Gerhard Müller is indeed a heretic, and blasphemer
#1

The Modernist, Gerhard Müller, appointed to head the CDF is responsible for the following assertions:

"[The perpetual virginity of Mary] is not so much about specific physiological proprieties in the natural process of birth (such as the birth canal not having been opened, the hymen not being broken, or the absence of birth pangs), but with the healing and saving influence of the grace of the Savior on human nature, that had been wounded by Original Sin. ... it is not so much about physiologically and empirically verifiable somatic Details." (Katholische Dogmatik für Studium und Praxis, Freiburg 52003, p. 498)

This is heretical.

Quote: Scheeben's Mariology, vol. I, pp 110-112.

CHAPTER VII  MARY’S PERPETUAL VIRGINITY (1)

UNLIKE all other mothers, with whom motherhood is incompatible with virginity, the mother of the Redeemer remains a virgin consecrated to God in her very motherhood as well as in her whole life.  Indeed on account of the unique perfection of her virginity and of the unique sacredness of her person aid and whole being, which lays the foundation of her virginity and makes it complete, this woman must be called not merely "virgin" but specifically "the Virgin."

She had been so called already in the prophecy of Isaias regarding the mother of the Emmanuel and again in the Apostles’ Creed, where the virgin is placed with the Holy Ghost as one principle of the human birth of Christ.  Both texts likewise define the objective and highest form of the sacredness of Mary’s person and entire being, which is the basis of her virginity.  As bearer of God and instrument of the Holy Ghost she is taken possession of by God in the most sublime sense of the word and, as a chosen “spiritual vessel” and spiritual bride of God united to Him by marriage, she belongs to Him alone and without reserve.

The highest perfection of the quality of virginity, as it is contained in the Christian idea of “the Virgin,” comprises permanence.  Otherwise Mary cannot be called virgin, much less “the Virgin.”  She is virgo perpetua.  This perfection of virginity comprises three essential parts: (1) bodily integrity and purity (virginitas corporis or carnis);  (2) the virtue of virginity or the permanent virginal inclination (virginitas mentis);  (3) the virginity of heart, i.e., freedom from all carnal motions and sensations (virginitas sensus seu animae).

Mary’s perpetual virginity was denied only by those heretics who denied also the divinity of Christ, such as the Ebionites, Arians, and rationalist Protestants, or by those who display a great wantonness in the domain of morals; such as Helvidius and Jovinianus.  The Reformers opposed the perpetual virginity of spirit, at least so far as the vow is concerned, and partly also the virginitas in partu, without denying the divinity of Christ.  But they minimized the living efficacy of the divinity of Christ, even for His own humanity, and they wished to avoid in the vow of Mary the ideal of consecrated virginity.

Mary's Bodily Virginity

The absolute perfection of the bodily virginity of the mother of Jesus, with regard to that act through which she outwardly appeared as the mother of Christ, is usually thus defined: Mary was a virgin in the birth, before the birth, and after the birth.  This order shows that, whereas with other mothers the violation of the bodily integrity is strikingly obvious in the birth, Mary’s integrity was miraculously preserved in the birth of her Son and supposes and reflects the virginal conception of her Son.  Furthermore it guarantees the perpetual continuation of her integrity to the exclusion of any other human conception.

The absolute bodily virginity can also be determined with reference to the conception which made her the mother of Christ, namely, that her virginity was not violated in, before, or after the conception of Christ.  Thus, it is shown that the basis of her motherhood is also the basis of her perpetual virginity, just as in the first case the external revelation of her motherhood comes to the fore as a sign and guaranty of her perpetual virginity.

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)

1.  Literature; St. Thomas, IIIa, q.28 29, and Suarez, op. cit., disp. 5 8; St. Peter Canisius, op. cit., 1, 2; Petavius, op. cit., De Incarn., 1, 14; Trombelli, Mariae ss. vita ac gesta, Part 1, diss. 9 and 10.  Especially for Mary’s marriage:  Lombardus, In 4  S., dist. 30; and St. Thomas and St. Bonaventure.

