Author Topic: Mller: various German reactions (Read 2811 times)

Neil Obstat · « **Reply #15 on:** July 03, 2012, 10:20:40 PM »

Quote from: Marie Auxiliadora

Was it not a layman who first confronted Nestorius?

That's the way I heard it happened. Nestorius was speaking at the pulpit to the
assembled congregation and a layman near the front stood up and shouted, That
Is Heresy, or words to that effect, and turned to walk out of the church, and then
most of the congregation followed him outside to show their protest to Nestorius.

I have a word of caution for anyone who faces up to a bishop: don't do it alone,
if you want to have the maximum effect. If it is a gathering outside of the church
setting, ask some friends to stand in a loose circle around the bishop when you
speak to him. You might see some kind of reaction right away when a circle is
formed, and that's an indicator that the bishop is thinking of a quick exit. When
you ask the question that you want to press, the bishop will likely turn and try
to walk away. That's when your friends can pull together to face him, and repeat
the question you asked him. Then he will be pressured to respond. His reaction
will be most edifying.

The reason I suggest this is, on several occasions I have faced a heretical bishop
and as soon as he gets the idea that I am serious he turns and walks away from
me. These were different bishops.

One time, there was a line of people waiting behind me to meet the bishop, and it
was my turn: he turned and walked away, leaving the line standing there. I faced
the line of people, and announced to them that it looks like they're waiting for
nothing, because the bishop just left, going that way. The people just stared at
me. That whole thing could have been prevented if a group had been standing
behind the wayward bishop. Then his actions would be self-explanatory.

ultrarigorist · « **Reply #16 on:** July 03, 2012, 11:29:18 PM »

Quote from: Sede Catholic

These men make me sick with anger.

They are censoring the truth at this pivotal time in the history of the Church.

And they are so numerous.

All over the internet, and in pulpits throughout the world, these BETRAYERS of the truth have free reign.

We are truly fortunate to have CathInfo, where you can actually speak the truth without being banned!!!

Yes, RC is trying to control the Traditional discourse. I'd still like to identify all the moving parts out of curiosity, but there seems to be more than one mind, in that many posts are approved, then deleted. Apparently moderators can override each other's decisions. Others have opined that RC is in the tank for an accord, and the posts which stick would tend to show that. One suspects that NC was co-opted with persistent and effuse flattery, perhaps from a pseudo-trad priest, because upon announcement of the heretic Müller's appointment, the commentary reflected a broader spectrum for a while - as if one or more moderators felt used.

So as the OP suggested, if something noteworthy is posted on RC, bring it on over here, where discussion can proceed, and the listowner is not afraid of Truth

Clint · « **Reply #17 on:** July 04, 2012, 09:57:32 AM »

Quote from: Marie Auxiliadora

Was it not a layman who first confronted Nestorius?

from another thread now on Cathinfo:

Quote from: Clint

re: the Blessed Mother of God, the true faithful, and false bishops (like Mueller)

From: The Liturgical Year by Abbot Dom Prosper Gueranger

It was then that Satan produced Nestorius, crowned with a fictitious halo of sanctity and knowledge. This man, who was to give the clearest expression to the hatred of the serpent for the woman, was enthroned in the Chair of Constantinople amid the applause of the whole East, which hoped to see in him a second Chrysostom. The joy of the good was of short duration. In the very year of his exaltation, on Christmas Day 428, Nestorius, taking advantage of the immense concourse which had assembled in honour of the Virgin Mother and her Child, pronounced from the episcopal pulpit the blasphemous words: 'Mary did not bring forth God; her Son was only a man, the instrument of the Divinity.' The multitude shuddered with horror. Eusebius, a simple layman, rose to give expression to the general indignation, and protested against this impiety. Soon a more explicit protest was drawn up and disseminated in the name of the members of this grief-stricken Church, launching an anathema against anyone who should dare to say: The Only-begotten Son of the Father and the Son of Mary are different persons.' This generous attitude was the safeguard of Byzantium, and won the praise of Popes and Councils. When the shepherd becomes a wolf, the first duty of the flock is to defend itself. It is usual and regular, no doubt, for doctrine to descend from the bishops to the faithful, and those who are subject in the faith are not to judge their superiors. But in the treasure of revelation there are essential doctrines which all Christians, by the very fact of their title as such, are bound to know and defend. The principle is the same whether it be a question of belief or conduct, dogma or morals. Treachery like that of Nestorius is rare in the Church, but it may happen that some pastors keep silence for one reason or another in circuмstances when religion itself is at stake. The true children of Holy Church at such times are those who walk by the light of their baptism, not the cowardly souls who, under the specious pretext of submission to the powers that be, delay their opposition to the enemy in the hope of receiving instructions which are neither necessary nor desirable.

