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, 06:15 PM)per_passionem_eius Wrote: [ -> ]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.

But our Lady clearly suffered in other instances. It doesn't follow. One of the gifts to Adam was freedom from suffering. Pain in childbirth I think has more to do with woman's relationship to man, then woman's relationship to God. I.e., Adam's "curse" was related to the earth, from which he came, and Eve's curse was related to the bearing of other people, since she came from man. I am not saying this is the case, but one can make the argument that our Lady willingly suffered pains in birth, in order for her service to Christ be complete. There's nothing inherently wrong about such a conclusion, and nothing beneath her dignity. She suffered many sorrows by cooperating with our Lord. Just a thought for the "case closed" folks.
(07-09-2012, 06:37 PM)Scriptorium Wrote: [ -> ]But our Lady clearly suffered in other instances. It doesn't follow. One of the gifts to Adam was freedom from suffering. Pain in childbirth I think has more to do with woman's relationship to man, then woman's relationship to God. I.e., Adam's "curse" was related to the earth, from which he came, and Eve's curse was related to the bearing of other people, since she came from man. I am not saying this is the case, but one can make the argument that our Lady willingly suffered pains in birth, in order for her service to Christ be complete. There's nothing inherently wrong about such a conclusion, and nothing beneath her dignity. She suffered many sorrows by cooperating with our Lord. Just a thought for the "case closed" folks.

This way of thinking of it is parallel to the situation at the baptism of our Lord.  He did not need to be baptized but He did it anyhow.
(07-09-2012, 04:28 PM)JayneK Wrote: [ -> ]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.

Yes, it is, actually.  And it's compounded by the irreverence with which you treat the dogma - "beamed out".

He passed from Our Lady's womb to her arms in a mysterious manner just as he passed from outside the Upper Room to the inside, where the Apostles were, without using the door.

Delicacy of language is an absolute feature of all of the writings of Catholics about such things.
(07-09-2012, 07:24 PM)John Lane Wrote: [ -> ]
(07-09-2012, 04:28 PM)JayneK Wrote: [ -> ]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.

Yes, it is, actually.  And it's compounded by the irreverence with which you treat the dogma - "beamed out".

He passed from Our Lady's womb to her arms in a mysterious manner just as he passed from outside the Upper Room to the inside, where the Apostles were, without using the door.

Delicacy of language is an absolute feature of all of the writings of Catholics about such things.

So, basically, you're agreeing it has very little to do with physiological and empirically verifiable somatic details, since it was not a natural birth.

Oddly enough, the Bishop says the same thing and you call it heretical.

Coin tosses must perplex you, since you are unable to see two sides of the same coin. Must be magic!
(07-09-2012, 07:24 PM)John Lane Wrote: [ -> ]
(07-09-2012, 04:28 PM)JayneK Wrote: [ -> ]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.

Yes, it is, actually.  And it's compounded by the irreverence with which you treat the dogma - "beamed out".

He passed from Our Lady's womb to her arms in a mysterious manner just as he passed from outside the Upper Room to the inside, where the Apostles were, without using the door.

Delicacy of language is an absolute feature of all of the writings of Catholics about such things.

I apologize for sounding irreverent.  

I accept whatever the Church teaches about this. If you can show me that I have misunderstood then I will change my position.  I have come to trust Ott as an authority on Church teaching and he concludes that it is not necessary to understand perpetual virginity this way.
(07-09-2012, 07:45 PM)jonbhorton Wrote: [ -> ]
(07-09-2012, 07:24 PM)John Lane Wrote: [ -> ]
(07-09-2012, 04:28 PM)JayneK Wrote: [ -> ]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.

Yes, it is, actually.  And it's compounded by the irreverence with which you treat the dogma - "beamed out".

He passed from Our Lady's womb to her arms in a mysterious manner just as he passed from outside the Upper Room to the inside, where the Apostles were, without using the door.

Delicacy of language is an absolute feature of all of the writings of Catholics about such things.

So, basically, you're agreeing it has very little to do with physiological and empirically verifiable somatic details, since it was not a natural birth.

Oddly enough, the Bishop says the same thing and you call it heretical.

Coin tosses must perplex you, since you are unable to see two sides of the same coin. Must be magic!

Jon, why are you being so belligerent and unpleasant toward John Lane?  He is very right to be concerned about heresy.
(07-09-2012, 06:15 PM)per_passionem_eius Wrote: [ -> ]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.

Yes, this is what I tried to refer to. I know that Our Lady suffered. She is the Mater Dolorosa. As always, I submit everything to the judgment of Holy Mother Church, and please correct me if I'm wrong.
Oh, I'm sorry, I forgot it's OK to talk crap on a Bishop but not the person who is obviously mentally deficient in working out the fact that nothing he calls heretical is actually heretical, and is easily understood within doctrine and even as the person making the accusation says the Virgin Birth occurred.

Oh, and he does all this with a completely laughable manner of quotation. And he said earlier he would punch someone in the face for merely saying nothing offensive then too.

Yeah... err, no. I see more punchable characteristics in John Lane than I see in who he said he'd punch, so, being a sheepdog, I growl. I ain't bit yet.

The other reason is I'm just 99.9% fed up with the SSPX laity here. Buncha sedevacantists without the nuts to say they're sedes. The Williamson cult needs to learn doctrine and learn how to speak the language of the men they decry as heretics. I've seen it done with BPJPII, Benedict XVI, this Bishop, etc. I'm sick of it. I won't stand for it.

So, when they start throwing accusations of heresy and blasphemy around, especially with the follow-on insinuation that the appointing Bishop of Rome (i.e. that Pope guy they say is the Pope but don't act like it towards) is putting an appointed heretic in charge of the CDF... well, what's the only logical conclusion? No hope for reconciliation. But that means what? That the only true Catholics are SSPX? Anyone who is in communion is contributing to heresy, and preaching heresy, or at least allowing it by not taking their position?

It's quite obvious these people are obtuse and unable to just think outside their convenient little St. Mary's Kansas/Econe box of what amounts to not Catholic doctrine, but a weird militant Catholic-Protestant merging of attitudes and ideas: Catholic in their quest for truth, and Protestant in their myopia and refusal to assent.

Remember the lesson of Martin Luther: The Pope agreed with certain things and wished to hash them out. He refused and pulled a hissy.

They should change the name to SML, so they'd stop trashing the memory of Abp. Lefebvre.
John Lane, could you show me a dogmatic source that states that Christ was born of Our Lady's womb in a manner different from other women? Thank you in advance.
(07-09-2012, 08:35 PM)GloriaPatri Wrote: [ -> ]John Lane, could you show me a dogmatic source that states that Christ was born of Our Lady's womb in a manner different from other women? Thank you in advance.

I'm no John Lane, but I thought the posts on page 6 of this thread (particularly those by INPEFESS) cleared that up?
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