Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => SSPX Resistance News => Topic started by: Clint on July 02, 2012, 07:48:16 AM
-
New Head of CDF: Reportedly Denies Perpetual Virginity of Our Lady, Fan of Liberation Theology - Also: New Ecclesia Dei Prelate says SSPX should state there is nothing in Vatican II contrary to Tradition (see below)
Bishop de Galaretta warns against new head of CDFe
(Zaitzkofen) Bishop Alfonso de Galarreta has ordained two priests, Franz Amberger and the Czech Ludek Cekavy at the Priestly Seminary of the Heart of Jesus (Zaitzkofen). Auxiliary Bishop Alfonso de Galarreta preached in French which was translated into German by the Rector of the Seminary, Father Frey.
The Bishop preached about the priesthood: The priest has been chosen from among men to mediate the divine for men. His mission is primarily of a supernatural nature. The center of the priestly life is the Holy Mass.
He 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.
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."
Bishop Muller ordained five priests on Saturday.
More: from NCR: February, 2012
Müller himself is a prolific author, having written more than 400 works on a wide variety of theological topics.
Despite his broadly conservative reputation, Müller actually earned his doctorate in 1977 under then-Fr. Karl Lehmann, who went on to become the cardinal of Mainz and the leader of the "moderate" wing of the German bishops' conference. Müller's dissertation was on the famed German Protestant theologian Dietrich Bonhoeffer.
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.
Now DiNoia: The more things change, the more they stay the same...
Newly appointed Ecclesia Dei Prelate, US Archbishop J. Augustine DiNoia, is charged with trying to achieve an accord between the SSPX and Rome. Yet again, there is the insistence that nothing in Vatican II is contrary to Tradition.
In a July 1 interview with the National Catholic Register, DiNola said of the SSPX, "What I've tried to argue is that all they have to do is to say there's nothing in the Council that is contrary to Tradition and that every text, or every part of it that is controversial, should be read in context of the Council, and read it in light of the Tradition. It seems to me, despite their difficulties, they should be able to do that.”
Yet As Archbishop Lefebvre pointed out at the time of the Council, the Docuмent on Religious Liberty does contain text that is contrary to Tradition.
Archbishop Lefebvre further noted that the progressive Fr. Yves Congar openly admitted Vatican II's new doctrine of religious liberty is a rupture with the past. Congar said: "What is new in this teaching in relation to the doctrine of Leo XIII and even of Pius XII…is the determination of the basis peculiar to this liberty, which is sought not in the objective truth of moral or religious good, but in the ontological quality of the human person.”
Congar further stated, ""It cannot be denied that a text like this [the conciliar declaration on Religious Liberty] says materially something different from the Syllabus of 1864, and even almost the opposite of propositions 15, and 77 to 79 of that docuмent."
The SSPX thus cannot agree with Archbishop DiNoia's that "there's nothing in the Council that is contrary to Tradition".
(compiled by JV)
On line at:
http://www.cfnews.org/page10/page43/page43.html
-
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?
-
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?
Open your eyes man!
Have a look at what the man has proposed as to the Blessed Sacrament.
When will you Conciliarists stop defending the non-Catholic ideas of your Churchmen.
Give it up, and convert to the True Church of Christ.
-
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.
-
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?
Change this to:
Moreover, Obama is a close personal friend of the renowned revolutionary Bill Ayers , considered the father of revolutionary overthrow of USA. Every year since 1998, Obama has travelled to Chicago to take courses from Ayers, and has spent time living with "community organizers" referred to him by Ayers.
What does that tell you about Obama? Unless, you know something I don't know, like that Ayers is a teacher of some trade (electrician, plumber, architecture, etc.)?
-
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.
-
This sounds like guilt by association. Being friends with someone who believes in liberation theology makes one a "fan" of liberation theology?
Santo Subito, liberation theology is "one of the team" as far as the conciliarists are concerned so you better watch what you say here or your lose your novus ordo creds.
Liberation Theology, to my knowledge, was never denounced or even looked upon as less than optimal by "our pals" in Benedict XVI's "court".
And on tope of all that....
...the new heard of the CDF denies the Perpetual Virginity of the Blessed Virgin Mary.
So, Santo Subito, recant what you said here because guilt by association assumes that liberation theology is "guilty" and the novus ordites, to my knowledge, have never said it was.
-
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.
-
morningstar posted this on a different thread re: Mueller--
This is what Gerhard Mueller believes
Bishop Gerhard Ludwig Müller:
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.”
That's how a well-educated warlock explains the Most Precious Blood to his acolytes.
-
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?
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.
-
morningstar posted this on a different thread re: Mueller--
This is what Gerhard Mueller believes....
He's lost the Faith or his marbles. Unfortunately you'd be hard pressed to find a bishop that disagrees with what Mueller wrote, including the pope.
-
Here is a very good Traditional sermon on the Virginity of the BVM:
The Perpetual Virginity of the Blessed Virgin Mary (http://www.sensustraditionis.org/webaudio/Sermons/Disk4/Virginity.mp3)
Sermon on the Immaculate Conception:
IMMACULATE CONCEPTION (http://www.audiosancto.org/sermon/20030107-Immaculate-Conception.html)
-
This is appalling. This man should be forced to recant these heresies.
-
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!
(http://api.ning.com/files/aTKboNK4VycGUieYsAnvvID4bhHRLUqx6ii652yj5xb1S5MyTucfLKWAT8yvEv7chIxbrPIE6jKyFR0WQuieuNCesjDPjAAx/mullergutierrez.JPG?width=200)
Fr. Gutierrez and Bp. Muller
-
Here is a very good Traditional sermon on the Virginity of the BVM:
The Perpetual Virginity of the Blessed Virgin Mary (http://www.sensustraditionis.org/webaudio/Sermons/Disk4/Virginity.mp3)
Sermon on the Immaculate Conception:
IMMACULATE CONCEPTION (http://www.audiosancto.org/sermon/20030107-Immaculate-Conception.html)
:sign-surrender:
Please listen and learn, dear Santo Subito.
Thank you very much, Morningstar. Sensus Traditionis is very reliable.
-
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]
-
Thank you Sunbeam.
Short and sweet-anybody may understand this fact!
-
Amazing, really!
The Bishop believes that all churches are one and this is from the Baptism?
Ok.
So, why would the Vatican want to negotiate with the SSPX and UNDER WHAT CIRcuмSTANCE (using the Bishop's logic) could sedevacantists or even home-aloners ever be wrong? None, really.
This is really all about creating a one world church - as stupid as that may sound - and the reason for that is to negate any organized religious stand against the true love of these conciliarists and that is a one world government.
It has to be this.
Otherwise the bishop would prattle on and on in a maudlin manner about how he desires all souls under all circuмstances to be saved and he would prattle on about "looking the other way" on doctrine, discipline and belief just to help get all those souls to Heaven. He never says this so it's clear where his heart truly lies.
-
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]
What does "incorruptably bore [Him?] mean?
And why is "Him" included in brackets and a question mark? Are they not sure of the original text?
Her "virginity remaining indestructable" can mean that she simply did not know man throughout her entire life.
-
The Birth of Christ
by Blessed Anne Catherine Emmerich
The light which surrounded the Blessed Virgin became more and more brilliant: the light of the lamp prepared by Joseph could not be seen. When the hour of midnight arrived Mary was transported in an ecstasy. I saw her raised a certain height from the ground; she had her hands crossed upon her breast. The light kept increasing around her; everything seemed to feel a joyful emotion, even things inanimate. The rock which formed the floor and the wall of the grotto were, as it were, alive with light. But soon I saw no more of the roof; a luminous path, whose bright ness continually increased, went from Mary to the highest heaven. Then was there a marvellous movement of the celestial glories, which, approaching nearer and nearer, appeared distinctly under the form of the angelic choirs. The Blessed Virgin, raised from the earth in her ecstasy, prayed and turned her eyes to her God, of whom she had become the mother, and who, a feeble new-born infant, was lying on the ground before her.
I saw Our Saviour like a little shining infant, whose brilliance eclipsed all the surrounding splendour, lying upon the rug before the knees of the Blessed Virgin. He seemed to me very small, and to grow larger before my eyes; but this was only the radiance of a light so dazzling that I can scarcely say how I could see it.
The Blessed Virgin remained some time in ecstasy. Then I saw her place a linen cloth over the child; but she did not touch Him nor take Him yet into her arms. After a short time I saw the Infant Jesus move, and I heard Him cry. It was then that the Blessed Virgin recovered the use of her senses. She took the child, wrapped it in the linen cloth with which she had covered it, and took it in her arms against her breast. I believe that she suckled it. I then saw angels around her in human form prostrate themselves before the new-born and adore Him.
About an hour had elapsed since the birth of the child, when Mary called Saint Joseph, who was still praying with his face to the ground. Approaching, he prostrated himself, full of joy, humility, and fervour. It was only when Mary had induced him to press to his heart the sacred gift of the Most High, that he rose, received the Infant Jesus in his arms, and returned thanks to God with tears of joy.
Then the Blessed Virgin swathed the Infant Jesus. Mary had only four linen cloths with her. I then saw Mary and Joseph sitting on the ground near each other. They did not speak, but seemed absorbed in contemplation. Before Mary, swathed as an ordinary child, was laid the new-born Jesus, beautiful and bright as lightning. “Ah!” I exclaimed, “this place contains the Salvation of the whole world, and no one can doubt it.”
They then placed the infant in the crib. They had re-filled it with rushes and beautiful plants, on which they had spread a coverlet. It was above the trough, hollowed in the rock to the right of the entrance to the grotto, which became larger there in a southerly direction. When they had placed the infant in the crib they both stood at the side, shedding tears of joy and chanting songs of praise. Joseph then arranged the sleeping couch and seat of the Blessed Virgin by the side of the crib. I saw her, both before and after the birth of Jesus, dressed in a white garment, which completely covered her. I saw her during the first days sitting, kneeling, standing, or even lying on her side, and sleeping; but neither ill nor fatigued.
-
The constant Tradition of the Church before Vatican II at least was that Our Lady suffered none of the pains of childbirth and none of the things common in human birth since the Fall. The "incorruptibly bore Him" part refers to this tradition.
-
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]
What does "incorruptably bore [Him?] mean?
It means without the effects of Original Sin, such as pain and bleeding and so forth. Sorrowful childbirth is explicitly mentioned as the curse God gave women in the garden : "n sorrow shalt thou bring forth children." We can infer that pain is one of the causes of this sorrow, as well as inconvenience and the other things that the glorified bodies of the saints will not endure.
And why is "Him" included in brackets and a question mark? Are they not sure of the original text?
Because bore was not followed by the personal pronoun that English would demand but which was not demanded by the sense of the Latin word that was translated.
