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, 08:49 PM)tmw89 Wrote: [ -> ]
(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?

INPEFESS' quote says that Mary's virginity is indestructible and was never violated. I'm asking if there is a dogmatic statement saying that Christ passed from Our Lady's womb "as light through glass" or is it possible that Christ passed normally through the birth canal which, as far as I can tell, does not mean the destruction of Our Lady's virginity.
(07-09-2012, 07:47 PM)JayneK Wrote: [ -> ]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.

No problem, but you are misreading Ott.  He doesn't say that the miraculous birth of our Lord is doubtful, he only questions what the precise theological foundation of it is.  Then he proceeds to demonstrate that the Church teaches that this birth was indeed miraculous, not natural.
(07-09-2012, 09:16 PM)GloriaPatri Wrote: [ -> ]I'm asking if there is a dogmatic statement saying that Christ passed from Our Lady's womb "as light through glass" or is it possible that Christ passed normally through the birth canal which, as far as I can tell, does not mean the destruction of Our Lady's virginity.

There's no solemn definition, but there are plenty of doctrinal instructions from many sources, including popes, so that this doctrine is de fide on the ground of the general promulgation of doctrine.  That's how Ott expresses it, and Scheeben has the same view. 

It is de fide.  End of story.
Thank you for your timely response Mr. Lane. If this is truly the case then I most assuredly give my assent to the dogma. Off the top of your head can you list some of those papal doctrinal instructions? Much obliged  :tiphat:
(07-09-2012, 09:32 PM)GloriaPatri Wrote: [ -> ]Thank you for your timely response Mr. Lane. If this is truly the case then I most assuredly give my assent to the dogma. Off the top of your head can you list some of those papal doctrinal instructions? Much obliged  :tiphat:

Ott lists them, but perhaps somebody else could type them up.  I'm ill at present, I'm sorry.

The specific point is Our Lady's physical virginity was preserved during the birth of Our Lord, becasue that birth was miraculous.  This is quite a distinct doctrinal point from that which declares that she preserved her virginity in every other way also.

As the SSPX theologian said, the doctrine that Muller denies is concerned precisely with the physical properties that Muller downplays and seeks to obfuscate by speaking about spiritual matters in this context.

It is as if Muller had said that the Presence of Our Lord in the Holy Eucharist is not about "physical" things.  Oh, hang on, he did say something like that, didn't he?  Or was that Benedict himself?  Classic Modernism.
John Lane,

We have no frigging clue what Muller was saying because so far the only quote produced is impossible to deduce anything in regards to heresy. Did he elsewhere hit on the other aspects? We don't know. We just have to take it on the good word of some SSPX theologian (who apparently isn't aware of the statements of Bishop Fellay).

SSPX Theologian's assessment in part:
Quote:* In a eulogy for the Protestant bishop Dr. Johannes Friedrich, Bishop Müller said on 11 October 2011: "Also the Christians that are not in full community with the Catholic Church regarding teaching, means of salvation and the apostolic episcopacy, are justified by faith and baptism and they are fully (!) incorporated/ integrated into Church of God, being the Body of Christ." This contradicts the integral Catholic tradition and especially the teaching of Pius XII in Mystici corporis.
Source: http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2012/07...s-are.html

Bishop Fellay:
Quote:The Reality of the Mystical Body

So the Faith is necessary. The Church is necessary. If we want to be saved, there is no other way except for the Church which Jesus has founded. Between God and creation, there is an infinite gap. On the side of man, since Original Sin, there is no way to cross this infinite abyss except by the bridge imposed and created by God in His only-begotten Son made flesh, Our Lord Jesus Christ. There is no other way to go to heaven except Our Lord Jesus Christ and Our Lord Jesus Christ wanted to associate with this work of Redemption the souls who would be united with Him, in Him, through Baptism, and which constitute the Mystical Body of Christ, the Catholic Church. What a tremendous mystery.

