http://cathcon.blogspot.co.uk/2012/07/archbishop-muller-guardian-of-faith.html

TUESDAY, JULY 24, 2012

Archbishop Müller, guardian of the Faith denies the miraculous

kreuz.net – Neue Ketzereien: An Wunder glaubt er auch nicht:

New heresies: he does not believe in miracles either

If it would agree with what the Archbishop Gerhard Ludwig Müller maintains, Christianity would be mocking the audience. Archbishop Gerhard Ludwig Müller - the prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith recently appointed by Pope Benedict XVI - not only has problems with the virginity of Mary, the Eucharist and the doctrine of the Church. In his rambling book "Catholic dogma: to study and practice theology" (4th edition 1995) there are at least three more points that involve serious heresies.  

Denial of miracles  

On the topic "miracle" Mgr. Müller writes on page 284: " The miracles of Jesus are not to be understood in the context of a definition, which is concerns a 'breaking of the laws of nature'." Such an understanding of miracles according to Msgr. Müller belongs "to the context of a deistic understanding of God and a mechanistic world view."  

What constitutes a miracle?

A breaking of the laws of nature is of the essence of miracle. This was already maintained by the preeminent theologian Saint Thomas Aquinas († 1274). In a miracle, God acts directly on the world as first cause . He bypasses thus the secondary causes - that is, the laws of nature.  

Msgr. Müller is a mechanical deist

Mons.  Müller insulted the Catholic understanding of miracles indiscriminately as "deistic" and "mechanistic". The opposite is true. This is because deism is the doctrine that God created the universe at the beginning and set it going like clockwork, not interfering in its further mechanistic working - neither by miracle nor by revelation. The qualification "deistic" and "mechanistic" hypothesis thus precisely correspond to Mons.Müller's denial of the miracle.  

One heresy cries out after another

Archbishop Müller's inability to understand miracles, influences his dubious statements about the Virginal conception of Jesus and the Resurrection of the dead. In both events, the Bible as well as the tradition of Church sees a classical breaking of the known laws of nature.  

The guardian of Faith denies the conception by the Holy Spirit

On page 495 of his Dogmatik, Mons. Müller discusses the virginity of Mary. This, he writes. "This does not mean a departure from the biological norm" . This assertion is related explicitly to the "conception" of Jesus and the virginity of the Virgin Mary before the birth.  Mary's virginity during labour Mons. Müller disputes on page 498 of his Dogmatics. There he claims that in the case of Mary's virginity during the birth, is "not" about deviating physiological features in the "natural process of birth."  "Not in the context of a biologically exceptional case"  On page 497, Mons.  Müller closes his remarks on the virginity before birth.  He again emphasized: "The meaning of faith in the virginal conception of Jesus by the Holy Spirit does not reveal itself in the context of a biologically exceptional case."  

Invisible body?

Msgr. Müller in his Dogmatik on page 300 comments on the Resurrection of Jesus with this questionable assertion: "The contemporary film camera would have neither recorded the resurrection event [...] nor the Easter appearances of Jesus to his disciples in image and sound ."  And on page 303: "Whether the response of women at the grave in the early hours of Easter morning and the discovery that the body of Jesus was no longer there, a historical process in the sense described must not be decided here. It could also reflect a devotion to the grave by the Jerusalem assembly."

He does not believe in the bodily resurrection

On the other hand, writes Msgr. Müller: "In any case, the mighty deed of God must have been implied in Jesus and on the dead body." Because. "A finding of the body of Jesus would have been for the enemies of Jesus, stringent counter-evidence against the identification of God with the eschatological means of salvation" One wonders here: What now? Did Jesus rise bodily or not? Mons. Müller's statements contradict each other. But, given his thesis that Jesus' miracles do not break the laws of nature, he must answer in the negative.


Cathcon- they said that someone in the Vatican should have googled Bishop Williamson- someone should also have read this book beforeMsgr Müller was appointed to his new role.

In all seriousness, this hardly comes as a surprise. Bishop Muller had already proven himself as a heretic, and he only re-affirms it here.

Apparently John Lane is posting at FE now?

Here is what he (or someone by the same name) wrote there re Muller:

This is the same Modernism that can be seen in any number of other places.

For example, in his book, "Jesus, the Christ," Cardinal Kasper writes, "In the traditional theology the hermeneutic discussions about resurrection testimonies was greatly neglected.  It was, in general, regarded as sufficient simply to quote the testimony of faith.  Since it was never questioned fundamentally, it was never the subject of fundamental reflection, as was the case with the problem of Incarnation." So, "traditional theology" is first discredited - nobody ever really thought about the Resurrection before...

Kasper then proceeds to assert that the Resurrection is not an historical fact, but a later "interpretation" by "the faithful," who imposed their own superstitious ideas on the historical events.  Hence he denies the historical character of all four Gospel accounts of the Resurrection.  Thus, even though St. Mark's account of the empty tomb is older and less "legendary" than the others, in Kasper's view, "It is clear that in its present form at any rate, it is in no way a historical account." Which is unalloyed heresy.