Her "virginity remaining indestructable" can mean that she simply did not know man throughout her entire life.
You do not seem to understand the pertinent biology of virginity very much. Of course, it is impermissible for me to go into detail here, but I will say this : There is a way of determining whether or not a woman has remained a virgin, and Our Most Blessed Lady's virginity was perfect, such that she remained incorruptibly intact. Now, you might make the argument that this does not pertain to virginity as such but is simply related to it, but that is not how the Church and the theologians and spiritual writers have taught on the subject of Our Lady's virginity which, as the Lateran Council authoritatively affirms, was "indestructible." And, yes, I will throw in an appeal to the fitness of this teaching, since it was also used by Pius IX -- borrowing from Duns Scotus -- on the question of the Immaculate Conception.
-
The Birth of Christ
by Blessed Anne Catherine Emmerich
The light which surrounded the Blessed Virgin became more and more brilliant: the light of the lamp prepared by Joseph could not be seen. When the hour of midnight arrived Mary was transported in an ecstasy. I saw her raised a certain height from the ground; she had her hands crossed upon her breast. The light kept increasing around her; everything seemed to feel a joyful emotion, even things inanimate. The rock which formed the floor and the wall of the grotto were, as it were, alive with light. But soon I saw no more of the roof; a luminous path, whose bright ness continually increased, went from Mary to the highest heaven. Then was there a marvellous movement of the celestial glories, which, approaching nearer and nearer, appeared distinctly under the form of the angelic choirs. The Blessed Virgin, raised from the earth in her ecstasy, prayed and turned her eyes to her God, of whom she had become the mother, and who, a feeble new-born infant, was lying on the ground before her.
I saw Our Saviour like a little shining infant, whose brilliance eclipsed all the surrounding splendour, lying upon the rug before the knees of the Blessed Virgin. He seemed to me very small, and to grow larger before my eyes; but this was only the radiance of a light so dazzling that I can scarcely say how I could see it.
The Blessed Virgin remained some time in ecstasy. Then I saw her place a linen cloth over the child; but she did not touch Him nor take Him yet into her arms. After a short time I saw the Infant Jesus move, and I heard Him cry. It was then that the Blessed Virgin recovered the use of her senses. She took the child, wrapped it in the linen cloth with which she had covered it, and took it in her arms against her breast. I believe that she suckled it. I then saw angels around her in human form prostrate themselves before the new-born and adore Him.
About an hour had elapsed since the birth of the child, when Mary called Saint Joseph, who was still praying with his face to the ground. Approaching, he prostrated himself, full of joy, humility, and fervour. It was only when Mary had induced him to press to his heart the sacred gift of the Most High, that he rose, received the Infant Jesus in his arms, and returned thanks to God with tears of joy.
Then the Blessed Virgin swathed the Infant Jesus. Mary had only four linen cloths with her. I then saw Mary and Joseph sitting on the ground near each other. They did not speak, but seemed absorbed in contemplation. Before Mary, swathed as an ordinary child, was laid the new-born Jesus, beautiful and bright as lightning. “Ah!” I exclaimed, “this place contains the Salvation of the whole world, and no one can doubt it.”
They then placed the infant in the crib. They had re-filled it with rushes and beautiful plants, on which they had spread a coverlet. It was above the trough, hollowed in the rock to the right of the entrance to the grotto, which became larger there in a southerly direction. When they had placed the infant in the crib they both stood at the side, shedding tears of joy and chanting songs of praise. Joseph then arranged the sleeping couch and seat of the Blessed Virgin by the side of the crib. I saw her, both before and after the birth of Jesus, dressed in a white garment, which completely covered her. I saw her during the first days sitting, kneeling, standing, or even lying on her side, and sleeping; but neither ill nor fatigued.
Dear Stevus,
This is a beautiful description from Anne Catherine Emmerich.
Thank you for posting it.
This is one of the most important posts that you have ever made.
To defend Our Lady from calumny is a very virtuous endeavour.
-
God Bless everyone on this thread who has defended Our Lady.
-
Let us all defend Our Lady when She is attacked.
-
Yet another reason for not "sealing" an agreement with Rome. SSPX, wake up.
:heretic:
-
from: http://www.sacredheart.com/The_Mystical_City_of_God_Book_04_Chapter_04.htm
Book 4, Chapter 4
The Mystical City of God, The Divine History and Life of The Virgin Mother of God
The most holy Mary remained in this ecstasy and beatific vision for over an hour immediately preceding her divine delivery. At the moment when She issued from it and regained the use of her senses She felt and saw that the body of the infant God began to move in her virginal womb; how, releasing and freeing Himself from the place which in the course of nature He had occupied for nine months, He now prepared to issue forth from that sacred bridal chamber. This movement not only did not cause any pain or hardship, as happens with the other daughters of Adam and Eve in their childbirths; but filled Her with incomparable joy and delight, causing in her soul and in her virginal body such exalted and divine effects that they exceed all thoughts of men. Her body became so spiritualized with the beauty of heaven that She seemed no more a human and earthly creature. Her countenance emitted rays of light, like a sun incarnadined, and shone in indescribable earnestness and majesty, all inflamed with fervent love. She was kneeling in the manger, her eyes raised to heaven, her hands joined and folded at her breast, her soul wrapped in the Divinity and She herself was entirely deified. In this position, and at the end of the heavenly rapture, the most exalted Lady gave to the world the Onlybegotten of the Father and her own, our Savior Jesus, true God and man, at the hour of midnight, on a Sunday, in the year of the creation of the world five thousand one hundred and ninety-nine (5199), which is the date given in the Roman Church, and which date has been manifested to me as the true and certain one.
At the end of the beatific rapture and vision of the Mother ever Virgin, which I have described above, was born the Sun of Justice, the Onlybegotten of the eternal Father and of Mary most pure, beautiful, refulgent and immaculate, leaving Her untouched in her virginal integrity and purity and making Her more godlike and forever sacred; for He did not divide, but penetrated the virginal chamber as the rays of the sun penetrate the crystal shrine, lighting it up in prismatic beauty.
The infant God therefore was brought forth from the virginal chamber unencuмbered by any corporeal material substance foreign to Himself. But He came forth glorious and transfigured for the divine infinite wisdom decreed and ordained that the glory of his most holy soul should in his Birth overflow and communicate itself to his body, participating in the gifts of glory in the same way as happened afterwards in his Transfiguration on mount Tabor in the presence of the Apostles (Matth. 17, 2). This miracle was not necessary in order to penetrate the virginal enclosure and to leave unimpaired the virginal integrity; for without this Transfiguration God could have brought this about by other miracles. Thus say the holy doctors, who see no other miracle in this Birth than that the Child was born without impairing the virginity of the Mother. It was the will of God that the most b1essed Virgin should look upon the body of her Son, the God-man, for this first time in a glorified state for two reasons. The one was in order that by this divine vision the most prudent Mother should conceive the highest reverence for the Majesty of Him whom She was to treat as her Son, the true God-man. Although She was already informed of his two-fold nature, the Lord nevertheless ordained that by ocular demonstration She be filled with new graces, corresponding to the greatness of her most holy Son, which was thus manifested to Her in a visible manner. The second reason was to reward by this wonder the fidelity and holiness of the divine Mother; for her most pure and chaste eyes, that had turned away from all earthly things for love of her most holy Son, were to see Him at his very Birth in this glory and thus be rejoiced and rewarded for her loyalty and beautiful love.
-
If idiots like us know all this, and are outraged at such pronouncements by this "bishop", that should also tell you that Bishop Muller has NO FAITH, he has lost the Faith and his marbles. And this is the person the pope picked for the head of the Congregation of the Doctrine and the Faith!
By their deeds you shall know them.
-
If idiots like us know all this, and are outraged at such pronouncement by this "bishop", that should also tell you that that bishop has NO FAITH, he has lost the Faith and his marbles.
His words were put there by Lucifer. Those "higher-ups" in the SSPX that can't see that, are either naive, deceived or in partnership. Therein lies the rub.
-
At the end of the beatific rapture and vision of the Mother ever Virgin, which I have described above, was born the Sun of Justice, the Onlybegotten of the eternal Father and of Mary most pure, beautiful, refulgent and immaculate, leaving Her untouched in her virginal integrity and purity and making Her more godlike and forever sacred; for He did not divide, but penetrated the virginal chamber as the rays of the sun penetrate the crystal shrine, lighting it up in prismatic beauty.
In other words he came out of the womb the same way He came out of the tomb, and the same way that He walked in on the apostles, after the resurrection. He went right through like he was walking through air, not leaving a mark.
-
If idiots like us know all this, and are outraged at such pronouncement by this "bishop", that should also tell you that that bishop has NO FAITH, he has lost the Faith and his marbles.
His words were put there by Lucifer. Those "higher-ups" in the SSPX that can't see that, are either naive, deceived or in partnership. Therein lies the rub.
Maybe making this nut the head of the CDF will open Fellay's eyes. Or maybe Fellay is a mole.
-
At the end of the beatific rapture and vision of the Mother ever Virgin, which I have described above, was born the Sun of Justice, the Onlybegotten of the eternal Father and of Mary most pure, beautiful, refulgent and immaculate, leaving Her untouched in her virginal integrity and purity and making Her more godlike and forever sacred; for He did not divide, but penetrated the virginal chamber as the rays of the sun penetrate the crystal shrine, lighting it up in prismatic beauty.
In other words he came out of the womb the same way He came out of the tomb, and the same way that He walked in on the apostles, after the resurrection. He went right through like he was walking through air, not leaving a mark.
Beautifully stated. Thank you. :pray:
-
At the end of the beatific rapture and vision of the Mother ever Virgin, which I have described above, was born the Sun of Justice, the Onlybegotten of the eternal Father and of Mary most pure, beautiful, refulgent and immaculate, leaving Her untouched in her virginal integrity and purity and making Her more godlike and forever sacred; for He did not divide, but penetrated the virginal chamber as the rays of the sun penetrate the crystal shrine, lighting it up in prismatic beauty.
In other words he came out of the womb the same way He came out of the tomb, and the same way that He walked in on the apostles, after the resurrection. He went right through like he was walking through air, not leaving a mark.
Beautifully stated. Thank you. :pray:
And it is easy to envision in our times, since it's done all the time in movies.
-
Msgr Muller said - "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
Mary of Agreda wrote in the 1600's, and was approved by all the popes since:
leaving Her untouched in her virginal integrity and purity .. for He did not divide, but penetrated the virginal chamber as the rays of the sun penetrate the crystal shrine
The two quotes totally contradict each other. Either 400 years of popes were wrong in approving and recommending Mary of Agreda's "City of God", or Bishop Muller is a nut and a heretic. There's no in between.
