Gerhard Müller is indeed a heretic, and blasphemer
Quote:No one has ever doubted that Mary is ever Virgin. People have questioned whether an intact hymen is a necessarily part of virginity and if a miraculous birth means Christ did not pass through the Virgin's birth canal. Even Ott, as Scriptorium showed, questions whether this is part of the dogma or simply the result of the Church Fathers' limited knowledge of physiology.

Mr Lane has provided quotes saying that Mary is "ever Virgin" and Christ's birth was miraculous. No one disputes that. They're disputing whether that is concerned with the particular physiological state of Mary's body, and whether what +Muller said is therefor heresy. Given that Mr. Lane has accused the head of the CDF and numerous posters of being insensitive, crude, and heretical one would think he could provide something a bit more specific.

The definition of "virgin" that I know means someone has never had sexual intercourse. Who here denied that the BVM is ever-virgin?

It's not so much about denial of the doctrine of Mary as ever-Virgin (though the philological stunts and syntactic rigmarole in the posts seem to imply it).  It is about how the crudeness that has crept into a disgusting exposition and explanation of the Holy Virgin's private parts.  We just don't go into that especially that it goes into speculative reasoning.

Seems like a take on +Williamson ranting about women wearing pants and shorts, etc. 

But this is the Theotokos we are putting for the whole world to see, particularly the enemies of our faith, who definitely will take delight in such "meaningful" exposition of the Woman they hate and have no reverence for.  "For from henchforth all generations shall call me blessed..."  Is this prediction something that we all should be concerned with?
Reply
(07-14-2012, 02:49 AM)Aragon Wrote: But what makes you think that a child traveling through the birth canal violates a woman's virginity? Why must Our Lord have passed miraculously from Our Lady's womb to her arms in order to preserve her virginity?

It's a dogma that Our Lord was born in a miraculous manner, so that Our Lady's physiological integrity was not in any way harmed or altered.  The Church calls this "virginity." 

Please, take it up with the Church if you have a problem with it.  I've explained in what I think is perfectly clear language why this term is applied to this dogma, and St. Thomas says the same thing in the Summa.  I can't help you any more than that.
Reply
(07-14-2012, 03:08 AM)SouthpawLink Wrote: Mr. Lane,
I do not mean to be contentious, but the Latin edition of Very Rev. Tanquerey's Brevior Synopsis Theologiæ Dogmaticæ did come in one volume, although -- please correct me if I'm wrong -- it is true that he did not include a section on the Ascension of Our Lord in any of his manual's twenty tracts.

Well there you go, I learn something every day.  :)

I have his (non-brevior) Synopsis Theologiæ Dogmaticæ, in English, and one of the volumes of the Latin.  I hadn't heard of a single-volume effort from him.  I'm still decidely against such an effort.

Reply
Would someone more knowledgable here explain to me why the Rhine has overwhelmed the Tiber? I mean from luther to Muller it would seem that the greater part of Progressive/modernist/reformer types keep coming out of the germanic areas. why?  Why do the germanic theologians (some, not all) seem hell bent on redefining the Doctrines of The Church to a point of becoming just another vannilla feel good faith experiment? ???
Reply
Quote:14. Hence, too, that meaning of the sacred dogmas is ever to be maintained which has once been declared by Holy mother Church, and there must never be any abandonment of this sense under the pretext or in the name of a more profound understanding.

May understanding, knowledge and wisdom increase as ages and centuries roll along, and greatly and vigorously flourish, in each and all, in the individual and the whole Church: but this only in its own proper kind, that is to say, in the same doctrine, the same sense, and the same understanding .

That's the First Vatican Council's dogmatic definition on doctrinal development. Ask yourself in which sense the Fathers understood virginity and the sense in which they defined it. We must understand their definition in their sense to understand what they defined. It is clear from this that the Fathers did define integrity as a part of the dogma -- and even though scientific understanding of virginity has changed, the definition has not.
Reply
That respect is due to the Pope is just as much a part of our faith as the honour due to the Blessed Virgin.  This thread is an indirect attack on the Holy Father by claiming that he has appointed a heretic.  Our Lord did not give us His Mother to be used as a weapon against his Vicar on earth. 
Reply
Well fifty thousand (yes, 50,000) priests lost their vocations after Vatican II and the imposition of the New Mass, so I think Benedict's appointment of Muller is small cheese...

This is the worst crisis in the history of the Church to a degree that defies comparison.  The Arian heresy was a blip against what the tsunami of apostasy we've witnessed.  Sometimes I think people either forget what has happened, or don't know the facts.
Reply
(07-14-2012, 11:26 AM)John Lane Wrote: This is the worst crisis in the history of the Church to a degree that defies comparison.  The Arian heresy was a blip against what the tsunami of apostasy we've witnessed.  Sometimes I think people either forget what has happened, or don't know the facts.

I think that people who say things like this do not have a good knowledge of history.
Reply
(07-14-2012, 11:29 AM)JayneK Wrote:
(07-14-2012, 11:26 AM)John Lane Wrote: This is the worst crisis in the history of the Church to a degree that defies comparison.  The Arian heresy was a blip against what the tsunami of apostasy we've witnessed.  Sometimes I think people either forget what has happened, or don't know the facts.

I think that people who say things like this do not have a good knowledge of history.
From what I have read about Church history the cataclysmic fallout after VII was much more destructive than the second largest black eye on the institutional Church [Arianism]
But I may have read sorces of history that were flawed.
Reply
(07-14-2012, 11:29 AM)JayneK Wrote: I think that people who say things like this do not have a good knowledge of history.

Let me know when you find a crisis in history which involves the loss of faith of the majority, if not nearly all, of the Church's members, the emptying of the religious institutes, the replacement of the Holy Sacrifice by a man-centred worship specifically designed to be acceptable to heretics, and all the rest of the catastrophic effects of this one.

The Arian crisis was a blip in comparison.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)