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
(07-09-2012, 08:53 AM)Scriptorium Wrote: [ -> ]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.

Assuming innocence is making a judgement. Withholding a bias is the best way to make a determination. 
(07-09-2012, 08:53 AM)Scriptorium Wrote: [ -> ]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.

Do you apply that approach to individual Anglican bishops who are accused of denying the papacy?

I approach these Modernists on the same basis I approach Anglicans or Lutherans.  The justice in this approach arises from the fact that they are cooperating formally in a whole new religion, a Modernist one, as Archbishop Lefebvre said.  This presumption is overturned by fact: for example consider the Fraternity of St. Peter.  They are in union with Benedict, subject to him, but they resist the new religion.  Nobody with a sense of justice would accuse them of Modernism.  If Benedict started appointing men like that to epsicopal office, not only would there be no problematical texts for people like you to explain away, but there'd probably be no men like me making what you think are rash judgements.  :)
(07-09-2012, 10:12 AM)Gerard Wrote: [ -> ]Assuming innocence is making a judgement. Withholding a bias is the best way to make a determination. 

We are of course referring to negative judgements which in this case could ruin someone's life and are very serious. Not likely these days, but I don't think that gives us carte blanche to say whatever we want.

(07-09-2012, 10:27 AM)John Lane Wrote: [ -> ]Do you apply that approach to individual Anglican bishops who are accused of denying the papacy?

I approach these Modernists on the same basis I approach Anglicans or Lutherans.  The justice in this approach arises from the fact that they are cooperating formally in a whole new religion, a Modernist one, as Archbishop Lefebvre said.  This presumption is overturned by fact: for example consider the Fraternity of St. Peter.  They are in union with Benedict, subject to him, but they resist the new religion.  Nobody with a sense of justice would accuse them of Modernism.  If Benedict started appointing men like that to epsicopal office, not only would there be no problematical texts for people like you to explain away, but there'd probably be no men like me making what you think are rash judgements.  :)

I try to give everyone the benefit of the doubt, even objective heretics. Surely if something was definitively proven, which I don't think it is, we can reach out to him to convert, and finally after resistance consign him to the lot of heretics in our estimations. I also take each person on an individual level. Classes such as modernist, anglican, sedevacantist, liberal, traditionalist, conciliar, etc, give me information to formulate my approach, but they do not contribute to a negative judgement a priori. I make that based on continual malicious refusal to assent to a truth when given sound explanation and sufficient opportunity to emend. The Bishop is distant from us, and it is highly unlikely that we'd have any response from a request for clarification (although the bishop certainly knows people have accused him). Sometimes we need to pick our battles too.
(07-08-2012, 09:30 PM)John Lane Wrote: [ -> ]
(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.

Is the doctrine that Mary never had sexual intercourse or that her hymen was never broken? As far as I'm aware it's the former. Hymens don't actually have that much to do with virginity and they often break from physical exercise - so I can't see how a broken hymen (whether through child birth, physical activity, etc) would somehow make the BVM corrupt or compromise her bodily virginity. But like I said I think the question is unimportant.

There's nothing dirty about the word "hymen" either, so it is neither insensitive to Our Lady's honour and neither does the word need to be edited out. You're over-reacting.
(07-09-2012, 11:14 AM)Aragon Wrote: [ -> ]
(07-08-2012, 09:30 PM)John Lane Wrote: [ -> ]
(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.

Is the doctrine that Mary never had sexual intercourse or that her hymen was never broken? As far as I'm aware it's the former.

There's nothing dirty about the word "hymen" either, so it is neither insensitive to Our Lady's honour and neither does the word need to be edited out. You're over-reacting.

You're alright, Aragon. Don't let anyone bully you.

http://catholicforum.fisheaters.com/inde...sg33762953
Our ancestors in the faith often understood the perpetual virginity of Mary such that she experienced nothing like normal women. There were no discomforts of pregnancy, no pains of labour, no physical damage to her body.  Jesus just beamed out of her.