-
New Head of CDF: Reportedly Denies Perpetual Virginity of Our Lady, Fan of Liberation Theology - Also: New Ecclesia Dei Prelate says SSPX should state there is nothing in Vatican II contrary to Tradition (see below)
Bishop de Galaretta warns against new head of CDFe
(Zaitzkofen) Bishop Alfonso de Galarreta has ordained two priests, Franz Amberger and the Czech Ludek Cekavy at the Priestly Seminary of the Heart of Jesus (Zaitzkofen). Auxiliary Bishop Alfonso de Galarreta preached in French which was translated into German by the Rector of the Seminary, Father Frey.
The Bishop preached about the priesthood: The priest has been chosen from among men to mediate the divine for men. His mission is primarily of a supernatural nature. The center of the priestly life is the Holy Mass.
He 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.
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."
Bishop Muller ordained five priests on Saturday.
More: from NCR: February, 2012
Müller himself is a prolific author, having written more than 400 works on a wide variety of theological topics.
Despite his broadly conservative reputation, Müller actually earned his doctorate in 1977 under then-Fr. Karl Lehmann, who went on to become the cardinal of Mainz and the leader of the "moderate" wing of the German bishops' conference. Müller's dissertation was on the famed German Protestant theologian Dietrich Bonhoeffer.
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.
Now DiNoia: The more things change, the more they stay the same...
Newly appointed Ecclesia Dei Prelate, US Archbishop J. Augustine DiNoia, is charged with trying to achieve an accord between the SSPX and Rome. Yet again, there is the insistence that nothing in Vatican II is contrary to Tradition.
In a July 1 interview with the National Catholic Register, DiNola said of the SSPX, "What I've tried to argue is that all they have to do is to say there's nothing in the Council that is contrary to Tradition and that every text, or every part of it that is controversial, should be read in context of the Council, and read it in light of the Tradition. It seems to me, despite their difficulties, they should be able to do that.”
Yet As Archbishop Lefebvre pointed out at the time of the Council, the Docuмent on Religious Liberty does contain text that is contrary to Tradition.
Archbishop Lefebvre further noted that the progressive Fr. Yves Congar openly admitted Vatican II's new doctrine of religious liberty is a rupture with the past. Congar said: "What is new in this teaching in relation to the doctrine of Leo XIII and even of Pius XII…is the determination of the basis peculiar to this liberty, which is sought not in the objective truth of moral or religious good, but in the ontological quality of the human person.”
Congar further stated, ""It cannot be denied that a text like this [the conciliar declaration on Religious Liberty] says materially something different from the Syllabus of 1864, and even almost the opposite of propositions 15, and 77 to 79 of that docuмent."
The SSPX thus cannot agree with Archbishop DiNoia's that "there's nothing in the Council that is contrary to Tradition".
(compiled by JV)
On line at:
http://www.cfnews.org/page10/page43/page43.html
Yes, but he wants the SSPX to come and help him restore doctrinal orthodoxy to the Church!!!
Puh-lease....
-
from: http://www.sacredheart.com/The_Mystical_City_of_God_Book_04_Chapter_04.htm
Book 4, Chapter 4
The Mystical City of God, The Divine History and Life of The Virgin Mother of God
The most holy Mary remained in this ecstasy and beatific vision for over an hour immediately preceding her divine delivery. At the moment when She issued from it and regained the use of her senses She felt and saw that the body of the infant God began to move in her virginal womb; how, releasing and freeing Himself from the place which in the course of nature He had occupied for nine months, He now prepared to issue forth from that sacred bridal chamber. This movement not only did not cause any pain or hardship, as happens with the other daughters of Adam and Eve in their childbirths; but filled Her with incomparable joy and delight, causing in her soul and in her virginal body such exalted and divine effects that they exceed all thoughts of men. Her body became so spiritualized with the beauty of heaven that She seemed no more a human and earthly creature. Her countenance emitted rays of light, like a sun incarnadined, and shone in indescribable earnestness and majesty, all inflamed with fervent love. She was kneeling in the manger, her eyes raised to heaven, her hands joined and folded at her breast, her soul wrapped in the Divinity and She herself was entirely deified. In this position, and at the end of the heavenly rapture, the most exalted Lady gave to the world the Onlybegotten of the Father and her own, our Savior Jesus, true God and man, at the hour of midnight, on a Sunday, in the year of the creation of the world five thousand one hundred and ninety-nine (5199), which is the date given in the Roman Church, and which date has been manifested to me as the true and certain one.
At the end of the beatific rapture and vision of the Mother ever Virgin, which I have described above, was born the Sun of Justice, the Onlybegotten of the eternal Father and of Mary most pure, beautiful, refulgent and immaculate, leaving Her untouched in her virginal integrity and purity and making Her more godlike and forever sacred; for He did not divide, but penetrated the virginal chamber as the rays of the sun penetrate the crystal shrine, lighting it up in prismatic beauty.
The infant God therefore was brought forth from the virginal chamber unencuмbered by any corporeal material substance foreign to Himself. But He came forth glorious and transfigured for the divine infinite wisdom decreed and ordained that the glory of his most holy soul should in his Birth overflow and communicate itself to his body, participating in the gifts of glory in the same way as happened afterwards in his Transfiguration on mount Tabor in the presence of the Apostles (Matth. 17, 2). This miracle was not necessary in order to penetrate the virginal enclosure and to leave unimpaired the virginal integrity; for without this Transfiguration God could have brought this about by other miracles. Thus say the holy doctors, who see no other miracle in this Birth than that the Child was born without impairing the virginity of the Mother. It was the will of God that the most b1essed Virgin should look upon the body of her Son, the God-man, for this first time in a glorified state for two reasons. The one was in order that by this divine vision the most prudent Mother should conceive the highest reverence for the Majesty of Him whom She was to treat as her Son, the true God-man. Although She was already informed of his two-fold nature, the Lord nevertheless ordained that by ocular demonstration She be filled with new graces, corresponding to the greatness of her most holy Son, which was thus manifested to Her in a visible manner. The second reason was to reward by this wonder the fidelity and holiness of the divine Mother; for her most pure and chaste eyes, that had turned away from all earthly things for love of her most holy Son, were to see Him at his very Birth in this glory and thus be rejoiced and rewarded for her loyalty and beautiful love.
This is another wonderful quotation about Our Lady.
Venerable Mother Mary of Agreda was a Franciscan Nun in Spain in the 17th Century A.D.
Our Lady dictated the story of Her Life to this Nun.
Venerable Mother Mary of Agreda has the approval of many Popes:
Pope Innocent XI, Pope Alexander VIII, Pope Clement IX, Pope Benedict XIII, Pope Benedict XIV, Pope Clement XI, Pope Clement XIV, Pope Leo XIII, and Pope Pius XI all promoted “The City of God”.
…this most accurate and complete autobiography of the Blessed Virgin Mary, She the Mother of God…as revealed by Mary Herself to Venerable Mother Mary of Jesus, a Franciscan Nun…Pope Innocent XI in [A.D.] 1686 was the first Holy Father to give his approval. Later Alexander VIII, Clement IX and XIV, Benedict XIII and XIV also gave their approbation…
On April 29 [A.D.]1929 His Holiness Pope Pius XI granted a private audience to the publisher of “THE CITY OF GOD.” Referring to the English translation, His Holiness said:
You have done a great work in honour of the Mother of God: She will never permit Herself to be outdone in generosity and will know how to reward a thousand fold…We grant the Apostolic Benediction to all readers and promoters of “The City of God.”
[/b]
Mary of Agreda…has been declared Venerabilis by the Church and her writings have been declared free from error. Her body is preserved incorrupt in Agreda.
The City of God is available in English in four volumes.
You can read The Mystical City of God for free on the internet by clicking this link:
http://www.sacredheart.com/MysticalCityOfGod.htm
-
Thank you, Clint, for posting this beautiful quotation.
-
The CFN webpage links an article in Eponymous Flower, from February 10th, when
Muller was looking like the probable replacement for retiring Levada:
http://eponymousflower.blogspot.com (http://eponymousflower.blogspot.com/2012/02/orthodoxy-averse-bishop-of-regensburg.html)
Apparently this page has been up since 2-10-2012, but CFN is linking it on the
occasion of Muller's appointment, which the linked page effectively predicts,
4 months in advance.
This source page mentions several heresies that Muller has pronounced over the
past few years, but I don't see any mention of his having admitted that what he
is saying is in contradiction to the Church's teachings, so, in typical Modernist
fashion, he is a material heretic but not a formal heretic, which is probably why
B16 likes his style: it's a good match for his own style.
- effective denial of perpetual virginity of Our Lady
- effective denial of transubstantiation in the Eucharist
- effective denial of the unity of the Church
- effective denial of the exclusion of Protestants from the Church
4 heresies, 4 months in advance: at this rate, we'll have 6 more by Christmas! :jester:
It seems to me his belief is approximately Protestant, but like so much in the
Novus Ordo world, it's really a new religion.
The article begins by saying Muller is campaigning (in February) for the CDF post,
by trying to improve his "heretic image by saying conservative things." He has
personal designs on the post because it would help his career as a theology
professor. He's just looking out for number one, as we Americans would say.
Comments on the page include the observation that Muller will be pretty much the
same as Levada has been, so it's business as usual at the CDFe (I had thought
that "Fe" was a typo, but "Fe" is the Spanish word for Faith, e.g., Santa Fe, New
Mexico means Holy Faith).
-
You know, I think this guy being new head of the CDL is a GOOD thing! It should confirm all doubts that may have remained in anyone's mind as to what side to be on; it confirms that +Williamson, +Tisser, and de Galarreta have been right all along, and +Fellay has been wrong.
This scuмbag, and all like him, who denies the perpetual Virginity of Our Blessed Mother is the fruit of Vatican II; the same Vatican II which Fellay pretends "hopes" is a part of Catholic tradition.
:heretic: :heretic: :heretic: :heretic: :heretic:
-
...
This scuмbag, and all like him, who denies the perpetual Virginity of Our Blessed Mother is the fruit of Vatican II; the same Vatican II which Fellay pretends "hopes" is a part of Catholic tradition.
:heretic: :heretic: :heretic: :heretic: :heretic:
I totally agree.
And I love the way that you phrased that, s2srea.
-
What does "incorruptably bore [Him?] mean?
And why is "Him" included in brackets and a question mark? Are they not sure of the original text?
Her "virginity remaining indestructable" can mean that she simply did not know man throughout her entire life.
In the original (1854) edition of Denzinger’s Enchiridion, Canon 3 of the Lateran Council (649) reads:
Can. 3. Si quis secundum sanctos Patres non confitetur proprie et secundum veritatem Dei genetricem Sanctam semperque Virginem et immaculatam Mariam, utpote ipsum Deum Verbum specialiter et vericiter , qui a Deo Patre ante omnia saecula natus est, in ultimis saeculorum absque semine concepisse ex Spiritu Sancto, et incorruptibiliter eam genuisse, indissolubili permanente et post partum eiusdem virginitate, condemnatus sit.