2.  Denzinger, nos. 214, 256.
Reply
#2
Absolutely devastating. Please post it on Rorate.

(07-05-2012, 11:53 PM)John Lane Wrote: The Modernist, Gerhard Müller, appointed to head the CDF is responsible for the following assertions:

"[The perpetual virginity of Mary] is not so much about specific physiological proprieties in the natural process of birth (such as the birth canal not having been opened, the hymen not being broken, or the absence of birth pangs), but with the healing and saving influence of the grace of the Savior on human nature, that had been wounded by Original Sin. ... it is not so much about physiologically and empirically verifiable somatic Details." (Katholische Dogmatik für Studium und Praxis, Freiburg 52003, p. 498)

This is heretical.

Quote: Scheeben's Mariology, vol. I, pp 110-112.

CHAPTER VII   MARY’S PERPETUAL VIRGINITY (1)

UNLIKE all other mothers, with whom motherhood is incompatible with virginity, the mother of the Redeemer remains a virgin consecrated to God in her very motherhood as well as in her whole life.  Indeed on account of the unique perfection of her virginity and of the unique sacredness of her person aid and whole being, which lays the foundation of her virginity and makes it complete, this woman must be called not merely "virgin" but specifically "the Virgin."

She had been so called already in the prophecy of Isaias regarding the mother of the Emmanuel and again in the Apostles’ Creed, where the virgin is placed with the Holy Ghost as one principle of the human birth of Christ.  Both texts likewise define the objective and highest form of the sacredness of Mary’s person and entire being, which is the basis of her virginity.  As bearer of God and instrument of the Holy Ghost she is taken possession of by God in the most sublime sense of the word and, as a chosen “spiritual vessel” and spiritual bride of God united to Him by marriage, she belongs to Him alone and without reserve.

The highest perfection of the quality of virginity, as it is contained in the Christian idea of “the Virgin,” comprises permanence.  Otherwise Mary cannot be called virgin, much less “the Virgin.”  She is virgo perpetua.  This perfection of virginity comprises three essential parts: (1) bodily integrity and purity (virginitas corporis or carnis);  (2) the virtue of virginity or the permanent virginal inclination (virginitas mentis);  (3) the virginity of heart, i.e., freedom from all carnal motions and sensations (virginitas sensus seu animae).

Mary’s perpetual virginity was denied only by those heretics who denied also the divinity of Christ, such as the Ebionites, Arians, and rationalist Protestants, or by those who display a great wantonness in the domain of morals; such as Helvidius and Jovinianus.  The Reformers opposed the perpetual virginity of spirit, at least so far as the vow is concerned, and partly also the virginitas in partu, without denying the divinity of Christ.  But they minimized the living efficacy of the divinity of Christ, even for His own humanity, and they wished to avoid in the vow of Mary the ideal of consecrated virginity.

Mary's Bodily Virginity

The absolute perfection of the bodily virginity of the mother of Jesus, with regard to that act through which she outwardly appeared as the mother of Christ, is usually thus defined: Mary was a virgin in the birth, before the birth, and after the birth.  This order shows that, whereas with other mothers the violation of the bodily integrity is strikingly obvious in the birth, Mary’s integrity was miraculously preserved in the birth of her Son and supposes and reflects the virginal conception of her Son.  Furthermore it guarantees the perpetual continuation of her integrity to the exclusion of any other human conception.

The absolute bodily virginity can also be determined with reference to the conception which made her the mother of Christ, namely, that her virginity was not violated in, before, or after the conception of Christ.  Thus, it is shown that the basis of her motherhood is also the basis of her perpetual virginity, just as in the first case the external revelation of her motherhood comes to the fore as a sign and guaranty of her perpetual virginity.

