It is currently Mon Aug 19, 2019 1:14 pm




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 6 posts ] 
 Contra Muller on Mary's bodily virginity 
Author Message
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4334
New post Contra Muller on Mary's bodily virginity
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 [physical details edited out], 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.

Quote:
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 Ecumenical 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.

_________________
In Christ our King.


Fri Jul 06, 2012 3:45 am
Profile E-mail

Joined: Sat May 20, 2006 11:46 pm
Posts: 728
Location: Western Washington, USA
New post Re: Contra Muller on Mary's bodily virginity
Pax Christi !

Quote:
The Modernist, Gerhard Müller, appointed to head the CDF is responsible for the following assertions:




And of course benedict is silent.......but hey... he is el papa to "many not all" :)

In Xto,


Fri Jul 06, 2012 6:27 am
Profile
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4334
New post Re: Contra Muller on Mary's bodily virginity
Quote:
1960 Monitum

This Supreme Sacred Congregation has had repeatedly to consider, with deep concern, recently published theological works in which the delicate question of the virginity "in partu" of the Most Holy Mary was treated with deplorable crudeness of expression, and, what is more serious, in open disagreement with the traditional doctrine of the Church and with the pious sense of the faithful.

In the plenary Congregation of Wednesday the 20th c. m., it therefore seemed necessary to the Eminent Fathers of the Holy Office because of their most grave responsibility to safeguard the sacred deposit of Catholic doctrine, to take care that for the future that the publication of similar dissertations concerning the aforementioned problem be forbidden.

_________________
In Christ our King.


Fri Jul 13, 2012 6:03 am
Profile E-mail

Joined: Fri Oct 28, 2011 3:40 am
Posts: 438
Location: Tucson, Arizona
New post Re: Contra Muller on Mary's bodily virginity
Is it true that "The so-called [edited in accordance with the Holy Office Monitum above] is contrary to the Divine dignity of the Son as well as the dignity of the Divine Maternity" and thus it violates her virginitatem in partu? (Cf. this.)

_________________
«The Essence & Topicality of Thomism»: http://ar.gy/5AaP
by Fr. Réginald Garrigou-Lagrange, O.P.
e-Book: bit.ly/1iDkMAw

Modernism: modernism. us.to
blog: sententiaedeo.blogspot. com
Aristotelian Thomism: scholastic. us.to


Sun Jul 29, 2012 3:44 am
Profile E-mail

Joined: Fri Oct 28, 2011 3:40 am
Posts: 438
Location: Tucson, Arizona
New post Re: Contra Muller on Mary's bodily virginity
John Lane wrote:
Quote:
1960 Monitum

This Supreme Sacred Congregation has had repeatedly to consider, with deep concern, recently published theological works in which the delicate question of the virginity "in partu" of the Most Holy Mary was treated with deplorable crudeness of expression, and, what is more serious, in open disagreement with the traditional doctrine of the Church and with the pious sense of the faithful.

In the plenary Congregation of Wednesday the 20th c. m., it therefore seemed necessary to the Eminent Fathers of the Holy Office because of their most grave responsibility to safeguard the sacred deposit of Catholic doctrine, to take care that for the future that the publication of similar dissertations concerning the aforementioned problem be forbidden.
What exactly prompted the issuance of this Monitum? Why and how were the censured authors "in open disagreement with the traditional doctrine of the Church and with the pious sense of the faithful"? Thanks

_________________
«The Essence & Topicality of Thomism»: http://ar.gy/5AaP
by Fr. Réginald Garrigou-Lagrange, O.P.
e-Book: bit.ly/1iDkMAw

Modernism: modernism. us.to
blog: sententiaedeo.blogspot. com
Aristotelian Thomism: scholastic. us.to


Wed Aug 01, 2012 4:43 am
Profile E-mail

Joined: Tue May 23, 2006 9:03 pm
Posts: 515
New post Re: Contra Muller on Mary's bodily virginity
Alan Aversa wrote:
John Lane wrote:
Quote:
1960 Monitum

This Supreme Sacred Congregation has had repeatedly to consider, with deep concern, recently published theological works in which the delicate question of the virginity "in partu" of the Most Holy Mary was treated with deplorable crudeness of expression, and, what is more serious, in open disagreement with the traditional doctrine of the Church and with the pious sense of the faithful.

In the plenary Congregation of Wednesday the 20th c. m., it therefore seemed necessary to the Eminent Fathers of the Holy Office because of their most grave responsibility to safeguard the sacred deposit of Catholic doctrine, to take care that for the future that the publication of similar dissertations concerning the aforementioned problem be forbidden.
What exactly prompted the issuance of this Monitum? Why and how were the censured authors "in open disagreement with the traditional doctrine of the Church and with the pious sense of the faithful"? Thanks


Alan, here's the reference from Canon Law Digest, Bouscaren & O'Conner, 1958-1962.


Attachments:
Crude or Rash Articles Prohibited.pdf [861.14 KiB]
Downloaded 610 times
Wed Aug 01, 2012 11:34 pm
Profile
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 6 posts ] 


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 8 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group.
Designed by Vjacheslav Trushkin for Free Forums/DivisionCore.