However, the 1922 Denzinger/Bannwart edition, has ‘[eum?]’ inserted after the pronoun ‘eam’. This accounts for the insertion of ‘[Him?]’ in the Ferarri translation.
It seems that, as editor, Fr Bannwart questioned whether the given expression ‘incorruptibiliter eam genuisse’ (that she incorruptibly gave birth), should read ‘incorruptibiliter eum genuisse’ (that she incorruptibly bore him). The question legitimately arises because the grammatical form of the expression is that of indirect discourse, whereby the subject, instead of going into the nominative case, goes into the accusative case, and this introduces the potential ambiguity of the expression.
The difference here between ‘eam’ and ‘eum’ has no effect on the doctrinal meaning of the canon. Fr Bannwart may have thought that the word ‘eum’ was more likely to have been used in the original text.
When the Enchiridion was compiled, the original text of the canon had probably been long lost, for according to a note that appears in both editions mentioned above, the text was taken from a letter of Pope St Agatho (678-681). Therefore, it is conceivable that between the Council (649) and the writing of the letter (678 at the earliest) - a lapse of at least 29 years - a transcription error may have got into the extant docuмentation and hence into the said letter. Nevertheless, the whole subject of the canon and the manner of its construction suggests to me that ‘eam’ was correct.
So,
incorruptibiliter eam genuisse, indissolubili permanente et post partum eiusdem virginitate
can be translated as:
that she incorruptibly gave birth, remaining with the same unbroken maidenhood even after having given birth
In other words, the Blessed Virgin Mary gave birth to our Lord in such a manner as to leave her body entirely intact. This implies that it was a miraculous occurrence, as befits the entrance into our world of the Son of God made man.
It is interesting to note that this element of our Catholic faith rests, in the first instance, upon the word of our Blessed Lady herself.
-
Venerable Mother Mary of Agreda was a Franciscan Nun in Spain in the 17th Century A.D.
Our Lady dictated the story of Her Life to this Nun.
Venerable Mother Mary of Agreda has the approval of many Popes:
Pope Innocent XI, Pope Alexander VIII, Pope Clement IX, Pope Benedict XIII, Pope Benedict XIV, Pope Clement XI, Pope Clement XIV, Pope Leo XIII, and Pope Pius XI all promoted “The City of God”.
…this most accurate and complete autobiography of the Blessed Virgin Mary, She the Mother of God…as revealed by Mary Herself to Venerable Mother Mary of Jesus, a Franciscan Nun…Pope Innocent XI in [A.D.] 1686 was the first Holy Father to give his approval. Later Alexander VIII, Clement IX and XIV, Benedict XIII and XIV also gave their approbation…
On April 29 [A.D.]1929 His Holiness Pope Pius XI granted a private audience to the publisher of “THE CITY OF GOD.” Referring to the English translation, His Holiness said:
You have done a great work in honour of the Mother of God: She will never permit Herself to be outdone in generosity and will know how to reward a thousand fold…We grant the Apostolic Benediction to all readers and promoters of “The City of God.”
[/b]
Mary of Agreda…has been declared Venerabilis by the Church and her writings have been declared free from error. Her body is preserved incorrupt in Agreda.
The City of God is available in English in four volumes.
You can read The Mystical City of God for free on the internet by clicking this link:
http://www.sacredheart.com/MysticalCityOfGod.htm
Ven. Mother Mary of Agreda is a rather unique mystic in the history of the Church.
She was the recipient of extraordinary favors from God, one of which must
have been bi-location. It is very challenging to docuмent such a thing, but it
was recorded years after her death, by missionaries who were making their way
northward into the territory that is now southwestern USA, that out of the
wilderness came a procession of indigenous people whom they had never seen,
who recognized the missionaries immediately because of the black cassocks
they wore. The American Indians asked to be baptized and to receive instruction.
When they were questioned, they explained to the missionaries that a woman
dressed like them, but wearing a brown robe with white trim (the Franciscan
habit) had visited them over an extended period, giving them catechism lessons
and telling them about the Faith, so that they had learned a strong desire to be
baptized, and that they would have the opportunity soon, if they would go to
meet the Blackrobes, as they had now done.
Mother Mary of Agreda never traveled out of Spain. But these natives 6 thousand
miles away, over the Atlantic Ocean and across America, had met her, and had
learned the Faith from her, decades before the first missionaries were to arrive.
And their new faith was kept alive during the years that they had waited for the
missionaries to come nearby.
-
Venerable Mother Mary of Agreda was a Franciscan Nun in Spain in the 17th Century A.D.
Our Lady dictated the story of Her Life to this Nun.
Venerable Mother Mary of Agreda has the approval of many Popes:
Pope Innocent XI, Pope Alexander VIII, Pope Clement IX, Pope Benedict XIII, Pope Benedict XIV, Pope Clement XI, Pope Clement XIV, Pope Leo XIII, and Pope Pius XI all promoted “The City of God”.
…this most accurate and complete autobiography of the Blessed Virgin Mary, She the Mother of God…as revealed by Mary Herself to Venerable Mother Mary of Jesus, a Franciscan Nun…Pope Innocent XI in [A.D.] 1686 was the first Holy Father to give his approval. Later Alexander VIII, Clement IX and XIV, Benedict XIII and XIV also gave their approbation…
On April 29 [A.D.]1929 His Holiness Pope Pius XI granted a private audience to the publisher of “THE CITY OF GOD.” Referring to the English translation, His Holiness said:
You have done a great work in honour of the Mother of God: She will never permit Herself to be outdone in generosity and will know how to reward a thousand fold…We grant the Apostolic Benediction to all readers and promoters of “The City of God.”
[/b]
Mary of Agreda…has been declared Venerabilis by the Church and her writings have been declared free from error. Her body is preserved incorrupt in Agreda.
The City of God is available in English in four volumes.
You can read The Mystical City of God for free on the internet by clicking this link:
http://www.sacredheart.com/MysticalCityOfGod.htm
Ven. Mother Mary of Agreda is a rather unique mystic in the history of the Church.
She was the recipient of extraordinary favors from God, one of which must
have been bi-location. It is very challenging to docuмent such a thing, but it
was recorded years after her death, by missionaries who were making their way
northward into the territory that is now southwestern USA, that out of the
wilderness came a procession of indigenous people whom they had never seen,
who recognized the missionaries immediately because of the black cassocks
they wore. The American Indians asked to be baptized and to receive instruction.
When they were questioned, they explained to the missionaries that a woman
dressed like them, but wearing a brown robe with white trim (the Franciscan
habit) had visited them over an extended period, giving them catechism lessons
and telling them about the Faith, so that they had learned a strong desire to be
baptized, and that they would have the opportunity soon, if they would go to
meet the Blackrobes, as they had now done.
Mother Mary of Agreda never traveled out of Spain. But these natives 6 thousand
miles away, over the Atlantic Ocean and across America, had met her, and had
learned the Faith from her, decades before the first missionaries were to arrive.
And their new faith was kept alive during the years that they had waited for the
missionaries to come nearby.
Yes, it is very true, Neil.
Mother Mary of Agreda bi-located.
She was in Spain, but was simultaneously in what is now America.
She converted many of the Indians.
-
It shouldn't take a genius to see that a humble nun, living a life of prayer, penance
and obedience in Spain, never appointed to any fancy office or having traveled
outside her quiet region, would convert foreigners in distant lands who would then
keep their faith alive for years while they waited for the arrival of missionaries; yet
a prominent bishop, Muller, who is given the attention of millions of the faithful, is
presiding over a crumbling edifice, apparently unable to convert anyone, especially
since his message includes at least 4 heresies. Who would want to listen to that?
And who does B16 choose to head the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith?
He would have been better off with a janitor. I've known some pretty faithful janitors.
-
You know, I think this guy being new head of the CDL is a GOOD thing! It should confirm all doubts that may have remained in anyone's mind as to what side to be on;
God knows what he's doing. For those that have eyes to see let them see. It gets more and more obvious for the Novus Ordos, but truly, there must be few with eyes to see, likely because their sins.
-
You know, I think this guy being new head of the CDL is a GOOD thing! It should confirm all doubts that may have remained in anyone's mind as to what side to be on; it confirms that +Williamson, +Tisser, and de Galarreta have been right all along, and +Fellay has been wrong.
This scuмbag, and all like him, who denies the perpetual Virginity of Our Blessed Mother is the fruit of Vatican II; the same Vatican II which Fellay pretends "hopes" is a part of Catholic tradition.
:heretic: :heretic: :heretic: :heretic: :heretic:
Spot on.
The worst of his heretical ramblings seem to be reserved for the Holy Eucharist, however:
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.”
The man stands condemned by the Fourth Lateran Council, the Council of Trent as well as the perennial teachings of the Church.
-
It shouldn't come as a surprise that someone as sick in the head with modernism as Benedict XVI would appoint someone like this.
It should also come as no surprise that Santo Subito defends this man because he himself is a Novus Ordite who also believes that Muslims worship God The Father, that atheists are of good will, and that there is salvation outside the Catholic Church.
-
The CFN webpage links an article in Eponymous Flower, from February 10th, when
Muller was looking like the probable replacement for retiring Levada:
http://eponymousflower.blogspot.com (http://eponymousflower.blogspot.com/2012/02/orthodoxy-averse-bishop-of-regensburg.html)
Apparently this page has been up since 2-10-2012, but CFN is linking it on the
occasion of Muller's appointment, which the linked page effectively predicts,
4 months in advance.
This source page mentions several heresies that Muller has pronounced over the
past few years, but I don't see any mention of his having admitted that what he
is saying is in contradiction to the Church's teachings, so, in typical Modernist
fashion, he is a material heretic but not a formal heretic, which is probably why
B16 likes his style: it's a good match for his own style.
- effective denial of perpetual virginity of Our Lady
- effective denial of transubstantiation in the Eucharist
- effective denial of the unity of the Church
- effective denial of the exclusion of Protestants from the Church
4 heresies, 4 months in advance: at this rate, we'll have 6 more by Christmas! :jester:
It seems to me his belief is approximately Protestant, but like so much in the
Novus Ordo world, it's really a new religion.
The article begins by saying Muller is campaigning (in February) for the CDF post,
by trying to improve his "heretic image by saying conservative things." He has
personal designs on the post because it would help his career as a theology
professor. He's just looking out for number one, as we Americans would say.
