Wrote: [ -> ]
(07-19-2012, 11:11 AM)JayneK Wrote: [ -> ]Why assume that Msgr Bux could not find the context that proves ++Muller's orthodoxy?   Perhaps it was too long or too complex to be followed by the untrained, so, rather than quote it, he simply said that it exists.

Well that's all very creative, Jayne.  Creativity is a necessary attribute of people who set out to defend the indefensible, of course.

Now, where did Mons. Bux say that the context of those quotes shows that they weren't heterodox?

SouthpawLink just gave the url for the article. He appears to agree that Msgr Bux supports the orthodoxy of ++Muller, but questions the orthodoxy of Msgr Bux and the Catechism of the Catholic Church. 

Here are the words of Msgr Bux regarding your question: 
Quote:In this line, it seems to me, along which what Müller wrote should be understood, [Müller] does not support a "doctrine" that denies the dogma of the Perpetual Virginity of Mary, but warns against a certain, as it were, "Capernaism", i.e. a way of reasoning "according to the flesh" and not "according to the spirit", that already appeared at Capernaum among the Jews at the end of Jesus ' discourse on the bread of life.
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