Author Topic: New Head of CDF: Denied BVMs Perpetual Virginity - By John Vennari (Read 15179 times)

s2srea · « **Reply #75 on:** July 06, 2012, 10:31:32 AM »

... and thank you LordPhan. Great post.

Santo Subito · « **Reply #76 on:** July 06, 2012, 11:04:52 AM »

Morningstar,

It seems that the problem lies in dual notions of what "virginity" means. The premise that Muller and Bux are working off of is that "virgin" means never having engaged in relations with man.

Those who want to prove Muller/ Bux are heretical are claiming that virginity ALSO means the integrity of the biological parts. I think the proposition that this additional meaning of virginity is NECESSARILY demanded by Catholic Dogma is what these people have to prove.

Morningstar, your quote seems to prove the point of Muller and Bux, or at least is consistent with their interpretation. Let me explain.

Quote from: morningstar

(2) Perpetual Virginity

The expression perpetual virginity, ever-virgin, or simply "Mary the Virgin" refers primarily to the conception and birth of Jesus. From the first formulations of faith, especially in baptismal formulas or professions of faith, the Church professed that Jesus Christ was conceived without human seed by the power of the Holy Spirit only. Here lies the decisive meaning of expressions such as "conceived in the womb of the Virgin Mary," "Mary's virginal conception," or "virgin birth."

Muller and Bux are also saying that that "perpetual virginity" means conceived in the womb of the Virgin Mary," "Mary's virginal conception," or "virgin birth." To them "virgin birth" simply means that no relations with man occurred to cause the birth.

Quote

The early baptismal formula (since the 3rd century) state Mary's virginity without further explaining it, but there is no doubt about its physical meaning. Later statements are more explicit. Mary conceived "without any detriment to her virginity, which remained inviolate even after his birth" (Council of the Lateran, 649).

Again, Muller and Bux can agree with this statement as the fact that Mary had no relations with man (virginity) did indeed remain inviolate after Christ's birth. Mary did not have any relations with man during her entire life. Therefore, after Christ's birth she was as virgin as before.

Quote

Although never explicated in detail, the Catholic Church holds as dogma that Mary was and is Virgin before, in and after Christ's birth.

Again, Muller and Bux can agree with this. Mary never once knew man and thus was perpetually virgin.

Neccessarily adding physical integrity of the biology in question here to the very definition of "virginity" causes problems. Consider:

1.) A man and woman can biologically have relations in some cases without violating the physical integrity of the woman. Without getting too graphic here, there are cases when stretching (not breaking) occurs. Is the woman in this case, still a virgin?

2.) Let's say a woman has absolutely no relations with man, but due to some sort of injury to the area, the nature of which is completely unrelated to relations or any sin, loses the physical biological integrity of that area. Is she no longer a virgin?

3.) Let's say a woman has had absolutely no relations with man. She is articificially inseminated (which we all agree is a sin) and a baby is conceived and she bears the baby, violating her physical integrity. Is this woman still not technically a virgin (yet a sinner due to the artificial insemination), since she has had no relations with man at any time?

Is it not possible that in previous times, biological integrity was "proof" of virginity and thus the two were intimately related? Thus, perhaps in previous times it would have been dishonorable in society to have one's biological integrity not intact even if there were no sin committed. Thus, there may have been an impetus for certain theologians of the age to develop the notion that Our Lady was saved from any violation of bodily integrity as well? And there is nothing wrong with this belief, certainly, for who really knows for certain? I can't imagine, God forbid, there were ANY witnesses to attest one way or the other, even St. Joseph himself, obviously, since Our Lady was perfectly modest. Therefore, we are going on speculation are we not? The only way we can say for certain is if the theology of what else we definitively know, logically compels us to believe this was the case.

Thus, again, it is the burden of those who cite Muller and Bux with heresy, to prove that the definition of "virginity" in this case, necessarily includes the notion of physical bodily integrity of that region. Otherwise, it clearly can be read to mean "no relations with man" and thus Muller and Bux's views cannot be said to be heretical.

morningstar · « **Reply #77 on:** July 06, 2012, 11:24:55 AM »

Ok, SS, I'll try one more time. Then I leave it to other good folks of this forum whom are more learned than I, to offer further instruction.