Comments on the page include the observation that Muller will be pretty much the
same as Levada has been, so it's business as usual at the CDFe (I had thought
that "Fe" was a typo, but "Fe" is the Spanish word for Faith, e.g., Santa Fe, New
Mexico means Holy Faith).
I'm only quoting myself so you can know what I'm talking about.
To B16, appearances are everything.
Appearances are more important than dogma.
Appearances are more important than the sacraments.
Appearances are more important than protecting Tradition we have received.
Appearances are more important than protecting the purity of our children
Appearances are more important than condemning error
His whole life is all about what seems to be, instead of what is.
It's really a problem of ontology, of which B16 is ignorant, perhaps invincibly.
Therefore, when Muller is seen working on his image such that he may appear
to be more conservative, that is a mark of greatness to B16.
That must be how he got the job, because he APPEARS great to B16.
-
The worst of his heretical ramblings seem to be reserved for the Holy Eucharist, however:
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.”
The man stands condemned by the Fourth Lateran Council, the Council of Trent as well as the perennial teachings of the Church.
We all need to do extra Five First Saturdays of Reparation. :shocked: I have not kept up with these frauds say about the Queen of Angels and Apostles for many years. It's worse than I understood back then!!!
-
The worst of his heretical ramblings seem to be reserved for the Holy Eucharist, however:
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.”
The man stands condemned by the Fourth Lateran Council, the Council of Trent as well as the perennial teachings of the Church.
We all need to do extra Five First Saturdays of Reparation. :shocked: I have not kept up with these frauds say about the Queen of Angels and Apostles for many years. It's worse than I understood back then!!!
One of the 5 reasons for the 5 First Saturdays Devotion is to make reparation for
the blasphemy against Our Lady's divine maternity and perpetual virginity. So,
yes, it's a great idea to practice this devotion without ceasing, and to encourage
others to do the same. If you know someone who desires to do it but keeps
having obstacles get in his way, do what you can to help him alleviate the
obstacles, and he very well could become ETERNALLY grateful for your help!
Muller has professed at least 4 heresies:
- effective denial of perpetual virginity of Our Lady
- effective denial of transubstantiation in the Eucharist
- effective denial of the unity of the Church
- effective denial of the exclusion of Protestants from the Church
But it's up to us to recognize it because Rome has been practicing the bad
policy of "no condemnation of error" for the past 50 years, since 1962, and
now, this year, instead of another Assisi abomination, there's going to be a
Vatican II abomination, whereby the infamous date of October 11th (another
insult to Our Lady's maternity because it is the TRADITIONAL feast of the
Divine Maternity of the Ever Virgin Mary) will be the 50th anniversary of this
notorious blasphemy against the Holy Ghost (spouse of the Virgin Mary), for
which there is no forgiveness either in this world or in the world to come!
-
Here's a recent email from Fr. Brian hαɾɾιson:
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."
Here's an ineresting interviwew with Archbishop Di Noia, OP, new Vice-President of the Ecclesia Dei Commission:
http://www.ncregister.com/daily-news/archbishop-dinoia-ecclesia-dei-and-the-society-of-st.-pius-x#ixzz1zSVFoELj
-
I don't understand the excitement about another heretical Newchurch bishop. Most of the Newchurch clerics are heretics. That's why Archbishop Lefebvre founded the SSPX and that's why we Catholics can't attend the Newchurch. It's not because our Latin mass priests got nicer robes.
Don't miss Stephen Heiner's fine interview with Bishop Tissier de Mallerais in 2006 (I think), where the good Bishop underlined the fact of Cardinal Ratzinger having written a book full of heresies. This book named "Einführung in das Christentum" (Introduction to the Christendom or so) amongst other terrible things denies the virginity of our Blessed Virgin Mary.
Some time ago the Pope re-newed his book, i.e. it got re-published with the very same old heretical content. So the Pope really upholds all his "old" heresies.
Come on, that's no news, is it? Read Bishop Tissier's recent booklet The Faith imperilled by Reason (English translation in 2010). Yes, the one which got banned by the New-SSPX. Bishop Williamson summed it up nonetheless in his Eleison Comments Papal Error in the beginning of 2010.
So, the Bishop of the bishops upholds heresies. Why is it a surprise then that his bishops say, write and uphold heresies, too?
Well, "modernism is the summary of all heresies" told St. Pius X., and the Newchurch-men including the Newpope are persistent modernists.
That's why the good Archbishop Lefebvre distinguished between the real Church and the Conciliar Church aka Newchurch. The modernised SSPX doesn't do so anymore, and that's why they're blinded. However Bishop Williamson followed the Archbishop by establishing the Orwellian words "Newchurch", "Newpope", etc. some time ago in his excellent Eleison Comments.
Let's quote some passage from Archbishop Lefebvre's newsletter from 29 July 1976 :
We are suspended a divinis by the Conciliar Church and for the Conciliar Church, to which we have no wish to belong.
That Conciliar Church is a schismatic Church, because it breaks with the Catholic Church that has always been. It has its new dogmas, its new priesthood, its new institutions, its new worship, all already condemned by the Church in many a docuмent, official and definitive.
[..]
This Religious Liberty [of Vatican II] is blasphemous [..]
The Church that affirms such errors is at once schismatic and heretical. This Conciliar Church is, therefore, not Catholic. To whatever extent Pope, Bishops, priests, or faithful adhere to this new Church, they separate themselves from the Catholic Church.
[..]
(The entire news-letter is a must-read.)
-
True. The conciliar church is advanced enough to breed her own divisions. Why should trads get into a flap over what faction is in vogue? Those worrying about the effect on a deal with Rome have already given up the fight. We should rejoice that she shows her true colours!
-
Sorry, Ethelred. I was trying to quote just a portion, but messed up. I think some here are hoping that those who are pro-accordistas will wake up eventually if they read enough blatant heresy coming from the Pope himself, or those given high positions in the curia. But what you say is sadly very true.
-
What can I say, except it's wonderful to be with folk you love and defend Our Lady's honour.
This thing about a heretic being appointed as head of CDF. Well, it really is par for the course in the conciliar church.
Remember: Let no one in any way deceive you, for it will not come unless the apostasy comes first, and the man of lawlessness is revealed, the son of destruction, (2 Thessalonians 2: 3)
-
"I don't understand the excitement about another heretical Newchurch bishop. Most of the Newchurch clerics are heretics. ......Don't miss Stephen Heiner's fine interview with Bishop Tissier de Mallerais in 2006 (I think), where the good Bishop underlined the fact of Cardinal Ratzinger having written a book full of heresies"
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
People (Fr. hαɾɾιson for instance) over time become accustomed to things and soon forget that Ratzinger was/is actually worse than Muller, so, when a new face comes into the scene, another heretic, who is not a pope, it opens peoples eyes again. Likely this will convert some more people, at least those that still have eyes to see.
Reminds me of parents who go with their bikini wearing teenagers to the beach, and are one day "shocked" to find a girl who is topless. Maybe it will wake them up to the fact that their own daughter is naked too? More than likely, it won't.
-
What continues to amaze me is there are Traditional Catholics who still deny that the Conciliar Church is a different religion no matter what heresies are spewed from the mouth or pen of their Churchmen up to and including the “Pope”.
In Muller’s blatant heresy concerning transubstantiation:
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.”
He sounds like Martin Luther. Didn’t Luther say that Christ was present in the bread?
By the way if anyone wants to download the Mystical City of God to their computer in PDF format, it is available from Archive.org here:Mystical City of God (http://archive.org/search.php?query=the%20mystical%20city%20of%20god)
-
Couldn't a Catholic believe that Mary gave birth naturally, though without pain of labor and without harming her body in any way? Of course Muller goes beyond this, allowing for the normal injury to a woman's body during childbirth.
Also what level is this teaching? It doesn't seem like it was infallibly pronounced ex cathedra. It was a statement from a non general Council, was it not? Thanks.
-
Here's a recent email from Fr. Brian hαɾɾιson:
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."
Here's an ineresting interviwew with Archbishop Di Noia, OP, new Vice-President of the Ecclesia Dei Commission:
http://www.ncregister.com/daily-news/archbishop-dinoia-ecclesia-dei-and-the-society-of-st.-pius-x#ixzz1zSVFoELj
The old sedevacantist "he who is not part of the Mystical Body cannot be it's head" line comes to mind here.
This man, who is not part of the Catholic Church, will never render a juridical ruling with any force of law, since jurisdiction presupposes Catholicity before all else.
He could no more bind than Ghandi could.
He is completely irrelevent, except for the damage he will do to the Church.
-
Couldn't a Catholic believe that Mary gave birth naturally, though without pain of labor and without harming her body in any way? Of course Muller goes beyond this, allowing for the normal injury to a woman's body during childbirth.
Also what level is this teaching? It doesn't seem like it was infallibly pronounced ex cathedra. It was a statement from a non general Council, was it not? Thanks.
NO
You may be too young to have been raised Catholic, or something.
The Mother of God is Immaculate.
No sin or effects of sin whatsoever. Virgin birth. Please read what these kind people took the time to give to you, out of their kindness.
-
Couldn't a Catholic believe that Mary gave birth naturally, though without pain of labor and without harming her body in any way? Of course Muller goes beyond this, allowing for the normal injury to a woman's body during childbirth.
Also what level is this teaching? It doesn't seem like it was infallibly pronounced ex cathedra. It was a statement from a non general Council, was it not? Thanks.
NO
You may be too young to have been raised Catholic, or something.
The Mother of God is Immaculate.
No sin or effects of sin whatsoever. Virgin birth. Please read what these kind people took the time to give to you, out of their kindness.
SS, did you even bother to listen to the Traditional sermons I provided for you? They are listed on page 2 of this thread, in case you missed them.
Please, for the good sake of your soul, listen to the sermons. And take heed also to what Elizabeth and others have tried in charity to help you understand.
If, after listening to the sermons and what good folks here have tried explaining, you are still confused, then perhaps it's best for you to get counsel from a Traditional priest on this issue.
-
Couldn't a Catholic believe that Mary gave birth naturally, though without pain of labor and without harming her body in any way? Of course Muller goes beyond this, allowing for the normal injury to a woman's body during childbirth.
Also what level is this teaching? It doesn't seem like it was infallibly pronounced ex cathedra. It was a statement from a non general Council, was it not? Thanks.
Explain to me how the Blessed Mother of God, could "gave birth naturally, without harming her body in any way"? The very act of natural childbirth would cause the injuries described by Mueller.
Our Lord walked through stone, and through walls, and walked unseen right past a crowd that was going to stone him, what is so odd to you about him coming out of the womb like a ray of light goes through glass? I find it more difficult to explain "your way", that she "gave birth naturally, without harming her body in any way", in fact I can't explain it, hence, I had to ask you above to explain.