I did not know about this when I became a Catholic.  I joined the Church the month before I got married and so, in the following years, I was learning about my faith and how to be a wife and mother at the same time.  I learned how to turn to our Blessed Mother for her prayers and example.  Thinking about her experiencing many of the same things that I was going through was a great source of strength and encouragement for me. 

The Church permits me to think of her this way.  I am not required to believe that Jesus beamed out.  It is not heresy to say this.
(07-09-2012, 04:28 PM)JayneK Wrote: [ -> ]Our ancestors in the faith often understood the perpetual virginity of Mary such that she experienced nothing like normal women. There were no discomforts of pregnancy, no pains of labour, no physical damage to her body.  Jesus just beamed out of her.

I did not know about this when I became a Catholic.  I joined the Church the month before I got married and so, in the following years, I was learning about my faith and how to be a wife and mother at the same time.  I learned how to turn to our Blessed Mother for her prayers and example.  Thinking about her experiencing many of the same things that I was going through was a great source of strength and encouragement for me. 

The Church permits me to think of her this way.  I am not required to believe that Jesus beamed out.  It is not heresy to say this.

Aren't you kinda contradicting yourself? Whilst all women should look the the BVM as the example par excellence, she did not experience everything you or I did since she was conceived without original sin.
(07-09-2012, 04:40 PM)Crusader_Philly Wrote: [ -> ]
(07-09-2012, 04:28 PM)JayneK Wrote: [ -> ]Our ancestors in the faith often understood the perpetual virginity of Mary such that she experienced nothing like normal women. There were no discomforts of pregnancy, no pains of labour, no physical damage to her body.  Jesus just beamed out of her.

I did not know about this when I became a Catholic.  I joined the Church the month before I got married and so, in the following years, I was learning about my faith and how to be a wife and mother at the same time.  I learned how to turn to our Blessed Mother for her prayers and example.  Thinking about her experiencing many of the same things that I was going through was a great source of strength and encouragement for me. 

The Church permits me to think of her this way.  I am not required to believe that Jesus beamed out.  It is not heresy to say this.

Aren't you kinda contradicting yourself? Whilst all women should look the the BVM as the example par excellence, she did not experience everything you or I did since she was conceived without original sin.

She never worried? Never wondered about the future? Never had moments of confusion at how God would work?

Lack of Original Sin doesn't mean a person isn't human or doesn't have human intellect and whatnot. She wasn't omniscient. She had doubts, though directed in humility, fears though trusting in God, etc.

This is exactly why Our Lady is such an advocate for us, because Our Lady is fully human!

To tie this back in to the OP, I've yet to see him produce a cat's fart of evidence that this mutilated and misquoted passage is anything heretical. Indeed, it seems much easier to put it in line with doctrine than not.

John Lane may want to punch people in the nose, I want to as well. John Lane first.
I think what CP means is that the Blessed Virgin didn't suffer the effects of original sin, one of which, to my understanding, is labouring and suffering in childbirth.
(07-09-2012, 04:40 PM)Crusader_Philly Wrote: [ -> ]
(07-09-2012, 04:28 PM)JayneK Wrote: [ -> ]Our ancestors in the faith often understood the perpetual virginity of Mary such that she experienced nothing like normal women. There were no discomforts of pregnancy, no pains of labour, no physical damage to her body.  Jesus just beamed out of her.

I did not know about this when I became a Catholic.  I joined the Church the month before I got married and so, in the following years, I was learning about my faith and how to be a wife and mother at the same time.  I learned how to turn to our Blessed Mother for her prayers and example.  Thinking about her experiencing many of the same things that I was going through was a great source of strength and encouragement for me. 

The Church permits me to think of her this way.  I am not required to believe that Jesus beamed out.  It is not heresy to say this.

Aren't you kinda contradicting yourself? Whilst all women should look the the BVM as the example par excellence, she did not experience everything you or I did since she was conceived without original sin.

I said that she experienced many of the same things that I did, not that she experienced everything that I did.  Obviously, she did not experience sin but I sin constantly, so we are different in that respect.  
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