Upon this [the Virgin Birth] it did - says Msgr Muller - "not deviate from physiological particularities in the natural process of birth (such as something like the non opening of the birth canal, the non-injury of the hymen and not experiencing the pains of birth), rather it's in the healing and saving influence of the Grace of the Savior on human nature."

How does this deny the Virgin Birth? The Virgin Birth means that Our Lady had no relations with man. How does speculation on the birth process (which has nothing to do with virginity) deny the Virgin Birth?

Moreover, Müller is a close personal friend of the renowned Peruvian theologian Gustavo Gutiérrez, considered the father of liberation theology. Every year since 1998, Müller has travelled to Peru to take a course from Gutiérrez, and has spent time living with farmers in a rural parish near the border with Bolivia.

This sounds like guilt by association.  Being friends with someone who believes in liberation theology makes one a "fan" of liberation theology? What courses did Muller take from Gutierrez? And even if something in the course was controversial, is it to be assumed that one agrees with everything taught in  every course one takes?

And finally, does living with farmers in a rural parish in South America now make one a heretic?

Quote

Upon this [the Virgin Birth] it did - says Msgr Muller - "not deviate from physiological particularities in the natural process of birth (such as something like the non opening of the birth canal, the non-injury of the hymen and not experiencing the pains of birth), rather it's in the healing and saving influence of the Grace of the Savior on human nature."

How does this deny the Virgin Birth? The Virgin Birth means that Our Lady had no relations with man. How does speculation on the birth process (which has nothing to do with virginity) deny the Virgin Birth?

 

It is the conclusion of Bishop Galaretta, I would assume he has more information than that line.

He (Bishop Galaretta) complained that the Bishop of Regensburg, Bishop Muller, was named yesterday (30 June) to be the head of the Congregation of the Doctrine and the Faith, even though he denied Mary's perpetual virginity.  It is not acceptable that the leader of the Congregation holds a heresy.

morningstar posted this on a different thread re: Mueller--

This is what Gerhard Mueller believes

Bishop Gerhard Ludwig Müller:


On the Perpetual Virginity of the Most Blessed Virgin Mary:

In his 900-page work “Katholische Dogmatik. Für Studium und Praxis der Theologie” (Freiburg. 5th Edition, 2003), Müller denies the dogma of the Perpetual Virginity of the Blessed Virgin Mary claiming that the doctrine is “not so much concerned with 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.”

On the Real Presence of the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of the Lord in the transubstantiated Eucharistic species:

In 2002, bishop Müller published the book “Die Messe – Quelle des christlichen Lebens” (St. Ulrich Verlag, Augsburg). In this book, he speaks of the Sacrament of the Altar and warns against using the terms “body and blood” in this context. These terms would cause “misunderstandings”, “when flesh and blood are considered to mean the physical and biological components of the human Jesus. Neither is it simply the transfigured body of the resurrected Lord that is being designated.”

Bishop Müller continues: “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.”

Holy Communion transmits according to Müller a “community with Jesus Christ, mediated by eating and drinking the bread and the wine. Even in the merely personal human sphere, something like a letter may represent the friendship between people and, that is to say, show and embody the sympathy of the sender for the receiver.” Bread and wine thus only become “symbols of his salvific presence”.

That is how Mgr Müller explains a “change of being” in the Eucharistic gifts:

“The essential definition of bread and wine has to be conceived in an anthropological way. The natural essence of these offerings [bread and wine] as the fruit of the earth and the work of human hands, as the unity of natural and cultural products consists in clarifying the nourishment and sustenance of man and the communion of the people in the sign of a common meal [...]. This natural essence of bread and wine is transfigured by God in the sense that the essence of bread and wine is made to consist exclusively in showing and realizing the salvific communion with God.”

On Protestantism and the unicity and salvific universality of Our Lord Jesus Christ, as recalled in the Declaration Dominus Iesus:

Bp. Müller revealed a very vague ecclesiastical conception on October 11, 2011, during an honorific speech for Johannes Friedrich, regional “bishop” of the ‘Evangelical-Lutheran Church in Bavaria’. The occasion was the bestowal of the ecuмenical award of the ‘Catholic Academy of Bavaria’.

On this occasion Mgr Müller said the following:

“Baptism is the fundamental sign that sacramentally unites us in Christ, and which presents us as the one Church in front of the world. Thus, we as Catholic and Evangelical Christians are already united even in what we call the visible Church. Strictly speaking, there are not several Churches one beside the other — these are rather divisions and separations within the one people and house of God.”