P.S.- personally, I cringe, every time someone calls Our Lord Jesus Christ, just Jesus, and the Blessed Mother of God, just Mary. It's worse than calling say King Henry, Henry, in his time. If one were to do so, back then, they'd likely be flogged or worse. It's totally demeaning and egalitarian to call the Great Mother of God, just Mary, very Protestant.
-
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.
-
Dear Santo Subito,
In the same way, the faithful that write on this thread of Cathinfo:
"shuddered with horror. ... rose to give expression to the general indignation, and protested against this impiety of (Bishop Mueller) ..we are grief-stricken, and launching an anathema against anyone who should dare to say ANYTHING against the Blessed Mother... 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."
-
Pope St.Leo the Great in the fifth century said
"And by a new nativity He was begotten, conceived by a Virgin, born of a Virgin, without paternal desire, without injury to the mother's chastity: because such a birth as knew no taint of human flesh, became One who was to be the Saviour of men, while it possessed in itself the nature of human substance."
This doctrine that Our Lady experience no labor pains or birth pangs is also spoken of in Holy Writ by the prophet Isaiah in a mystical way, imperceptible to the heretics, as his other prophecies of Our Lord were impercebtible to the Jews.
Isa 66:7 Before she was in labour, she brought forth; before her time came to be delivered, she brought forth a man child. Who has ever heard such a thing? And who has seen the like to this?
Likewise, it was revealed to the Prophets that that way in which the Lord enters shall be sanctified, unique, indestructible, and no one else shall enter by it, which suffices to disprove both the heresies, either the blasphemy that Our Lady had other children, or the equally senseless opinion espoused by Bishop Muller touching Our Lady's perfect virginity during Our Lord's birth.
Ez 44:2 And the Lord said to me: This gate shall be shut, it shall not be opened, and no man shall pass through it: because the Lord the God of Israel has entered in by it, and it shall be shut
This is the interpretation of sacred Scripture of the Fathers and the Saints which Tradition has handed down to us.
-
Dear Santo Subito,
In the same way, the faithful that write on this thread of Cathinfo:
"shuddered with horror. ... rose to give expression to the general indignation, and protested against this impiety of (Bishop Mueller) ..we are grief-stricken, and launching an anathema against anyone who should dare to say ANYTHING against the Blessed Mother... 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."
This is worth repeating.
-
In other words he came out of the womb the same way He came out of the tomb,
Absolutely correct and almost exactly what the Fathers of Trent thought.
From the Catechism of the Council of Trent
http://www.cin.org/users/james/ebooks/master/trent/tcreed03.htm
The Nativity Of Christ Transcends The Order Of Nature
But as the Conception itself transcends the order of nature, so also the birth of our Lord presents to our contemplation nothing but what is divine.
Besides, what is admirable beyond the power of thoughts or words to express, He is born of His Mother without any diminution of her maternal virginity, just as He afterwards went forth from the sepulchre while it was closed and sealed, and entered the room in which His disciples were assembled, the doors being shut; or, not to depart from every day examples, just as the rays of the sun penetrate without breaking or injuring in the least the solid substance of glass, so after a like but more exalted manner did Jesus Christ come forth from His mother's womb without injury to her maternal virginity. This immaculate and perpetual virginity forms, therefore, the just theme of our eulogy. Such was the work of the Holy Ghost, who at the Conception and birth of the Son so favoured the Virgin Mother as to impart to her fecundity while preserving inviolate her perpetual virginity.
-
I don't understand the excitement about another heretical Newchurch bishop.
Yes, didn't Si Si No No publish "Prefect Without Faith at the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith"
In reference to Cardinal Ratzinger. And now people are surprised that that same man has chosen someone who doesn't have the Catholic Faith to be in the same position. Have they not been listening to what the SSPX literature said for years? It really puzzles me, how people who have attended the SSPX for so long could fail to understand the real situation, and then be surprised at something like this happening.
So, the Bishop of the bishops upholds heresies. Why is it a surprise then that his bishops say, write and uphold heresies, too?
Well, "modernism is the summary of all heresies" told St. Pius X., and the Newchurch-men including the Newpope are persistent modernists.
Yes, that's why the SSPX is called the SSPX.
That's why the good Archbishop Lefebvre distinguished between the real Church and the Conciliar Church aka Newchurch. The modernised SSPX doesn't do so anymore, and that's why they're blinded. However Bishop Williamson followed the Archbishop by establishing the Orwellian words "Newchurch", "Newpope", etc. some time ago in his excellent Eleison Comments.
Yes, and not wishing to call a modernist a modernist so that your people will follow you into his camp - that is simply obscurantism.
-
What about Msgr. Bux's defense?
http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2012/07/mgr-bux-on-muller-these-complainers-are.html
In his book on Dogmatics, Müller writes that the doctrine of the Virginity of Mary "not so much concerned with specific physiological proprieties in the natural process of birth"
The Catechism of the Catholic Church states that the physical aspect of virginity is due entirely to the fact that Jesus was conceived without human seed, but by the action of the Holy Spirit. It is a divine work that exceeds all understanding and human possibility. The Church professes the real and perpetual Virginity of Mary but does not enter into physical details; neither does it seem that the Councils and the Fathers stated otherwise.
In this line, it seems to me, along which what Müller wrote should be understood, [Müller] does not support a "doctrine" that denies the dogma of the Perpetual Virginity of Mary, but warns against a certain, as it were, "Capernaism", i.e. a way of reasoning "according to the flesh" and not "according to the spirit", that already appeared at Capernaum among the Jews at the end of Jesus ' discourse on the bread of life. [Jn vi]
-
Santo Subito,
Why not engage in dialogue? A lot of people are posting very profound and pious statements regarding the defense of the Blessed Virgin. Love is due to her and love should be expressed - it's a cause for tears when we have to defend her, especially when we have to defend her against the heretical words of a cardinal. (A cardinal, no less!!! Baffling, when you think about it.)
But let's get back to you. Respond or refute something that one of us has said before you spew some nonsensical novus ordo stuff that is unrelated.
I, for one, don't care if Nicola Bux (did I spell that right?) wants to try to play word games. He's only fooling himself.
Please at least show some sign that what the others has said has at lead registered with you.
-
Santo Subito,
Why not engage in dialogue? A lot of people are posting very profound and pious statements regarding the defense of the Blessed Virgin. Love is due to her and love should be expressed - it's a cause for tears when we have to defend her, especially when we have to defend her against the heretical words of a cardinal. (A cardinal, no less!!! Baffling, when you think about it.)
But let's get back to you. Respond or refute something that one of us has said before you spew some nonsensical novus ordo stuff that is unrelated.
I, for one, don't care if Nicola Bux (did I spell that right?) wants to try to play word games. He's only fooling himself.
Please at least show some sign that what the others has said has at lead registered with you.
Of course the passionate defense of Our Lady is expected from any Catholic. But, in this case, the question is whether Cardinal Muller said anything that in any way attacked or offended Our Lady. The emotional responses of some on a message board do not equate to evidence.
Msgr. Bux presents an argument that the perpetual viriginity of Mary means only that she was conceived by God and not man. That the Church has not made any dogmatic pronouncement on the physical or biological aspects and this is not what the Church is concerned with. She is more concerned with the spiritual significance. How do you (or anyone else) respond to this? Thanks.
-
Of course the passionate defense of Our Lady is expected from any Catholic. But, in this case, the question is whether Cardinal Muller said anything that in any way attacked or offended Our Lady. The emotional responses of some on a message board do not equate to evidence.
Msgr. Bux presents an argument that the perpetual viriginity of Mary means only that she was conceived by God and not man. That the Church has not made any dogmatic pronouncement on the physical or biological aspects and this is not what the Church is concerned with. She is more concerned with the spiritual significance. How do you (or anyone else) respond to this? Thanks.
This is but one of your errors. The Church has in fact made dogmatic pronouncement on this, and the Church is indeed concerned! Please get hold of your Catholic bearings!
There are four dogmas stating Our Blessed Mother's personal relationship with God and her role in human salvation. One of the four dogmas concerns the Perpetual Virginity of the Blessed Virgin. I could site more complex theology, but it seems you need to have it spelled out in the simplest of terms, so please read the dogma below.
By the way SS, did you even bother to listen to the sermons I provided for you earlier on this thread?
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." 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).
Although never explicated in detail, the Catholic Church holds as dogma that Mary was and is Virgin before, in and after Christ's birth. [/b]
-
Of course the passionate defense of Our Lady is expected from any Catholic. But, in this case, the question is whether Cardinal Muller said anything that in any way attacked or offended Our Lady. The emotional responses of some on a message board do not equate to evidence.
Msgr. Bux presents an argument that the perpetual viriginity of Mary means only that she was conceived by God and not man. That the Church has not made any dogmatic pronouncement on the physical or biological aspects and this is not what the Church is concerned with. She is more concerned with the spiritual significance. How do you (or anyone else) respond to this? Thanks.
SantoSubito- WHAT THE HELL ARE THEY TEACHING YOU OVER THERE MAN?!
I'm sorry, and I'm not one to say things like this, but I can not see how a Catholic who is being completely honest would respond they way you just have. That is disgusting filth. I thought you were of good faith, and I still hope so, but now I can see you are here with an objective agenda- defend the NovusOrdo NewChuch at all costs. I don't think this makes you evil, only hugely misdirected, though well intentioned.
-
Dr. Ludwig Ott Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma:
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.
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.
-
LORDPHAN Posted:
Dr. Ludwig Ott Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma:
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.
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.
-
... and thank you LordPhan. Great post.
-
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.
(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.
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.
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.
-
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.
-
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".
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
Dr. Ludwig Ott Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma:
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.
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?
-
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.
-
Dr. Ludwig Ott Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma:
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.
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?"
-
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 (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!
-
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"
-
This is from a month ago, but it backs up what they're now complaining about:
eponymous flower blog (http://eponymousflower.blogspot.com/2012/05/cdf-favorite-goes-after-dissidents.html)
(http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-vSuS2lqx918/T7oCprvZF0I/AAAAAAAACs4/vilMVQnIIFA/s1600/36646.jpg)
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 (http://kath.net/detail.php?id=36646):
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!!
-
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!
-
Dr. Ludwig Ott Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma:
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.
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.
-
The Modernist, Gerhard Müller, appointed to head the CDF is responsible for the following assertions:
"[The perpetual virginity of Mary] is not so much about 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, that had been wounded by Original Sin. ... it is not so much about physiologically and empirically verifiable somatic Details." (Katholische Dogmatik für Studium und Praxis, Freiburg 52003, p. 498)
This is heretical.
Scheeben's Mariology, vol. I, pp 110-112.
