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
Given the material Mr. Lane posted, in particular:

Scheebens Mariology, vol. I, pp 110-112. Wrote: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)

2.   Denzinger, nos. 214, 256.

. . . it's important to remember here the following status and penalty for denial of the bolded:

Cartechinis On the Value of Theological Notes and the Criteria for Discerning Them, trans. by John Daly Wrote:(a) Theological note: Dogma.
Equivalent terms: Dogma of faith; de fide, de fide Catholica; de fide divina et Catholica.
Explanation: A truth proposed by the Church as revealed by God.
Examples: The Immaculate Conception; all the contents of the Athanasian Creed.
Censure attached to contradictory proposition: Heresy
Effects of denial: Mortal sin committed directly against the virtue of faith, and, if the heresy is outwardly professed, excommunication is automatically incurred and membership of the Church forfeited.
Quote:256  Can. 3. If anyone does not properly and truly confess in accord with the holy Fathers, that the holy Mother of God and ever Virgin and immaculate Mary in the earliest of the ages conceived of the Holy Spirit without seed, namely, God the Word Himself specifically and truly, who was born of God the Father before all ages, and that she incorruptibly bore [Him], her virginity remaining indestructible even after His birth, let him be condemned [see n. 218].
You just ruined a great modernist heretical defense story with facts.

End of story.
(07-08-2012, 10:30 PM)GottmitunsAlex Wrote: [ -> ]You just ruined a great modernist heretical defense story with facts.

End of story.

Ha! Well, I think the end of the canon is particularly applicable to the discussion. The Church does not teach that her virginal integrity was limited to the spiritual realm, which seems to be the  implication made by Muller and some of his defenders in this thread.
(07-08-2012, 10:26 PM)INPEFESS Wrote: [ -> ]
Quote:256  Can. 3. If anyone does not properly and truly confess in accord with the holy Fathers, that the holy Mother of God and ever Virgin and immaculate Mary in the earliest of the ages conceived of the Holy Spirit without seed, namely, God the Word Himself specifically and truly, who was born of God the Father before all ages, and that she incorruptibly bore [Him], her virginity remaining indestructible even after His birth, let him be condemned [see n. 218].

(07-09-2012, 12:00 AM)INPEFESS Wrote: [ -> ]Ha! Well, I think the end of the canon is particularly applicable to the discussion. The Church does not teach that her virginal integrity was limited to the spiritual realm, which seems to be the  implication made by Muller and some of his defenders in this thread.

Yes. Post partum Virgo Inviolata Permansisti. It is very simple.
(07-08-2012, 09:26 PM)John Lane Wrote: [ -> ]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.

Amen.
(07-09-2012, 12:19 AM)Crusader_Philly Wrote: [ -> ]Yes. Post partum Virgo Inviolata Permansisti. It is very simple.

No, it's not simple at all. It's very complicated and mysterious, such that only those stricken in years who have devoted their lives to study can come to any true understanding of the objects of faith and the sense in which they were really intended to be understood.

