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
(07-08-2012, 11:36 AM)jonbhorton Wrote: [ -> ]Maybe the man has some wacky ideas...

Maybe?

Even if it were just "maybe", that would be reason enough not to make him head of the CDF.  I'm sorry, but any attempt to defend this appointment, whether it's the person in question or the act of the appointment, simply looks ridiculous in my eyes.

You want to try and prove otherwise?  Go ahead, my eyes are open, and I'm willing to listen.  But I've seen this too many times to deny the pattern.  Our modern-day churchmen just don't merit more than a very minimal benefit of the doubt.
(07-08-2012, 05:35 PM)JuniorCouncilor Wrote: [ -> ]
(07-08-2012, 11:36 AM)jonbhorton Wrote: [ -> ]Maybe the man has some wacky ideas...

Maybe?

Even if it were just "maybe", that would be reason enough not to make him head of the CDF.  I'm sorry, but any attempt to defend this appointment, whether it's the person in question or the act of the appointment, simply looks ridiculous in my eyes.

You want to try and prove otherwise?  Go ahead, my eyes are open, and I'm willing to listen.  But I've seen this too many times to deny the pattern.  Our modern-day churchmen just don't merit more than a very minimal benefit of the doubt.
All the big players from the past 50 years have had "wacky ideas".
And they all have been granted the benefit of the doubt.
What happens? People bash the SSPX while praising or excusing, justifying or giving benefit of doubt to heretical priests.

All too true.  Such people don't see the problem, at least not clearly.  I do sympathize with them, though:  who WANTS to think things are as bad as they are?  But someday, you just gotta wake up and smell the coffee.  No matter how much you hate coffee.
The coffee's been brewing since ~A.D. 33.

Apparently we need a warning on the cup that says "hot", for some.

And apparently cream and sugar is forbidden too, despite its addition still rendering coffee.
Maybe it's because I just woke up, but I have no idea what the relevance of what you just said was.

I only like coffee with sugar and cream.  Preferably in greater quantities than the coffee.  And yes, since Our Lord's death would be way too long to brew coffee-- the stuff apparently goes bad if you brew it for more than like 8 hours.

Are you trying to say that Muller's beliefs don't render him un-Catholic?  In my mind, you've got to prove it.  This guy has the stench of modernism all over him.
(07-07-2012, 10:00 PM)jonbhorton Wrote: [ -> ]John Lane,

If you can show how my explanation of the passage still renders it heretical (and how it can't possibly mean anything I wrote)

That's not a Catholic method of dealing with heresy.  Were you appointed by Muller to explain his words?  No. 

Evidently he doesn't mind the meaning that they most obviously convey being taken from them by others. Has he been misunderstood?  Let him first complain that he has, then he can tell the world what he really meant, and begin to repair the scandal.



I'm saying that some here are saying coffee with cream and sugar isn't coffee.

But even more so, that the coffee people need to wake up and smell, which I took as the controversies and issues being worked out in the Church, has been around since A.D. 33.

I'm still waiting for John Lane to answer me. The stapler loses a staple at 8pm Mountain Time.
(07-08-2012, 09:18 PM)John Lane Wrote: [ -> ]
(07-07-2012, 10:00 PM)jonbhorton Wrote: [ -> ]John Lane,

If you can show how my explanation of the passage still renders it heretical (and how it can't possibly mean anything I wrote)

That's not a Catholic method of dealing with heresy.  Were you appointed by Muller to explain his words?  No. 

Evidently he doesn't mind the meaning that they most obviously convey being taken from them by others. Has he been misunderstood?  Let him first complain that he has, then he can tell the world what he really meant, and begin to repair the scandal.
Were you appointed by the Pope to instigate a trial on his chosen CDF head?

You accuse of heresy, show it. I showed how it works with doctrine, even all chopped up and mutilated out of context.

There's not a flippin Catholic thing about this thread from your end.

You accuse, so you present the evidence. And what you've presented it half-retarded and laughable from any sort of understanding.

"[ ... ] kdjfhlsdkjhglskdj ..... dfkjghkdfjgdflkjghsdfkjghlsdfkjgh ..." isn't a quote, it's a disinformation agenda red flag.

Show the quote in context, without the ellipses and brackets. I want to see what exactly he was addressing so I can see how his actual quote works with or against doctrine in context of how he said it.

(07-07-2012, 08:53 PM)Scriptorium Wrote: [ -> ]Mr. Lane,
Yes, those contexts do count for understanding the background in which he speaks, but since we are parsing his work, it seems to make sense to actually provide context in the work in question. And then we'd look at his body of his work in general if need be. All your writing is to fill space so it looks like you're justified in handing out judgements.

And all your writing is just a way of not noticing that Muller doesn't feel uncomfortable with the obvious interpretation of his words.  YOU do. 

If I'd written even one sentence like that, not only would I think others justified in attacking me for it, I'd be appalled that I had committed such a terrible act, confusing the faithful over a dogma, and I'd be at pains either to retract (if I meant what it looked like I meant) or explain (if I had been misunderstood).  But either way, I'd feel gravely responsible for the effect of my words on others.

I suspect you'd have the same reaction if it were you, but of course, you and I are Catholics, we love our faith, we honour the Virgin, and we'd rather DIE than offend her or her divine Son.

That doesn't describe these creeps.  They are heretics.

And no, we don't have only one sentence.  We have a series of sentences relating to different doctrines, all heterodox, all classically Modernist, and a whole milieu within which these things occurred, and that milieu confirms the obvious interpretation and gives no grounds whatsoever for an orthodox twisting of his words.

You are doing exactly what Fr. Brian Harrison did on religious liberty, as if Paul VI and Cardinal Villari didn't force the last remaining Catholic states around the world to change their constitutions in order to eliminate the rights of Christ the King.
(07-08-2012, 03:07 AM)Aragon Wrote: [ -> ]Besides, I'm not particularly sure that the status of the BVM's [edited] has much to do with her perpetual virginity.

Frankly, if you were here I'd belt your nose.  No, I'm not kidding.

The reality is that what you wrote is not merely heretical (doubting a dogma) but also typical of heretical insensitivity to Our Lady's honour.
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