CHAPTER VII MARY’S PERPETUAL VIRGINITY (1)
UNLIKE all other mothers, with whom motherhood is incompatible with virginity, the mother of the Redeemer remains a virgin consecrated to God in her very motherhood as well as in her whole life. Indeed on account of the unique perfection of her virginity and of the unique sacredness of her person aid and whole being, which lays the foundation of her virginity and makes it complete, this woman must be called not merely "virgin" but specifically "the Virgin."
She had been so called already in the prophecy of Isaias regarding the mother of the Emmanuel and again in the Apostles’ Creed, where the virgin is placed with the Holy Ghost as one principle of the human birth of Christ. Both texts likewise define the objective and highest form of the sacredness of Mary’s person and entire being, which is the basis of her virginity. As bearer of God and instrument of the Holy Ghost she is taken possession of by God in the most sublime sense of the word and, as a chosen “spiritual vessel” and spiritual bride of God united to Him by marriage, she belongs to Him alone and without reserve.
The highest perfection of the quality of virginity, as it is contained in the Christian idea of “the Virgin,” comprises permanence. Otherwise Mary cannot be called virgin, much less “the Virgin.” She is virgo perpetua. This perfection of virginity comprises three essential parts: (1) bodily integrity and purity (virginitas corporis or carnis); (2) the virtue of virginity or the permanent virginal inclination (virginitas mentis); (3) the virginity of heart, i.e., freedom from all carnal motions and sensations (virginitas sensus seu animae).
Mary’s perpetual virginity was denied only by those heretics who denied also the divinity of Christ, such as the Ebionites, Arians, and rationalist Protestants, or by those who display a great wantonness in the domain of morals; such as Helvidius and Jovinianus. The Reformers opposed the perpetual virginity of spirit, at least so far as the vow is concerned, and partly also the virginitas in partu, without denying the divinity of Christ. But they minimized the living efficacy of the divinity of Christ, even for His own humanity, and they wished to avoid in the vow of Mary the ideal of consecrated virginity.
Mary's Bodily Virginity
The absolute perfection of the bodily virginity of the mother of Jesus, with regard to that act through which she outwardly appeared as the mother of Christ, is usually thus defined: Mary was a virgin in the birth, before the birth, and after the birth. This order shows that, whereas with other mothers the violation of the bodily integrity is strikingly obvious in the birth, Mary’s integrity was miraculously preserved in the birth of her Son and supposes and reflects the virginal conception of her Son. Furthermore it guarantees the perpetual continuation of her integrity to the exclusion of any other human conception.
The absolute bodily virginity can also be determined with reference to the conception which made her the mother of Christ, namely, that her virginity was not violated in, before, or after the conception of Christ. Thus, it is shown that the basis of her motherhood is also the basis of her perpetual virginity, just as in the first case the external revelation of her motherhood comes to the fore as a sign and guaranty of her perpetual virginity.
This permanent and perfect virginity of the body of Mary is de fide, especially since the definition by the Fifth Ecuмenical Council (can. 2), and by the Lateran Council under Martin I (can. 3). (2)
1. Literature; St. Thomas, IIIa, q.28 29, and Suarez, op. cit., disp. 5 8; St. Peter Canisius, op. cit., 1, 2; Petavius, op. cit., De Incarn., 1, 14; Trombelli, Mariae ss. vita ac gesta, Part 1, diss. 9 and 10. Especially for Mary’s marriage: Lombardus, In 4 S., dist. 30; and St. Thomas and St. Bonaventure.
2. Denzinger, nos. 214, 256.
-
What the Bishop denies is that Mary remained free from pain and the other normal physical manifestations of pregnancy.
To be precise Mueller said:
"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)"
In other words, he is saying that The Blessed Mother of God had a normal child birth with the opening of the birth canal, and injury to the hymen.
If that were so, then she would have no proof of being a Virgin after the birth.
How do you prove that she was a virgin after a natural birth?
She was the Ark of the Covenant, she held God in her womb for 9 months. Because of this, she was later assumed into Heaven body and soul, nothing remained of her. I ask you, what happened to her placenta if she had a natural birth? Was it assumed into heaven after birth?
Those are just some additional thoughts, since you say "you've read the thread".
Mary of Agreda tells us that Our Lord came out like a light through glass, like he came through the stone walls of his tomb (The Resurrection), like he walked through the walls/doors when he appeared to the apostles, like he walked right by the crowd that came to stone him.
To even talk as Mueller talks about the Mother of God is blasphemous and scandalous. I shudder to even repeat it here.
Blessed Mother forgive me for writing it again.
-
Those are just some additional thoughts, since you say "you've read the thread".
Anyone that read all these postings below and still thinks Mueller is Ok in what he says, will fall pray to any progressivist sophism:
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]
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]
What does "incorruptably bore [Him?] mean?
It means without the effects of Original Sin, such as pain and bleeding and so forth. Sorrowful childbirth is explicitly mentioned as the curse God gave women in the garden : "n sorrow shalt thou bring forth children." We can infer that pain is one of the causes of this sorrow, as well as inconvenience and the other things that the glorified bodies of the saints will not endure.
And why is "Him" included in brackets and a question mark? Are they not sure of the original text?
Because bore was not followed by the personal pronoun that English would demand but which was not demanded by the sense of the Latin word that was translated.
Her "virginity remaining indestructable" can mean that she simply did not know man throughout her entire life.
You do not seem to understand the pertinent biology of virginity very much. Of course, it is impermissible for me to go into detail here, but I will say this : There is a way of determining whether or not a woman has remained a virgin, and Our Most Blessed Lady's virginity was perfect, such that she remained incorruptibly intact. Now, you might make the argument that this does not pertain to virginity as such but is simply related to it, but that is not how the Church and the theologians and spiritual writers have taught on the subject of Our Lady's virginity which, as the Lateran Council authoritatively affirms, was "indestructible." And, yes, I will throw in an appeal to the fitness of this teaching, since it was also used by Pius IX -- borrowing from Duns Scotus -- on the question of the Immaculate Conception.
from: http://www.sacredheart.com/The_Mystical_City_of_God_Book_04_Chapter_04.htm
Book 4, Chapter 4
The Mystical City of God, The Divine History and Life of The Virgin Mother of God
The most holy Mary remained in this ecstasy and beatific vision for over an hour immediately preceding her divine delivery. At the moment when She issued from it and regained the use of her senses She felt and saw that the body of the infant God began to move in her virginal womb; how, releasing and freeing Himself from the place which in the course of nature He had occupied for nine months, He now prepared to issue forth from that sacred bridal chamber. This movement not only did not cause any pain or hardship, as happens with the other daughters of Adam and Eve in their childbirths; but filled Her with incomparable joy and delight, causing in her soul and in her virginal body such exalted and divine effects that they exceed all thoughts of men. Her body became so spiritualized with the beauty of heaven that She seemed no more a human and earthly creature. Her countenance emitted rays of light, like a sun incarnadined, and shone in indescribable earnestness and majesty, all inflamed with fervent love. She was kneeling in the manger, her eyes raised to heaven, her hands joined and folded at her breast, her soul wrapped in the Divinity and She herself was entirely deified. In this position, and at the end of the heavenly rapture, the most exalted Lady gave to the world the Onlybegotten of the Father and her own, our Savior Jesus, true God and man, at the hour of midnight, on a Sunday, in the year of the creation of the world five thousand one hundred and ninety-nine (5199), which is the date given in the Roman Church, and which date has been manifested to me as the true and certain one.
At the end of the beatific rapture and vision of the Mother ever Virgin, which I have described above, was born the Sun of Justice, the Onlybegotten of the eternal Father and of Mary most pure, beautiful, refulgent and immaculate, leaving Her untouched in her virginal integrity and purity and making Her more godlike and forever sacred; for He did not divide, but penetrated the virginal chamber as the rays of the sun penetrate the crystal shrine, lighting it up in prismatic beauty.
The infant God therefore was brought forth from the virginal chamber unencuмbered by any corporeal material substance foreign to Himself. But He came forth glorious and transfigured for the divine infinite wisdom decreed and ordained that the glory of his most holy soul should in his Birth overflow and communicate itself to his body, participating in the gifts of glory in the same way as happened afterwards in his Transfiguration on mount Tabor in the presence of the Apostles (Matth. 17, 2). This miracle was not necessary in order to penetrate the virginal enclosure and to leave unimpaired the virginal integrity; for without this Transfiguration God could have brought this about by other miracles. Thus say the holy doctors, who see no other miracle in this Birth than that the Child was born without impairing the virginity of the Mother. It was the will of God that the most b1essed Virgin should look upon the body of her Son, the God-man, for this first time in a glorified state for two reasons. The one was in order that by this divine vision the most prudent Mother should conceive the highest reverence for the Majesty of Him whom She was to treat as her Son, the true God-man. Although She was already informed of his two-fold nature, the Lord nevertheless ordained that by ocular demonstration She be filled with new graces, corresponding to the greatness of her most holy Son, which was thus manifested to Her in a visible manner. The second reason was to reward by this wonder the fidelity and holiness of the divine Mother; for her most pure and chaste eyes, that had turned away from all earthly things for love of her most holy Son, were to see Him at his very Birth in this glory and thus be rejoiced and rewarded for her loyalty and beautiful love.
from: http://www.sacredheart.com/The_Mystical_City_of_God_Book_04_Chapter_04.htm
Book 4, Chapter 4
The Mystical City of God, The Divine History and Life of The Virgin Mother of God
The most holy Mary remained in this ecstasy and beatific vision for over an hour immediately preceding her divine delivery. At the moment when She issued from it and regained the use of her senses She felt and saw that the body of the infant God began to move in her virginal womb; how, releasing and freeing Himself from the place which in the course of nature He had occupied for nine months, He now prepared to issue forth from that sacred bridal chamber. This movement not only did not cause any pain or hardship, as happens with the other daughters of Adam and Eve in their childbirths; but filled Her with incomparable joy and delight, causing in her soul and in her virginal body such exalted and divine effects that they exceed all thoughts of men. Her body became so spiritualized with the beauty of heaven that She seemed no more a human and earthly creature. Her countenance emitted rays of light, like a sun incarnadined, and shone in indescribable earnestness and majesty, all inflamed with fervent love. She was kneeling in the manger, her eyes raised to heaven, her hands joined and folded at her breast, her soul wrapped in the Divinity and She herself was entirely deified. In this position, and at the end of the heavenly rapture, the most exalted Lady gave to the world the Onlybegotten of the Father and her own, our Savior Jesus, true God and man, at the hour of midnight, on a Sunday, in the year of the creation of the world five thousand one hundred and ninety-nine (5199), which is the date given in the Roman Church, and which date has been manifested to me as the true and certain one.