:mrwinky:
Pius XI, Mortalium Animos Wrote:8. This being so, it is clear that the Apostolic See cannot on any terms take part in their assemblies, nor is it anyway lawful for Catholics either to support or to work for such enterprises; for if they do so they will be giving countenance to a false Christianity, quite alien to the one Church of Christ. Shall We suffer, what would indeed be iniquitous, the truth, and a truth divinely revealed, to be made a subject for compromise? For here there is question of defending revealed truth. Jesus Christ sent His Apostles into the whole world in order that they might permeate all nations with the Gospel faith, and, lest they should err, He willed beforehand that they should be taught by the Holy Ghost:[15] has then this doctrine of the Apostles completely vanished away, or sometimes been obscured, in the Church, whose ruler and defense is God Himself? If our Redeemer plainly said that His Gospel was to continue not only during the times of the Apostles, but also till future ages, is it possible that the object of faith should in the process of time become so obscure and uncertain, that it would be necessary to-day to tolerate opinions which are even incompatible one with another? If this were true, we should have to confess that the coming of the Holy Ghost on the Apostles, and the perpetual indwelling of the same Spirit in the Church, and the very preaching of Jesus Christ, have several centuries ago, lost all their efficacy and use, to affirm which would be blasphemy. But the Only-begotten Son of God, when He commanded His representatives to teach all nations, obliged all men to give credence to whatever was made known to them by "witnesses preordained by God,"[16] and also confirmed His command with this sanction: "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be condemned."[17] These two commands of Christ, which must be fulfilled, the one, namely, to teach, and the other to believe, cannot even be understood, unless the Church proposes a complete and easily understood teaching, and is immune when it thus teaches from all danger of erring. 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; as if the most merciful God had spoken through the prophets and His Only-begotten Son merely in order that a few, and those stricken in years, should learn what He had revealed through them, and not that He might inculcate a doctrine of faith and morals, by which man should be guided through the whole course of his moral life.
(07-09-2012, 01:07 AM)INPEFESS Wrote: [ -> ]
(07-09-2012, 12:19 AM)Crusader_Philly Wrote: [ -> ]Yes. Post partum Virgo Inviolata Permansisti. It is very simple.

No, it's not simple at all. It's very complicated and mysterious, such that only those stricken in years who have devoted their lives to study can come to any true understanding of the objects of faith and the sense in which they were really intended to be understood.

:mrwinky:
Pius XI, Mortalium Animos Wrote:8. This being so, it is clear that the Apostolic See cannot on any terms take part in their assemblies, nor is it anyway lawful for Catholics either to support or to work for such enterprises; for if they do so they will be giving countenance to a false Christianity, quite alien to the one Church of Christ. Shall We suffer, what would indeed be iniquitous, the truth, and a truth divinely revealed, to be made a subject for compromise? For here there is question of defending revealed truth. Jesus Christ sent His Apostles into the whole world in order that they might permeate all nations with the Gospel faith, and, lest they should err, He willed beforehand that they should be taught by the Holy Ghost:[15] has then this doctrine of the Apostles completely vanished away, or sometimes been obscured, in the Church, whose ruler and defense is God Himself? If our Redeemer plainly said that His Gospel was to continue not only during the times of the Apostles, but also till future ages, is it possible that the object of faith should in the process of time become so obscure and uncertain, that it would be necessary to-day to tolerate opinions which are even incompatible one with another? If this were true, we should have to confess that the coming of the Holy Ghost on the Apostles, and the perpetual indwelling of the same Spirit in the Church, and the very preaching of Jesus Christ, have several centuries ago, lost all their efficacy and use, to affirm which would be blasphemy. But the Only-begotten Son of God, when He commanded His representatives to teach all nations, obliged all men to give credence to whatever was made known to them by "witnesses preordained by God,"[16] and also confirmed His command with this sanction: "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be condemned."[17] These two commands of Christ, which must be fulfilled, the one, namely, to teach, and the other to believe, cannot even be understood, unless the Church proposes a complete and easily understood teaching, and is immune when it thus teaches from all danger of erring. 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; as if the most merciful God had spoken through the prophets and His Only-begotten Son merely in order that a few, and those stricken in years, should learn what He had revealed through them, and not that He might inculcate a doctrine of faith and morals, by which man should be guided through the whole course of his moral life.
THIS
Bishop Fellay: 
Quote:Concerning a solution to the crisis in the Church, the Superior General of the Society of Saint Pius X asserts, “The choice of personnel will be the determining factor.  If the policy for nominating bishops finally changes, then we can hope.”

http://www.dici.org/en/news/at-a-pivotal-point/

Well, that hope has been dashed.
I guess we'll have to be settled with our two different approaches:

Mine which assumes innocence and uses solid evidence to establish guilt and a valid case, withholding judgement until sure. The burden of proof is on the accuser.

Yours which assumes guilt and uses anecdotal evidence, and does not seek to go any further than that. Case closed. The burden of proof is on the accused.
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