You Thought Ratzinger would Appoint a Catholic? That Would Be a Miracle!

                                        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 heresies.

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 nature.

Msgr. Müller is a mechanical deist

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 another

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 nature.

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 case."  

Invisible body?

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 the negative.