For Bishop Müller opposition against “Dominus Iesus” was merely based on “misunderstanding”:

“The assertion that the Ecclesial Communities that have not upheld valid episcopacy … are not Churches (plural) in a proper sense is not translated theologically correctly by the bold statement that ‘the Evangelical Church is not actually a Church’. That is because the plural designates the Churches as local Churches with a bishop. The question here is not whether the confessional Churches of reformed character are actual Churches — it is rather whether sacramental episcopacy is a constitutive element of a local Church or of a diocese. The difference between an Evangelical local Church and a Catholic diocese is being described — not evaluated. The Catholic Magisterium is far from denying an ecclesial character or an ecclesial existence to ‘the separated Churches and ecclesial Communities of the West’ (UR 19).”

Bishop Müller describes the heart of ecuмenism as follows:

“We no longer define the relations among us on the basis of existing differences in doctrine, life or in the constitution of the Church, but rather based on what we have in common, that is, on the very foundation on which we stand.”


Disgusting.

How does this deny the Virgin Birth? The Virgin Birth means that Our Lady had no relations with man. How does speculation on the birth process (which has nothing to do with virginity) deny the Virgin Birth?

 

I pray a computer savvy, charitable soul gives Santo a clear example of Catholic dogma.  Or some saintly reflections on the Immaculate Conception.

I wish I could help you, Santo.  The highbrow intellectual pseudo-mystical stuff these old hippies peddle-it's just not Catholic!

A blessed Feast of the Visitation to All.

Quote

Upon this [the Virgin Birth] it did - says Msgr Muller - "not deviate from physiological particularities in the natural process of birth (such as something like the non opening of the birth canal, the non-injury of the hymen and not experiencing the pains of birth), rather it's in the healing and saving influence of the Grace of the Savior on human nature."

How does this deny the Virgin Birth? The Virgin Birth means that Our Lady had no relations with man. How does speculation on the birth process (which has nothing to do with virginity) deny the Virgin Birth?

Quote

Moreover, Müller is a close personal friend of the renowned Peruvian theologian Gustavo Gutiérrez, considered the father of liberation theology. Every year since 1998, Müller has travelled to Peru to take a course from Gutiérrez, and has spent time living with farmers in a rural parish near the border with Bolivia.

This sounds like guilt by association.  Being friends with someone who believes in liberation theology makes one a "fan" of liberation theology? What courses did Muller take from Gutierrez? And even if something in the course was controversial, is it to be assumed that one agrees with everything taught in  every course one takes?

And finally, does living with farmers in a rural parish in South America now make one a heretic?

When I came to Catholicism from Protestantism, I had a really hard time with Our Blessed Mother's Perpetual Virginity.   I admit I have only really come to meditate and reflect on it in the last 5 or so years.

What the Msgr. is suggesting is something similar to what Protestants believe.  They believe that Our Blessed Mother was a virgin when Our Lord was born.  In other words, they believe that the Holy Ghost came upon her while she was still a virgin.  However, this is where her virginity ends with them.

Our Lord's Birth, according to Protestants, was just like any other.  They do not see Mary as anything special.  She gave birth, according to them, just like all women, in pain, which she managed, and in the normal process.  They also believe, that after Our Lord's birth, she and St. Joseph had normal relations.

These two latter ideas are an attack to Our Blessed Mother, and ultimately Our Lord.  Since Our Blessed Mother was Immaculate she could not have given birth in the normal way, as this was a curse given to Eve by God as punishment for her disobedience.  Also, Our Lord by His Divinity would not have come into the world in this normal fashion.  His Divine Birth is both a mystery and a miracle.  What's so miraculous about a vaginal birth in the normal fashion?

Since I converted to Novus Ordo, I never really heard much discussion or direction regarding this.  In fact, I heard very little about Our Blessed Mother at all.  These are things I began to study a few years ago when I read an article about this.  Since then I have been reading and meditating on it.  I have also heard a sermon or two regarding this traditional understanding of Our Blessed Mother's Perpetual Virginity.

What is happening in the modern Catholic church is very subtle.  It is these little things that aren't discussed, really, that the priests and bishops begin to deny or re-interpret.  When the average Catholic has little or no understanding of it, they are easily led to believe that it really doesn't matter or these things must not be reflected on.  In this case of Our Blessed Mother, the thought is it is not actually denying the Virgin Birth and rather than attempt to explain Our Lord's miraculous birth they say to just reflect on the "healing influence" of Our Savior.  

If you follow this thinking through, though, it leads to a denial of Our Lord's Divinity and the Purity of Our Blessed Mother--two ideas that are very prevalent in Protestant thinking.

This is appalling. This man should be forced to recant these heresies.

And he should be forced to dress like a bishop of the Church!




Fr. Gutierrez and Bp. Muller