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)

1.   Literature; St. Thomas, IIIa, q.28 29, and Suarez, op. cit., disp. 5 8; St. Peter Canisius, op. cit., 1, 2; Petavius, op. cit., De Incarn., 1, 14; Trombelli, Mariae ss. vita ac gesta, Part 1, diss. 9 and 10.  Especially for Mary’s marriage:  Lombardus, In 4  S., dist. 30; and St. Thomas and St. Bonaventure.

2.   Denzinger, nos. 214, 256.
Reply
#3
Feel free to do so, and don't credit me.  Why give them a reason to delete it?
Reply
#4
(07-05-2012, 11:53 PM)John Lane Wrote: The Modernist, Gerhard Müller, appointed to head the CDF is responsible for the following assertions:

"[The perpetual virginity of Mary] is not so much about specific physiological proprieties in the natural process of birth (such as the birth canal not having been opened, the hymen not being broken, or the absence of birth pangs), but with the healing and saving influence of the grace of the Savior on human nature, that had been wounded by Original Sin. ... it is not so much about physiologically and empirically verifiable somatic Details." (Katholische Dogmatik für Studium und Praxis, Freiburg 52003, p. 498)

This is heretical.

To play devil's advocate, the underline doesn't indicate denial but minimizing for a further point. How would you respond to this?

I don't know how the perpetual virginity of Blessed Mary has anything to do with "healing and saving influence of the grace of the Savior on human nature" though.  Unless he's drawing the conclusion that it was necessary for Blessed Mary to remain immaculately intact in body and soul for the salvation of the world.
Reply
#5
Yes, of course, although casting doubt on a dogma is undermining it, and the procedure of a heretic. Likewise the bringing of it into obscurity, when it is perfectly clear, as Scheeben shows. This is what the Synod of Pistoia did, and it was condemned.

But the killer here is that Mons. Bux has sought to defend Muller and has not provided any more context to show that Muller didn't do what he obviously did. Now if you were defending somebody of a charge based upon a piece of text, and more of the text would vindicate him, would you not quote it? This defence is just more obfuscation. Muller's a Modernist.
Reply
#6
Isn't that what Bishop Muller said?  Just in language that is more understandable to modern man?  :LOL:

Those minor theologians footnoted...what are there names?  St. Thomas and St. Bonaventure?  Never heard of 'em. Who are they? What do they know?  Are they supposed to be more learned than Bishop Muller or Msgr. Bux? 

Those councils and saints were all infected with "Capernaism."  And if they don't stop with the "Capernaism" we're going to call them "anti-semites!" (Bishop Fellay, You've been warned.)

To paraphrase Fr. Barron from his explanation of the Ascension of the Our Lord,  "The bodily viginity of Mary has absolutely nothing to do with her bodily integrity.  It has to do with an encounter with Christ that is so...so Elvis-like that our bobby socks start to itch. The entire Incarnation is an encounter with the God who is not merely salvific but actually the Ginchiest. So much so that God does not merely exist in reality as people would crudely think of it.  He's all in our heads. Really in essence there as an idea, but nonetheless, not in the reality that we would all imagine in a mere belief system." 
Reply
#7
When I first heard of what Müller stated, the versicle said after the Alma Redemptoris immediately came to mind:

Post Partum Virgo inviolata permansisti
Reply
#8
Below is a quote from Bux in Müller's defense.  But I think Müller's words at the very least lead people to heresy.  "Mary's virginity is not so much about its bodily characteristics " (leaving in question, are they important or even real in every detail?)
Quote:http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2012/07...s-are.html
(extract - the entire article is interesting)

Vatican Insider interviewed on this matter theologian Nicola Bux, Consultant of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.