This is why the Church is as necessary as Jesus; because it is the same reality. What is the difference between Jesus and the Church? The Church is Jesus extended in space and time in the souls which are one body with Him, incorporated in Him: the Mystical Body of Christ. St. Paul dared to use unbelievable words: We are the bones of His bones, the flesh of His flesh. It's very expressive to say how deeply we are united with Christ in baptism. But that's the Church! When you say "the Catholic Church," you say "Jesus" plus all these souls who are united to Him.
Source: http://www.angelusonline.org/index.php?section=articles&subsection=show_article&article_id=2497

Combined with Abp. Lefebvre:
Quote:We must say it clearly: such a concept is radically opposed to Catholic dogma. The Church is the one ark of salvation, and we must not be afraid to affirm it.  You have often heard it said, “Outside the Church there is no salvation”--a dictum which offends contemporary minds. It is easy to believe that this doctrine is no longer in effect, that it has been dropped. It seems excessively severe.

Yet nothing, in fact, has changed;  nothing can be changed in this area. Our Lord did not found a number of churches: He founded only One.  There is only one Cross by which we can be saved, and that Cross has been given to the Catholic Church. It has not been given to others.  To His Church, His mystical bride, Christ has given all graces.  No grace in the world, no grace in the history of humanity is distributed except through her.

Does that mean that no Protestant, no Muslim, no Buddhist or animist will be saved? No, it would be a second error to think that. Those who cry for intolerance in interpreting St. Cyprian's formula, “Outside the Church there is no salvation,” also reject the Creed, “I confess one baptism for the remission of sins,” and are insufficiently instructed as to what baptism is. There are three ways of receiving it: the baptism of water; the baptism of blood (that of the martyrs who confessed the faith while still catechumens) and baptism of desire.

Baptism of desire can be explicit. Many times in Africa I heard one of our catechumens say to me, “Father, baptize me straightaway because if I die before you come again, I shall go to hell.” I told him “No, if you have no mortal sin on your conscience and if you desire baptism, then you already have the grace in you.”

The doctrine of the Church also recognizes implicit baptism of desire.  This consists in doing the will of God. God knows all men and He knows that amongst Protestants, Muslims, Buddhists and in the whole of humanity there are men of good will. They receive the grace of baptism without knowing it, but in an effective way. In this way they become part of the Church.

The error consists in thinking that they are saved by their religion.  They are saved in their religion but not by it. There is no Buddhist church in heaven, no Protestant church. This is perhaps hard to accept, but it is the truth. I did not found the Church, but rather Our Lord the Son of God.  As priests we must state the truth.

and all combined, and contrasted with what Bishop Muller said... render basically the same thing. Baptism does fully incorporate people into the Mystical Body of Christ, which is the Church. Protestants, Hindus, Muslims here on earth, if they will be in Heaven, will be joined to the Mystical Body of Christ, and not saved by Protestantism, Hinduism, or Islam.

Baltimore Catechism 3, questions 510-13:
Quote:Q. 510. Is it ever possible for one to be saved who does not know the Catholic Church to be the true Church?

A. It is possible for one to be saved who does not know the Catholic Church to be the true Church, provided that person:

        Has been validly baptized;
        Firmly believes the religion he professes and practices to be the true religion, and
        Dies without the guilt of mortal sin on his soul.

Q. 511. Why do we say it is only possible for a person to be saved who does not know the Catholic Church to be the true Church?

A. We say it is only possible for a person to be saved who does not know the Catholic Church to be the true Church, because the necessary conditions are not often found, especially that of dying in a state of grace without making use of the Sacrament of Penance.

Q. 512. How are such persons said to belong to the Church?

A. Such persons are said to belong to the "soul of the church"; that is, they are really members of the Church without knowing it. Those who share in its Sacraments and worship are said to belong to the body or visible part of the Church.