At the end of the beatific rapture and vision of the Mother ever Virgin, which I have described above, was born the Sun of Justice, the Onlybegotten of the eternal Father and of Mary most pure, beautiful, refulgent and immaculate, leaving Her untouched in her virginal integrity and purity and making Her more godlike and forever sacred; for He did not divide, but penetrated the virginal chamber as the rays of the sun penetrate the crystal shrine, lighting it up in prismatic beauty.
The infant God therefore was brought forth from the virginal chamber unencuмbered by any corporeal material substance foreign to Himself. But He came forth glorious and transfigured for the divine infinite wisdom decreed and ordained that the glory of his most holy soul should in his Birth overflow and communicate itself to his body, participating in the gifts of glory in the same way as happened afterwards in his Transfiguration on mount Tabor in the presence of the Apostles (Matth. 17, 2). This miracle was not necessary in order to penetrate the virginal enclosure and to leave unimpaired the virginal integrity; for without this Transfiguration God could have brought this about by other miracles. Thus say the holy doctors, who see no other miracle in this Birth than that the Child was born without impairing the virginity of the Mother. It was the will of God that the most b1essed Virgin should look upon the body of her Son, the God-man, for this first time in a glorified state for two reasons. The one was in order that by this divine vision the most prudent Mother should conceive the highest reverence for the Majesty of Him whom She was to treat as her Son, the true God-man. Although She was already informed of his two-fold nature, the Lord nevertheless ordained that by ocular demonstration She be filled with new graces, corresponding to the greatness of her most holy Son, which was thus manifested to Her in a visible manner. The second reason was to reward by this wonder the fidelity and holiness of the divine Mother; for her most pure and chaste eyes, that had turned away from all earthly things for love of her most holy Son, were to see Him at his very Birth in this glory and thus be rejoiced and rewarded for her loyalty and beautiful love.
Couldn't a Catholic believe that Mary gave birth naturally, though without pain of labor and without harming her body in any way? Of course Muller goes beyond this, allowing for the normal injury to a woman's body during childbirth.
Also what level is this teaching? It doesn't seem like it was infallibly pronounced ex cathedra. It was a statement from a non general Council, was it not? Thanks.
NO
You may be too young to have been raised Catholic, or something.
The Mother of God is Immaculate.
No sin or effects of sin whatsoever. Virgin birth. Please read what these kind people took the time to give to you, out of their kindness.
Couldn't a Catholic believe that Mary gave birth naturally, though without pain of labor and without harming her body in any way? Of course Muller goes beyond this, allowing for the normal injury to a woman's body during childbirth.
Also what level is this teaching? It doesn't seem like it was infallibly pronounced ex cathedra. It was a statement from a non general Council, was it not? Thanks.
NO
You may be too young to have been raised Catholic, or something.
The Mother of God is Immaculate.
No sin or effects of sin whatsoever. Virgin birth. Please read what these kind people took the time to give to you, out of their kindness.
In other words he came out of the womb the same way He came out of the tomb,
Absolutely correct and almost exactly what the Fathers of Trent thought.
From the Catechism of the Council of Trent
http://www.cin.org/users/james/ebooks/master/trent/tcreed03.htm
The Nativity Of Christ Transcends The Order Of Nature
But as the Conception itself transcends the order of nature, so also the birth of our Lord presents to our contemplation nothing but what is divine.
Besides, what is admirable beyond the power of thoughts or words to express, He is born of His Mother without any diminution of her maternal virginity, just as He afterwards went forth from the sepulchre while it was closed and sealed, and entered the room in which His disciples were assembled, the doors being shut; or, not to depart from every day examples, just as the rays of the sun penetrate without breaking or injuring in the least the solid substance of glass, so after a like but more exalted manner did Jesus Christ come forth from His mother's womb without injury to her maternal virginity. This immaculate and perpetual virginity forms, therefore, the just theme of our eulogy. Such was the work of the Holy Ghost, who at the Conception and birth of the Son so favoured the Virgin Mother as to impart to her fecundity while preserving inviolate her perpetual virginity.
Of course the passionate defense of Our Lady is expected from any Catholic. But, in this case, the question is whether Cardinal Muller said anything that in any way attacked or offended Our Lady. The emotional responses of some on a message board do not equate to evidence.
Msgr. Bux presents an argument that the perpetual viriginity of Mary means only that she was conceived by God and not man. That the Church has not made any dogmatic pronouncement on the physical or biological aspects and this is not what the Church is concerned with. She is more concerned with the spiritual significance. How do you (or anyone else) respond to this? Thanks.
This is but one of your errors. The Church has in fact made dogmatic pronouncement on this, and the Church is indeed concerned! Please get hold of your Catholic bearings!
There are four dogmas stating Our Blessed Mother's personal relationship with God and her role in human salvation. One of the four dogmas concerns the Perpetual Virginity of the Blessed Virgin. I could site more complex theology, but it seems you need to have it spelled out in the simplest of terms, so please read the dogma below.
By the way SS, did you even bother to listen to the sermons I provided for you earlier on this thread?
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." 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).
Although never explicated in detail, the Catholic Church holds as dogma that Mary was and is Virgin before, in and after Christ's birth. [/b]
Dr. Ludwig Ott Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma:
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.
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.
LORDPHAN Posted:
Dr. Ludwig Ott Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma:
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.
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.
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.
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.
-
I will read all of this more completely when I have more time.
However, I want to say immediately that I was wrong. Mary of Agreda cannot be used to establish Dogma. The Lateran Council can, however, and it states clearly and undeniably that ascribing such things as pain to Mary in childbirth is a condemned proposition. It does appear that this is a matter of dogma, not pious belief, and until a few minutes ago I was on the wrong side of it.
Thanks very much for the information and for the fraternal admonition.
-
I will read all of this more completely when I have more time.
However, I want to say immediately that I was wrong. Mary of Agreda cannot be used to establish Dogma. The Lateran Council can, however, and it states clearly and undeniably that ascribing such things as pain to Mary in childbirth is a condemned proposition. It does appear that this is a matter of dogma, not pious belief, and until a few minutes ago I was on the wrong side of it.
Thanks very much for the information and for the fraternal admonition.
(http://i6.ifrm.com/6294/90/emo/winner.gif)
GOD BLESS YOU Sigismund!!!!
-
I will read all of this more completely when I have more time.
However, I want to say immediately that I was wrong. Mary of Agreda cannot be used to establish Dogma. The Lateran Council can, however, and it states clearly and undeniably that ascribing such things as pain to Mary in childbirth is a condemned proposition. It does appear that this is a matter of dogma, not pious belief, and until a few minutes ago I was on the wrong side of it.
Thanks very much for the information and for the fraternal admonition.
I would like to tell you "thank you, Sigismund," as well, for I have learned something
here as well. Thank you for diligently paying attention and asking the questions you
did. Because this is how we learn. You were correct in thinking that we do not base
our faith on the testimony of mystics, even approved ones. But you did not dig in
your heels, as they say, or "kick against the goad," as the Apostle says.
When you heard it was the Lateran Council that taught definitively on this then you
took notice and accepted the dogma. I am happy to say that what you have
demonstrated is true Catholic action, in action, and I am very edified to observe this
in progress.
Much obliged! :cheers:
(now it's time for a beer -- morningstar: cute smiley! )
-
Well, thanks.
It was perhaps easier for me becasue I had no real emotional investment in my position. I did not disbelieve the dogma. I just didn't realize that it was dogma, not a matter for legitmate theological disagreement..
-
This is a very good thread.
Several people on this thread have defended Our Lady when she was attacked by a Heretic.
What a privilege for us.
I am happy to have posted on this thread.
We should all be very happy to have defended Our Lady.
This will be in our favour on Judgement Day.
Our Lady is obviously pleased with us.
Our Lord is obviously pleased with us.
God Bless all who have defended Our Lady.
-
Well, thanks.
It was perhaps easier for me because I had no real emotional investment in my position. I did not disbelieve the dogma. I just didn't realize that it was dogma, not a matter for legitimate theological disagreement..
I have heard stories of conversions, or of Catholics questioning what the Church
teaches, not out of malice or spite, but asking questions so as to gain a better
understanding. Certainly we have all been in catechism classes where this has
taken place. But somehow here on this thread it was pronounced rather well. The
whole process is right here to read again, if anyone wants to do so.
Sometimes, in a theology class or religion school, the topic at hand is not covered
thoroughly and the students emerge without solid footing. Sometimes they are not
really interested anyway, and only yearn for the end of the class so they can go
do the things they really want to do. But other times, the professor takes the time
to develop the full concepts, and draws in the curiosity of the students so they have
a desire to learn. I think that's what happened here. And that's a good thing.
These principles are well worth learning in detail. I have been in conversations with
Protestants, where they proudly announce that they deny what the Church teaches
in this regard, and I have been at a loss as to how to proceed, that is, using the
truth at the appropriate level, and in such a way so as to not simply end up with
a vicious argument where each person tries to insult the other. It would be most
edifying for everyone if the Catholic is well prepared, and can judiciously use a
question and answer approach, showing the Protestant that his answers are not
supported by Scripture, when the various quotations are properly understood.
One of the typical problems you'll find is the Protestant digs in and says that's not
what the Bible is saying. Then you can use other texts in the Bible, or else bring
up some of the ancient Fathers in the early centuries, or how the various other
rites and churches have maintained the same doctrine through the centuries, and
how it was heresies along the way that have been refuted because they deny
these ancient and Apostolic teachings that have given us most of the errors we
have afoot today as well.
It gives your position a lot of authority and sound footing when you can say that
this thing you are claiming was refuted and condemned in the seventh century.
That was 1400 years ago. It took that many years to pass before Columbus sailed
the ocean blue, or some such words.
-
I love how Abp. Muller, the proposed (current?) head of the CDF can simply dismiss serious charges about his belief (or lack thereof) in the Real Presence and the Virgin Birth with a wave of his hand by calling them "stupidity"
Then his interviewer simply moves on to his favorite soccer team and when he gets to wear the Cardinal's hat.
WTH!!?? Is NOBODY (except the SSPX crying in the wilderness) going to call this guy on the carpet and demand he explain his previous statements before taking office as head of the CDF???
The conspiracy of silence is DEAFENING! All Catholics should be publicly raising heck and demanding a response if not a formal Canonical trial of this man. Instead the lot of Novus Ordites are trashing Trads for making the claims and telling them to shut up. Even calling Muller a "conservative" and saying the Society "took him out of context." ??? Do you need CONTEXT to figure out what he says flatly contradicts the dogma of the Virgin Birth?
Am I the only one (along with you few) who sees that this is absolutely INSANE? WHERE is the outrage?? Catholics should be picketing Abp. Muller's residence demanding justice!
-
Remember the head of the "CDF" under JP2?
"Abp." Muller looks like a choirboy in comparison. :facepalm:
Our Lady of La Salette Ora Pro Nobis.