The Blessed Virgin's Perpetual Virginity, is indeed a decalred DOGMA of the Church, INCLUDING this part of the defined Dogma, when speaking about the PHYSICAL aspects: "there is no doubt about its physical meaning. Later statements are more explicit. Mary conceived "without any detriment to her virginity, which remained inviolate even after his birth" (Council of the Lateran, 649). Her Perpetual Virginity remained INVIOLATE even after His birth....meaning when Jesus passed through Her womb in birth, Our Blessed Mother suffered NO physical changes to Her Virginty.

The papal definition of Mary's continued virginity during the birth of Christ refers to the event that at the appointed time of birth, Jesus left the womb of Mary without the loss of Mary's physical virginity. The Church understands Mary's virginity during the birth of Christ as an absence of any physical injury or violation to Mary's virginal seal (in Latin, virginitas in partu) through a special divine action of the All-Powerful God. This divine act would safeguard the Blessed Virgin Mary's physical virginity which is both symbol and part of her perfect, overall virginity; a virginity both internal and external, of soul and of body.

The Fathers of the Church overwhelmingly taught the miraculous birth of Jesus that resulted in no injury to the Blessed Virgin Mary's physical integrity. St. Augustine stated, "It is not right that He who came to heal corruptions should by His advent violate integrity." Later, St. Thomas Aquinas would defend the miraculous and painless nature of Christ's birth. As light passes through glass without harming it, so too did Jesus pass through the womb of Mary without the opening of Mary's womb and without any harm to the physical virginal seal of the Virgin, who was pure and the perfect tabernacle of the unborn Christ.

Elizabeth · « **Reply #78 on:** July 06, 2012, 11:39:16 AM »

Quote from: Santo Subito

Morningstar,

It seems that the problem lies in dual notions of what "virginity" means. The premise that Muller and Bux are working off of is that "virgin" means never having engaged in relations with man.

There is no dual nature of anything connected to the Holy Mother of God. That's Hindu BS.

This is all advent of Antichrist rhetoric. The "myth of gender". re-defining marraige, creating demonic doubt as to 'virgin' versus 'Virgin'.

"Dual notions" are the trademark of the Luciferian agenda. Don't fall for this demonic double speak about relations with a man, because the Antichrist wants you to worship Man so you will adore him. This is the United Nation's theory of the Madonna, of "virginity", some dual notion. It's from Hell.

Absolute purity, without stain of any possible sin, utter perfection in every possible sense. Our Lady is the Queen of Virgins, the only one, ever. The House of Gold, Singular vessel of Devotion.

Smash the Luciferian attacks on The Madonna. The warlocks do this to Our Lady because they harbor sex predators and ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖs.

It's all about leading to the androgynous Antichrist. It's from Hell, this "dual notion of virginity".

Capt McQuigg · « **Reply #79 on:** July 06, 2012, 12:17:25 PM »

Why is Cardinal Mueller talking about the Blessed Virgin's "private parts" in the first place? This alone smacks of a gross immodesty which, in this case, could be considered a sacrilege.

However, I did read Santo Subito's "stretching" post. In a nutshell, he's just trying his hardest (and stretching too) to make excuses for the novus ordites.

Judas Machabeus · « **Reply #80 on:** July 06, 2012, 08:16:03 PM »

Quote from: Santo Subito

Those who want to prove Muller/ Bux are heretical are claiming that virginity ALSO means the integrity of the biological parts. I think the proposition that this additional meaning of virginity is NECESSARILY demanded by Catholic Dogma is what these people have to prove.

Santo Subito, it's quite clear that this controversy over Archbishop Mueller's denial of the perpetual virginity of Our Lady has surprised you because you were never properly instructed on Catholic teaching on that matter. Rather than resist the teaching on Our Lady's physical virginity during and after the birth of Our Lord by doing logical backflips, why don't you pray -- on your knees -- for the grace to keep your Catholic faith and accept this de fide dogma? If you reject it, you reject the Catholic faith wholesale. Start listening to those more knowledgeable than you and stop the verbal diarrhea.