Clint · « **Reply #18 on:** July 04, 2012, 10:05:11 AM »

Here's a recent email from Fr. Brian hαɾɾιson which you should be able to post on Rorate Caeli, no?:

Dear Friends of Catholic orthodoxy,

The unthinkable happened at noon today. It appears we now have a Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Archbishop Gerhard Mueller, who himself publicly dissents from certain Doctrines of the Faith. He does not believe in Our Lady's Virginity in partu, contrary to the teaching of Vatican II (Lumen Gentium: 57 and the Popes, Councils and Doctors cited in support of that doctrine in the acompanying footnote 10). Mueller's reduction of this de fide physical miracle to a generic statement about the influence of "grace . . . on human nature" is the classic demythologizing tactic.

Even more astonishingly, Abp. Mueller also apparently holds a doctrine of Christ's presence in the Eucharist that is Lutheran (at best): the consecrated Species are not the true Body and Blood of Christ in his transfigured (risen) corporality; rather, the Lord just becomes "present" in what remains bread and wine. Mueller's view seem impossible to to distinguish from that condemned as heresy by the Council of Trent (cf. Dz 884 = DS 1652). Pope Paul VI insisted on this dogma in his 1964 Encyclical Mysterium Fidei, and again in what he considered the most important docuмent of his pontificate, the 1968 Solemn Profession of Faith. Here the Holy Father proclaimed: "Every theological explanation which seeks some understanding of this mystery must, in order to be in accord with Catholic faith, maintain that in the reality itself, independently of our mind, the bread and wine have ceased to exist after the Consecration, so that it is the adorable Body and Blood of the Lord Jesus that from then on are really before us under the sacramental species of bread and wine." (emphasis added) This perennial Catholic doctrine is repeated in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, ##1374-1377.

I'll say nothing of Mueller's synpathies for the liberation theology of his close friend Gustavo Gutierrez, or his reported statement that "Protestants are already members of the Church" - a position that would be clearly contrary to Pius XII's teaching in Mystici Corporis as to what constitutes "real membership"
of Christ's Church.

Note the passages underlined and in bold in these quotes . They're taken from the Wikipedia entry on Mueller (where they probably would not last longer than 15 minutes if they were simply fabricated or even falsified "quotes", or if they were genuine, but subsequently retracted and recanted).

May Heaven preserve the Church against the gates of Hell in this dark hour.

BH

Eucharist: In 2002, bishop Müller published the book "Die Messe - Quelle des christlichen Lebens" (St. Ulrich Verlag, Augsburg). In the book, he says : "In reality, the body and blood of Christ do not mean the material components of the human person of Jesus during his lifetime or in his transfigured corporality. Here, body and blood mean the presence of Christ in the signs of the medium of bread and wine."
Liberation theology

Müller was also a pupil of Gustavo Gutiérrez, the “father” of Latin-American liberation theology, with whom he has a long and close friendship. Commenting on Guitierrez, Müller stated: "The theology of Gustavo Gutiérrez, independently of how you look at it, is orthodox because it is orthopractic and it teaches us the correct way of acting in a Christian fashion since it comes from true faith." It is important to note that Gutiérrez’s thoughts were never censured by the Holy See although it was asked that he modify a few of his writings.[5]
Mariology

In his 900-page work "Katholische Dogmatik. Für Studium und Praxis der Theologie" (Freiburg. 5th Edition, 2003), Müller says that the doctrine of the Perpetual Virginity of the Blessed Virgin Mary is "not so much concerned with specific physiological proprieties in the natural process of birth [...], but with the healing and saving influence of the grace of the Savior on human nature."

JohnGrey · « **Reply #19 on:** July 04, 2012, 10:07:15 AM »

This is the modus operandi of corrupt governments (though in this case we refer to a corrupt body, the conciliar establishment) and those that they select to be their mouthpieces. Rorate Caeli has become the Pravda of the continuing conciliar revolution, insofar as the anti-church wishes traditionalists of whatever stripe that go to RC for news to have positive and only positive coverage on its efforts to destroy the the Catholic faith.

This was the inevitable timbre that the war would take. Revolution is only possible where their is sufficient lack of communication to make to make those in danger aware of it. In the 1950s and '60s this was a simple matter; the faithful had little or no access to theological instruction beyond the most basic of catechesis and, if they had questions, they would go to their priest, who was very often an agent of the same revolution. The game has changed now; the faithful that are resistent to the false, Vatican II religion have access to the sum total of the Church's teachings at a single moment, nearly anywhere in the world. The only way that the revolution continues its success is to control the information. They have followed that course quite strictly.

Sunbeam · « **Reply #20 on:** July 04, 2012, 12:08:33 PM »

Quote from: Clint

Here's a recent email from Fr. Brian hαɾɾιson...

Perhaps, “Fr.” Brian hαɾɾιson might soon wake up.

He makes complaint about the heterodox Müller in his new role,
but he has yet to ask who it is that is responsible for the appointment.