Another Modernist Punk
Ratzinger's #2 Modernist in charge of the Sacred Congregation for the Destruction of What's Left of the Faith is another Anti-Supernaturalist heretic. Here is an except from the blog "Catholic Church Conservation" that summarizes the situation well. Unfortunately, the blogger recognizes the heresy, yet doesn't draw the only logical conclusion, namely, since the True Church can't teach heresy, Ratzinger and his "hierarchy" have no authority and have defected by forming a new and false religious sect.
If it would agree with what the Archbishop (sic)
Gerhard Ludwig Müller maintains, Christianity would be mocking the audience.
Archbishop (sic) Gerhard Ludwig Müller - the prefect of the Congregation for the
Doctrine of the Faith recently appointed by Pope (sic) Benedict XVI - not only has
problems with the virginity of Mary, the Eucharist and the doctrine of the
Church. In his rambling book "Catholic dogma: to study and practice theology"
(4th edition 1995) there are at least three more points that involve serious
Denial of miracles
On the topic "miracle" Mgr. Müller writes on
page 284: " The miracles of Jesus are not to be understood in the context of a
definition, which is concerns a 'breaking of the laws of nature'." Such an
understanding of miracles according to Msgr. Müller belongs "to the context of a
deistic understanding of God and a mechanistic world view."
What constitutes a miracle?
A breaking of the laws of nature is of the
essence of miracle. This was already maintained by the preeminent theologian
Saint Thomas Aquinas († 1274). In a miracle, God acts directly on the world as
first cause . He bypasses thus the secondary causes - that is, the laws of
Msgr. Müller is a mechanical
Mons. Müller insulted the Catholic
understanding of miracles indiscriminately as "deistic" and "mechanistic". The
opposite is true. This is because deism is the doctrine that God created the
universe at the beginning and set it going like clockwork, not interfering in
its further mechanistic working - neither by miracle nor by revelation. The
qualification "deistic" and "mechanistic" hypothesis thus precisely correspond
to Mons.Müller's denial of the miracle.
One heresy cries out after
Archbishop Müller's inability to understand
miracles, influences his dubious statements about the Virginal conception of
Jesus and the Resurrection of the dead. In both events, the Bible as well as the
tradition of Church sees a classical breaking of the known laws of
The guardian of Faith denies the conception
by the Holy Spirit
On page 495 of his Dogmatik, Mons. Müller
discusses the virginity of Mary. This, he writes. "This does not mean a
departure from the biological norm" . This assertion is related explicitly to
the "conception" of Jesus and the virginity of the Virgin Mary before the birth.
Mary's virginity during labour Mons. Müller disputes on page 498 of his
Dogmatics. There he claims that in the case of Mary's virginity during the
birth, is "not" about deviating physiological features in the "natural process
of birth." "Not in the context of a biologically exceptional case" On page
497, Mons. Müller closes his remarks on the virginity before birth. He again
emphasized: "The meaning of faith in the virginal conception of Jesus by the
Holy Spirit does not reveal itself in the context of a biologically exceptional
Msgr. Müller in his Dogmatik on page 300
comments on the Resurrection of Jesus with this questionable assertion: "The
contemporary film camera would have neither recorded the resurrection event
[...] nor the Easter appearances of Jesus to his disciples in image and sound
." And on page 303: "Whether the response of women at the grave in the early
hours of Easter morning and the discovery that the body of Jesus was no longer
there, a historical process in the sense described must not be decided here. It
could also reflect a devotion to the grave by the Jerusalem assembly."
He does not believe in
the bodily resurrection
On the other hand, writes Msgr. Müller: "In any
case, the mighty deed of God must have been implied in Jesus and on the dead
body." Because. "A finding of the body of Jesus would have been for the enemies
of Jesus, stringent counter-evidence against the identification of God with the
eschatological means of salvation" One wonders here: What now? Did Jesus rise
bodily or not? Mons. Müller's statements contradict each other. But, given his
thesis that Jesus' miracles do not break the laws of nature, he must answer in