Sigismund · « **Reply #81 on:** July 06, 2012, 09:12:45 PM »

Quote from: Sunbeam

Elizabeth,
The following is sufficient to condemn as a heretic, the new head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Gerhard Ludwig Müller:

The Lateran Council 649
On the Trinity, the Incarnation, etc.

Can. 3. If anyone does not properly and truly confess in accord with the holy Fathers, that the holy Mother of God and ever Virgin and immaculate Mary in the earliest of the ages conceived of the Holy Spirit without seed, namely, God the Word Himself specifically and truly, who was born of God the Father before all ages, and that she incorruptibly bore [Him?], her virginity remaining indestructible even after His birth, let him be condemned

[Denzinger/Ferarri, No. 256]

This is without question true. I don't see that Bishop Mueller denies this. He does not say that Our Lord had a human father.

His statements about the Presence of Christ in the Blessed Sacrament are really troubling.

Sigismund · « **Reply #82 on:** July 06, 2012, 09:15:38 PM »

Quote from: LordPhan

Dr. Ludwig Ott Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma:

Quote
Mary's Perpetual Virginity

Mary was a virgin before, during and after the Birth of Jesus Christ.

The Lateran Synod of the year 649, under Pope Martin I, stressed the threefold character of Mary's virginity teaching of the "blessed ever-virginal and immaculate Mary" that : "she conceived without seed, of the Holy Ghost, generated without injury(to her viriginity), and her virginity continued unimpaired after the brith" (D 256). Pope Paul IV declared(1555): Beatissimam Virginem Mariam... perstitisse semper in virginitatis integritate, ante partum scilicet, in partu et perpetuo post partum. D 993

Mary's virginity includes virginitas mentis, that is, a constant virinal disposition, virginatas sensus, that is, freedom from inordinate motions of sɛҳuąƖ desire, and virginitas corporis, that is, physical integrity. The Church doctrine refers primarily to Her bodily integrity.

I'm not going to type out the multiple pages proving each one but I will type out the parts that declare them defide.

Quote

1. Virginity Before the Birth

Mary conceived by the Holy Ghost without the cooperation of man(De Fide.)
...

2. Virginity During the Birth of Jesus

Mary bore her Son without any violation of her virginal integrity.(De Fide on the ground of the general promulgation of doctrine).
...

3. Virginity After the Birth of Jesus

Also after the Birth of Jesus Mary remained a Virgin.(De Fide.)...

To deny any of this is heresy, you are required to believe this to be a Catholic.

Okay, Maybe I am just an idiot. How does Cardinal Muller deny any of this?

Quo Vadis Petre · « **Reply #83 on:** July 07, 2012, 06:53:05 PM »

I don't usually like quoting the Remnant, but this article is good (http://www.remnantnewspaper.com/Archives/2012-0715-muller-cdf.htm):

New Head of CDF Dissents from Certain Doctrines of Faith?
A Concerned Catholic Priest POSTED: 7/3/12

______________________
The unthinkable happened at noon today. It appears we now have a Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Archbishop Gerhard Müller 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 accompanying footnote 10). Müller'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. Müller 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.

Müller's view seems impossible 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."

This perennial Catholic doctrine is repeated in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, ##1374-1377. This is to say nothing of Müller's sympathies 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.

The following is taken from Müller's Wikipedia entry.

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."

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

Clint · « **Reply #84 on:** July 07, 2012, 08:00:46 PM »

Quote from: Sigismund

Quote from: LordPhan
Dr. Ludwig Ott Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma:

Quote
Mary's Perpetual Virginity

Mary was a virgin before, during and after the Birth of Jesus Christ.

The Lateran Synod of the year 649, under Pope Martin I, stressed the threefold character of Mary's virginity teaching of the "blessed ever-virginal and immaculate Mary" that : "she conceived without seed, of the Holy Ghost, generated without injury(to her viriginity), and her virginity continued unimpaired after the brith" (D 256). Pope Paul IV declared(1555): Beatissimam Virginem Mariam... perstitisse semper in virginitatis integritate, ante partum scilicet, in partu et perpetuo post partum. D 993

Mary's virginity includes virginitas mentis, that is, a constant virinal disposition, virginatas sensus, that is, freedom from inordinate motions of sɛҳuąƖ desire, and virginitas corporis, that is, physical integrity. The Church doctrine refers primarily to Her bodily integrity.

