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
Let me be clear:  Yes, Msgr. Bux appears to assert the orthodoxy of Bishop Müller.  I do not question the orthodoxy of the CCC on this point, as it teaches, "In fact, Christ's birth 'did not diminish his mother's virginal integrity but sanctified it'" (n. 499).  I do, however, question the orthodoxy of both Msgr. Bux and Bishop Müller.
(07-19-2012, 12:05 PM)SouthpawLink Wrote: [ -> ]Let me be clear:  Yes, Msgr. Bux appears to assert the orthodoxy of Bishop Müller.  I do not question the orthodoxy of the CCC on this point, as it teaches, "In fact, Christ's birth 'did not diminish his mother's virginal integrity but sanctified it'" (n. 499).  I do, however, question the orthodoxy of both Msgr. Bux and Bishop Müller.

I must have misunderstood your reference to the CCC.  Thank you for clarifying.
(07-19-2012, 12:55 PM)JayneK Wrote: [ -> ]
(07-19-2012, 12:05 PM)SouthpawLink Wrote: [ -> ]Let me be clear:  Yes, Msgr. Bux appears to assert the orthodoxy of Bishop Müller.  I do not question the orthodoxy of the CCC on this point, as it teaches, "In fact, Christ's birth 'did not diminish his mother's virginal integrity but sanctified it'" (n. 499).  I do, however, question the orthodoxy of both Msgr. Bux and Bishop Müller.

I must have misunderstood your reference to the CCC.  Thank you for clarifying.

You're welcome.  I think Msgr. Bux misrepresented the teaching of the CCC with regard to the meaning of Our Lady's physical virginity, by leaving out what's stated in par. n. 499, which counters his focus on the conception of Our Lord, to the neglect of His birth of the Blessed Virgin.
(07-19-2012, 11:57 AM)JayneK Wrote: [ -> ]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. 

All traditional Catholics refuse to receive their instruction in the faith from the Vatican II catechism.  Otherwise we'd all believe in religious liberty, collegiality, ecumenism, and all manner of weirdness regarding the role of the laity (especially that we are essentialy no different from the clergy).

(07-19-2012, 11:57 AM)JayneK Wrote: [ -> ]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.

Yes, so he doesn't say that Muller was taken out of context.  He says something quite different, which is that he agrees with Muller's doctrine.
(07-19-2012, 07:13 PM)John Lane Wrote: [ -> ]Yes, so he doesn't say that Muller was taken out of context.  He says something quite different, which is that he agrees with Muller's doctrine.

I thought you had read the article cited by SPL in which this is mentioned twice.
Quote: Mgr. Nicola Bux says it is incorrect to extrapolate from a few excerpts of Abp. Müller's works.

Quote:    Don Nicola Bux analyzes the complaints about the new prefect:  "if one extrapolates from the context, it is easy to condemn anyone."

Msgr. Bux said that the comments are out of context and also says that the work in question is orthodox.
(07-19-2012, 07:59 PM)JayneK Wrote: [ -> ]
Quote:    Don Nicola Bux analyzes the complaints about the new prefect:  "if one extrapolates from the context, it is easy to condemn anyone."

Msgr. Bux said that the comments are out of context and also says that the work in question is orthodox.

Don't you see the trick here?  He makes a general statement, that it is easy to take somebody out of context and make them appear heterodox.  But he doesn't give us any context and show how Muller was taken wrongly.

This is classic obfuscation.

Muller is a stinking heretic, on several doctrinal points.  If he weren't, we'd have seen some real defence of his orthodoxy, but we haven't.  Instead, we've seen ipse dixit declarations that he is orthodox.  Typical Novus Ordo approach, absolutely characteristic of all tyranny - believe it because we say it.  OBEY!
(07-19-2012, 08:06 PM)John Lane Wrote: [ -> ]
(07-19-2012, 07:59 PM)JayneK Wrote: [ -> ]
Quote:    Don Nicola Bux analyzes the complaints about the new prefect:  "if one extrapolates from the context, it is easy to condemn anyone."

Msgr. Bux said that the comments are out of context and also says that the work in question is orthodox.

Don't you see the trick here?  He makes a general statement, that it is easy to take somebody out of context and make them appear heterodox.  But he doesn't give us any context and show how Muller was taken wrongly.

This is classic obfuscation.

Muller is a stinking heretic, on several doctrinal points.  If he weren't, we'd have seen some real defence of his orthodoxy, but we haven't.  Instead, we've seen ipse dixit declarations that he is orthodox.  Typical Novus Ordo approach, absolutely characteristic of all tyranny - believe it because we say it.  OBEY!

Msgr. Bux is being perfectly clear.  He says the quotes were taken out of context, says what the meaning is in context and says this meaning is orthodox.  This is not obfuscation at all.  It is quite reasonable that he not quote extensive passages from a work that most people will not understand. 
(07-19-2012, 08:24 PM)JayneK Wrote: [ -> ]Msgr. Bux is being perfectly clear.  He says the quotes were taken out of context, says what the meaning is in context and says this meaning is orthodox.  This is not obfuscation at all.  It is quite reasonable that he not quote extensive passages from a work that most people will not understand. 

Jayne, it isn't reasonable at all.  Nor is it reasonable to assert that most people will not understand the relevant passages.  SOME will understand them, surely, or are we now expected to become Gnostics and just believe that the Initiates have checked it out, and it's all OK?
"In the charges against Bishop Müller, there is extrapolation from the context: it is easy to condemn anyone like this."

Is it really extrapolation, or is it merely inference?

I think Mr. Lane is correct in pointing out that Msgr. Bux made no rebuttal to the priest's argument (with exception to the matter concerning the Holy Eucharist), other than to say, "I've read the work and have found it to be orthodox."

Not to go too far off topic, but Msgr. Bux's defense of Bishop Müller's comment on the inclusion of Protestants in the visible Church of Christ is not only horribly inadequate, but also outright heretical, as it opposes the settled doctrine on the constitution of the Church.

"Unfortunately today debate is feared in the Church, but moves on theses and ostracism of those who think differently. I refer to theology, of course, in which different opinions may be acceptable.

"However, doctrinal development benefits from debate: who has more arguments, convinces."

On the contrary:  "The members of the Church are those who have validly received the Sacrament of Baptism and who are not separated from the unity of the confession of the Faith, and from the unity of the lawful communion of the Church. (Sent. certa.)"

http://jloughnan.tripod.com/dogma.htm
(07-19-2012, 08:30 PM)John Lane Wrote: [ -> ]
(07-19-2012, 08:24 PM)JayneK Wrote: [ -> ]Msgr. Bux is being perfectly clear.  He says the quotes were taken out of context, says what the meaning is in context and says this meaning is orthodox.  This is not obfuscation at all.  It is quite reasonable that he not quote extensive passages from a work that most people will not understand. 

Jayne, it isn't reasonable at all.  Nor is it reasonable to assert that most people will not understand the relevant passages.  SOME will understand them, surely, or are we now expected to become Gnostics and just believe that the Initiates have checked it out, and it's all OK?

I have been on threads in which I tried to explain what was really meant in context to people who have the wrong idea from an isolated quote.  The "pope says we can use condoms" falsehood is an example of this.  I've given more extensive quotes that show the context.  I've explained background.  It is like beating one's head against a wall.  No matter how much effort one puts into it, people believe what they want to believe.  Not wanting to go through this frustration does not make a person a Gnostic.
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