In his book on Dogmatics, Müller writes that the doctrine of the Virginity of Mary "not so much concerned with specific physiological proprieties in the natural process of birth"

The Catechism of the Catholic Church states that the physical aspect of virginity is due entirely to the fact that Jesus was conceived without human seed, but by the action of the Holy Spirit. It is a divine work that exceeds all understanding and human possibility. The Church professes the real and perpetual Virginity of Mary but does not enter into physical details; neither does it seem that the Councils and the Fathers stated otherwise.

In this line, it seems to me, along which what Müller wrote should be understood, [Müller] does not support a "doctrine" that denies the dogma of the Perpetual Virginity of Mary, but warns against a certain, as it were, "Capernaism", i.e. a way of reasoning "according to the flesh" and not "according to the spirit", that already appeared at Capernaum among the Jews at the end of Jesus ' discourse on the bread of life. [Jn vi]
Reply
#9
(07-06-2012, 01:28 AM)TS Aquinas Wrote:
(07-05-2012, 11:53 PM)John Lane Wrote: The Modernist, Gerhard Müller, appointed to head the CDF is responsible for the following assertions:

"[The perpetual virginity of Mary] is not so much about specific physiological proprieties in the natural process of birth (such as the birth canal not having been opened, the hymen not being broken, or the absence of birth pangs), but with the healing and saving influence of the grace of the Savior on human nature, that had been wounded by Original Sin. ... it is not so much about physiologically and empirically verifiable somatic Details." (Katholische Dogmatik für Studium und Praxis, Freiburg 52003, p. 498)

This is heretical.

To play devil's advocate, the underline doesn't indicate denial but minimizing for a further point. How would you respond to this?

I don't know how the perpetual virginity of Blessed Mary has anything to do with "healing and saving influence of the grace of the Savior on human nature" though.  Unless he's drawing the conclusion that it was necessary for Blessed Mary to remain immaculately intact in body and soul for the salvation of the world.

Seems the portion you have trouble with is a really heady way of saying Co-Redemptrix and Advocate.

And that we need to not get hung up on the physical understanding of virginity, though this should not be in dispute, and focus on what that virginal understanding internalized and thus affected and in doing so, in all the ways the BVM was and is, and as She serves as an Advocate and Co-Redemptrix.

Since the original quote was given without any context, how on earth can it be called heretical? Especially when it doesn't definitively deny or conflict with doctrine, and can even serve as an obtuse rendering of what traditional teachings are on the BVM.

Our Lady was the only person on earth who could truly and honestly understand or provide peace to Our Lord, to comfort Him honestly and without the pain of knowing the sin of the comforter. She was perfect in thought, word, and deed. All the things the rest of us have to mea culpa on.

She advocates for us in heaven. She softens the wrath that should surely follow the transgression of even Original Sin, much less mankind's full gainer into the Mortal Sin pool.

Focus on that, and the physical specifics question becomes a non-starter and obvious. Focus on the physical, lose sight of the spiritual concept in play.
Reply
#10
(07-06-2012, 01:39 AM)Gerard Wrote: Isn't that what Bishop Muller said?  Just in language that is more understandable to modern man?   :LOL:

Those minor theologians footnoted...what are there names?  St. Thomas and St. Bonaventure?  Never heard of 'em. Who are they? What do they know?  Are they supposed to be more learned than Bishop Muller or Msgr. Bux? 

Those councils and saints were all infected with "Capernaism."  And if they don't stop with the "Capernaism" we're going to call them "anti-semites!" (Bishop Fellay, You've been warned.)

To paraphrase Fr. Barron from his explanation of the Ascension of the Our Lord,  "The bodily viginity of Mary has absolutely nothing to do with her bodily integrity.  It has to do with an encounter with Christ that is so...so Elvis-like that our bobby socks start to itch. The entire Incarnation is an encounter with the God who is not merely salvific but actually the Ginchiest. So much so that God does not merely exist in reality as people would crudely think of it.  He's all in our heads. Really in essence there as an idea, but nonetheless, not in the reality that we would all imagine in a mere belief system." 

:LOL:
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)