I'm not going to type out the multiple pages proving each one but I will type out the parts that declare them defide.

Quote

1. Virginity Before the Birth

Mary conceived by the Holy Ghost without the cooperation of man(De Fide.)
...

2. Virginity During the Birth of Jesus

Mary bore her Son without any violation of her virginal integrity.(De Fide on the ground of the general promulgation of doctrine).
...

3. Virginity After the Birth of Jesus

Also after the Birth of Jesus Mary remained a Virgin.(De Fide.)...

To deny any of this is heresy, you are required to believe this to be a Catholic.

Okay, Maybe I am just an idiot. How does Cardinal Muller deny any of this?

Whether you are an idiot or not I don't know, but my first reply to you would be, to ask: Did you read this entire thread? Once you read it, let me know if you still want to ask the same question "How does Cardinal Muller deny any of this?"

Neil Obstat · « **Reply #85 on:** July 08, 2012, 06:35:15 AM »

Well, now there's news that looks like Muller might be getting some serious opposition.

Whether he denies Church doctrine apparently isn't important to the Vatican, as we
have seen -- it rather looks like his departure from the Faith is commendable,
somehow, for he was appointed anyway, and there is no response to these
accusations.

But now, We Are Church enters the fray:

Catholic World News -- July 05, 2012

http://www.catholicculture.org/news/headlines/index.cfm?storyid=14820

An Austrian organization strongly critical of Church teaching is criticizing Pope Benedict’s appointment of the bishop of Regensburg as the new Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.

Archbishop Gerhard Müller is a “hardliner” who has called “reform groups parasitic,” We Are Church said in a statement. The organization faulted the prelate for “limiting the participation of the laity” and said that he is not a “team player.”

IOW: He's NOT LIBERAL ENOUGH!

Now there's something to worry about!

MyrnaM · « **Reply #86 on:** July 08, 2012, 07:27:13 AM »

While I was still attending the novus ordo church, my parish priest told me, this: "We have no proof that Our Lady, remained a virgin" that was back in 1982.

I said to him, "I wasn't asking for proof, I thought it was a matter of Faith"

Neil Obstat · « **Reply #87 on:** July 08, 2012, 07:29:08 AM »

This is from a month ago, but it backs up what they're now complaining about:

eponymous flower blog

Monday, May 21, 2012
CDF Favorite Calls Dissidents "Parasites"
Edit: where a Cardinal Bernadin or a Cardinal Schonborn have given an ear, advice and credibility to these groups, other Bishops are more critical.

Regensburg Bishop Müller has leveled serious criticisms against "We Are Church" groups: "It can not be that people who bring nothing into being themselves, attach themselves to large events and become parasitic forms of existence.

Mannheim (kath.net) The Bishop of Regensburg Gerhard Ludwig Müller leveled sharp criticisms against various anti-Rman "We Are Church" groups. These groups bring nothing into being and attach themselves to large events. They are a "parasitic form of existence". "It can not be that people, who bring nothing into being themselves, attach themselves to large events and become parasitic forms of existence," explained Müller. The Church may not be a "social form" but must become "evangelical form". Pressure should also not be exerted by decibel levels or applause.

Source site, kath.net:

20. Mai 2012, 20:00
Eine parasitäre Existenzform

Regensburger Bischof Müller übt schwere Kritik an 'Wir sind Kirche'-Gruppen: "Es kann nicht sein, dass Leute, die von sich aus nichts zustande bringen, sich an die großen Veranstaltungen dranhängen und eine parasitäre Existenzform bringen"

Mannheim (kath.net)
Der Regensburger Bischof Gerhard Ludwig Müller hat in einem Interview mit der Nachrichtenagentur DPA scharfe Kritik an den verschiedenen antirömischen "Wir sind Kirche"-Gruppen geübt. Diese Gruppen bekämen nichts zustande und hängten sich an große Veranstaltungen an. Sie seien eine "parasitäre Existenzform". "Es kann nicht sein, dass Leute, die von sich aus nichts zustande bringen, sich an die großen Veranstaltungen dranhängen und eine parasitäre Existenzform bringen.", erklärte Müller. Die Kirche dürfe nicht "gesellschaftskonform" sondern müsse "evangeliumskonform" sein. Durch Applaus oder Phonstärke dürfe außerdem kein Druck ausgeübt werden.