Kasper argues in favour of his lies with literary arguments.  In the Gospel of St. Mark, according to Kasper, the empty tomb text is explained as follows:  "We are faced not with historical details but with stylistic devices intended to attract the attention and raise excitement in the minds of those listening.  Everything is clearly constructed to lead very skilfully to the climax of the angel's words: 'He is risen, he is not here; see the place where they laid him' (16:6).”

Muller's theory looks to be identical.

These men are Modernists in the classical sense of the term, defined by Pope St. Pius X in Pascendi.  They speak of an "historical Christ" (to be sought by critical methods) divorced from "the Christ of Faith" (as presented in theology and the Gospels). One of the favourite views of this school is the denial of the miraculous.  Hence they cast doubt on, or flatly deny, the miracles of Christ, including the Virgin Birth, the Resurrection, and the Transfiguration.

http://christorchaos.com/MemoToBishopFellayRatzingerBenedictReallyReallyReallyReallyReallyLovesGerhardLudwigMull.htm

I found the above article and the below quote rather interesting:

This is essentially what Bishop Fellay did when he criticized "Archbishop" Gerhard Ludwig Muller's multiple defections from the Catholic Faith while ignoring this simple fact: JOSEPH RATZINGER/BENEDICT XVI HAS KNOWN GERHARD LUDWIG MULLER FOR DECAES. HE LIKES HIM. HE AGREES WITH HIM. HE APPPOINTED HIM KNOWING FULL WELL WHAT HE HAS WRITTEN AND THUS WHAT HE BELIEVES. Pardon me, I very rarely write in such a manner. However, I am a New Yorker even if I am living in Ohio. As a New Yorker, you see, I would be screaming this very loudly at Bishop Fellay if he was within earshot of my  booming, sonorous voice. One has to suspend all rationality and pretend that those who will read insanity are completely stupid and without any ability to recognize the simple fact that Gerhard Ludwig Muller is not the problem right now. The false religion of conciliarism that spawned him, a false religion that was cultivated and nurtured by Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict, which is why the false "pope" desires to appoint men such as Muller who are as committed to its propagation and institutionalization in the name of the "new evangelization" as he is.

God is a lot more patient than I am, that is all I can say.

And by "alot" I mean a heck of alot.

And by "heck of alot" I mean a very, very, very heck of a alot.

But souls are still being conceived and born and baptized and dying in a state of sanctifying grace and some of the sede vacantes once occupied by the fallen angels remain yet to be filled, or so the theory goes.

For the sake of one soul, perhaps, the Lord will allow the nightmare to continue.

I honestly cannot see how any deal can be done with Muller as CDF head.

If the Pope truly wanted the Society "in" this move makes absolutely no sense. Unless, of course, BXVI is promising BF things in private while telling him the Muller appt is cover to placate the libs. BXVI is VERY crafty and plays politics very well. BF is like a young school boy from the 50's with a propeller cap. BXVI is getting ready to trade him a lollipop for his piggy bank and make him think it is a good deal.

I honestly cannot see how any deal can be done with Muller as CDF head.

If the Pope truly wanted the Society "in" this move makes absolutely no sense. Unless, of course, BXVI is promising BF things in private while telling him the Muller appt is cover to placate the libs. BXVI is VERY crafty and plays politics very well. BF is like a young school boy from the 50's with a propeller cap. BXVI is getting ready to trade him a lollipop for his piggy bank and make him think it is a good deal.

Time for Occam's Razor (sort of).

1) B16 is very crafty and plays politics very well.

2) B16 is not hesitant to play politics with the office of the Papacy.

3) B16 could be making promises to BF in private, while making the excuse that
the Muller appointment is merely a cover, to placate the Liberals. He could
furthermore be telling +Fellay that after he agrees to the SELLOUT, then once the
dust settles, B16 promises to replace Muller with someone more benevolent for
the SSPX. The question is, will +Fellay believe him? If he's really a beanie-boy,
then he just might, Lord help us!

4) IF - B16 really wanted the Society "in," THEN - making Muller head of the CDF
makes no sense. - THEREFORE, what does make sense?

5) When all the possible outcomes are examined and only one makes sense, all
considered, the ones that don't make sense are to be abandoned.

Fortunately, one of the outcomes of this General Chapter was (according to
rumor, that is) that the SG cannot single-handedly sign off on a sellout for the
entire Society. It would take an emergency session of the Chapter and a vote to
approve the sellout, before it could be legitimate. If this rumor is true, then there
is a time, perhaps a year, during which the Society will be safe. During this time,
the hand of God could direct the voting members of the Chapter to advance in
common sense, so as to not continue to be mind-numbed robots, like a certain
District Superior has shown himself to be this past week.

For this then could be a year in which the liberal-leaning members of the Chapter,
hand-picked for their complicity toward a sellout, might one-by-one depart for
their preferred affiliation, the conciliar, mainstream Church, leaving behind a
growing solidarity of traditional priests who could, by the time some emergency
GC is called, be able to come together and oust +Fellay at last. If not, the mere
possibility of that taking place could be enough to squelch the movement of any
sellout in the first place.