Q. 513. Why must the true Church be visible?

A. The true Church must be visible because its founder, Jesus Christ, commanded us under pain of condemnation to hear the Church; and He could not in justice command us to hear a Church that could not be seen and known.
Source: http://www.audiosancto.org/inc/BC3/bc3-11.html


According to this SSPX Theologian, based on what was said and how it meshed with doctrine, is he going to say Bishop Fellay and Abp. Lefebvre are espousing heretical positions? The Baltimore Catechism 3, sold by the Angelus Press (http://angeluspress.org/Books/Catechetic...atechism-3), is heretical?

If the SSPX Theologian got this wrong, gee, I wonder what else?

You people confound me.
(07-09-2012, 11:36 PM)jonbhorton Wrote: [ -> ]We have no frigging clue what Muller was saying because so far the only quote produced is impossible to deduce anything in regards to heresy.

That's your opinion, but you discredit yourself completely with what you proceed to explain concerning membership in the Church and salvation.  You wouldn't know a heresy if it leaped out of your cornflakes and tickled your nose.


(07-09-2012, 11:36 PM)jonbhorton Wrote: [ -> ]You people confound me.

No, you don't need us.  You confound yourself perfectly well without any help at all.  :)
(07-09-2012, 09:25 PM)John Lane Wrote: [ -> ]
(07-09-2012, 07:47 PM)JayneK Wrote: [ -> ]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.

No problem, but you are misreading Ott.  He doesn't say that the miraculous birth of our Lord is doubtful, he only questions what the precise theological foundation of it is.  Then he proceeds to demonstrate that the Church teaches that this birth was indeed miraculous, not natural.

I just can't see how he says that.
(07-09-2012, 08:00 PM)jonbhorton Wrote: [ -> ]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.

I don't have a problem with someone getting worked up about the idea of heresy or reacting violently to  speech that he perceives as dishonouring Our Lady.  It seems to me that is how Catholics ought to feel.  I may disagree with some of the points that John Lane is making, but I see no reason to make a personal attack on him.  I think your points would be more effective if you spoke more respectfully.
(07-10-2012, 07:28 AM)JayneK Wrote: [ -> ]
John Lane Wrote:No problem, but you are misreading Ott.  He doesn't say that the miraculous birth of our Lord is doubtful, he only questions what the precise theological foundation of it is.  Then he proceeds to demonstrate that the Church teaches that this birth was indeed miraculous, not natural.

I just can't see how he says that.

Well, Ott is not my favourite source, by any means, because he is so compressed that it is sometimes hard to work out what all the distinctions and even the data actually mean, so I don't blame you.

On page 204 you will see the thesis, Our Lady's Virginity before birth.  Two pages later (206) the thesis of Our Lady's virginity after Our Lord's birth is explained.  Both of those are de fide by solemn definition.  The thesis of Our Lady's virginity during the birth of Jesus is on p. 205 and is given the theological note, "De fide on the ground of the general promulgation of doctrine" which is a reference to the ordinary, universal, magisterium.  That is, the preaching of the whole Church.  Then Ott proceeds to explain that the dogma itself does not demand a miraculous birth merely because it was a virgin birth, so that the proof of the dogma must rest on other points of divine revelation (which his proofs provide).

He then goes on to point out that in the early Church the only ones who questioned this dogma were Tertullian (a useful but sometimes heterodox witness) and Jovinian, a famous heretic.  This is followed by the data which refutes their error, and proves the dogma.  What are these proofs?  Nearly all of them exmphasise the miraculous nature of Our Lord's birth (the closed gates, the closed garden, the sealed well, etc.). 

He finishes with, "Christ's miraculous emergence from the unimpared womb of the Virgin Mother finds its ultimate explanation in the omnipotence of God." 

Physiological rupture is absolutely excluded, and the concept was only introduced as part of the subsidiary question of exactly what principle the proof of the dogma rests upon.

Ott's presentation is highly technical.  I suggest that you go back to page 1 of this thread and read the explanation of Scheeben.  It's simple and clear.
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