I suspect a translator-robot read:
verschiedenen antirömischen

and rendered it:
various anti-Rman

I think that's supposed to be "anti-Roman" -- no?

German-speaking members: HELP!

If you look at this CDF appointment decision from the other side, from Benedict's
side that is, he might have been taking a "big step" to confirm Muller anyway,
when Muller had dared to be so outspoken against such dissidents recently, in
contrast to the way Bernardin or Schonborn had done in the not-so-distant past.
You might even go so far as to say this could be observed as "A MOVE IN THE
RIGHT DIRECTION," in Benedict's way of thinking -- reminiscent of his shocking
comments regarding condom use, remember?

Don't shoot me, I'm only the messenger!!

SeanJohnson · « **Reply #88 on:** July 08, 2012, 10:50:46 AM »

I shudder to think what the divine punishment must be for those who offend their Judge's own mother!

Their pain will be legendary, even for Hell.

Poor, poor man!

Sigismund · « **Reply #89 on:** July 08, 2012, 03:20:03 PM »

Quote from: Clint

Quote from: Sigismund
Quote from: LordPhan
Dr. Ludwig Ott Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma:

Quote
Mary's Perpetual Virginity

Mary was a virgin before, during and after the Birth of Jesus Christ.

The Lateran Synod of the year 649, under Pope Martin I, stressed the threefold character of Mary's virginity teaching of the "blessed ever-virginal and immaculate Mary" that : "she conceived without seed, of the Holy Ghost, generated without injury(to her viriginity), and her virginity continued unimpaired after the brith" (D 256). Pope Paul IV declared(1555): Beatissimam Virginem Mariam... perstitisse semper in virginitatis integritate, ante partum scilicet, in partu et perpetuo post partum. D 993

Mary's virginity includes virginitas mentis, that is, a constant virinal disposition, virginatas sensus, that is, freedom from inordinate motions of sɛҳuąƖ desire, and virginitas corporis, that is, physical integrity. The Church doctrine refers primarily to Her bodily integrity.

I'm not going to type out the multiple pages proving each one but I will type out the parts that declare them defide.

Quote

1. Virginity Before the Birth

Mary conceived by the Holy Ghost without the cooperation of man(De Fide.)
...

2. Virginity During the Birth of Jesus

Mary bore her Son without any violation of her virginal integrity.(De Fide on the ground of the general promulgation of doctrine).
...

3. Virginity After the Birth of Jesus

Also after the Birth of Jesus Mary remained a Virgin.(De Fide.)...

To deny any of this is heresy, you are required to believe this to be a Catholic.

Okay, Maybe I am just an idiot. How does Cardinal Muller deny any of this?

Whether you are an idiot or not I don't know, but my first reply to you would be, to ask: Did you read this entire thread? Once you read it, let me know if you still want to ask the same question "How does Cardinal Muller deny any of this?"

I have read the whole thread, and I still don't see it.

We must believe that Our Lord was conceived without a human father, without seed. We must believe that Our Lady was sinless. We must believe that she did not suffer from inordinate sɛҳuąƖ emotions. We must believe that she remained a virgin after Christ was born, and never had sɛҳuąƖ relations with St. Joseph or had any other children. That is dogma.

What the Bishop denies is that Mary remained free from pain and the other normal physical manifestations of pregnancy. That she did is a pious belief and may very well be true, but it is not dogma and remains in the realm of theological speculation.

If I am wrong, it is either because I have not correctly understood the bishop or because I am confused about the actual dogmatic content of the doctrine of the virginal conception of Christ. I will happily concede either point if it is true. It would not be the first time I was wrong on Cath Info today.

If I am wrong about the dogma of the virginal conception, please do point out how. I do not want to remain in error about something like that. Thanks.