More Commentary on Gerhard Ludwig Müller And Other Appointments

Someone kindly sent me several links with commentary about Bishop Gerhard Ludwig Müller and other recent changes in the Roman Curia.  Here they are with some excerpts to whet your appetite to follow the links.

From Sancrucensis:

Reading the Frankfurter Allgemeine on the Holy Father’s appointment of Gerhard Ludwig Müller as prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith is a bit like going back in time; it is so similar to the sort of thing that they wrote about the Holy Father himself when he was prefect of the CDF:

Combined with his stern gaze and determined body language the bishop’s scarlet choir robes give the impression of a suit of armor (Panzer)  for the fight against the enemies of the Faith and the Church.

They list his acts against pro-choice politicians and the praise that his Handbook of Dogmatiks received from the original “Panzerkardinal”. But then there bring up the enigma: is this the same guy who is friends with Gustavo Gutiérrez, the hero of progressive, “socially conscious” Catholicism?

This time though, one must admit that the caricature is nearer to the truth than last time. No one could hear the Pope Benedict XVI speak without be astonished at how such a gentle,  soft-spoken man could be the kind of heretic-hunting fanatic that he was made out to be. But when I heard G-L M a few years back, he sounded just like the sort of old-style religious energumen that showed up in media reports. But it wasn’t just the 1930s style top-of-the-voice noise of his sermon, but also its triumphalisticly anti-Protestant argument — he was preaching on the sacrificial character of the Mass– that gave this impression. It has been said that in his professorial days Müller used to write letters denouncing his colleagues to the CDF, and it is certainly true that as bishop he used the rod far more vigorously than one expects in Germany. He is constantly bringing cononical sanctions against heterodox theologians, suspending priests, and otherwise annoying the liberals.  It seems that in Bishop Gerhard-Ludwig Müller the CDF at last has a prefect who relishes a fight.

On the shifts at the Congregation for Divine Worship from Sandro Magister's Vatican Diary:

With the pair Cañizares-Di Noia at the top, the congregation seems to have fallen into a cone of shadow. Di Noia does not have the determination of a Ranjith. And the Spanish cardinal – in addition to not concealing a fondness for the Neocatechumenals that is translated into indulgence toward their strange liturgies – doesn't see a problem with returning frequently to his country, perhaps with an eye on Madrid, where Cardinal Antonio Maria Rouco Varela in 2104 will end his mandate as president of the Spanish episcopal conference, and then, at the age of 78, would have to leave the leadership of the diocese.

Thus also the idea proclaimed of setting up within the congregation for divine worship an office that would deal with liturgical architecture and art is fizzling out through the opposition of Cardinal Gianfranco Ravasi – theologically and liturgically less in harmony with Ratzinger than Cañizares – who is claiming for his pontifical council of culture, although it is of lower rank, jurisdiction in this area.

Once again, therefore, the congregation for divine worship does not seem to be functioning. And thus, for the fourth time in seven years, one is witnessing a premature change of its secretary. Di Noia has been transferred to the vice presidency of the pontifical commission "Ecclesia Dei," a position not found in the organizational structure of this agency, restructured in 2009 with the motu proprio "Ecclesiae Unitatem," which has the task of following the traditionalist communities and healing the fracture with the Lefebvrist world. The position is not in itself cardinalate.

It is a change that could represent the same problems as the previous ones. In fact, the incoming English bishop Roche, 62, is a protégé of the cardinal emeritus of Westminster, the "liberal" Cormac Murphy O’Connor, whose auxiliary he was as well. And already in the past, with great preoccupation in the more conservative circles of the Roman curia, his name had been circulated for the office he has now obtained. But it must be said that the firm manner in which Roche, as president of the International Commission on English in the Liturgy from 2003 until 2012, defended the new translation of the missal in English, composed under the banner of greater actual fidelity to the Latin "editio typica," won him the hostility of the more progressive component of the Anglophone episcopate.

Edward Pentin interviewed Archbishop Augustine Di Noia at the National Catholic Register:

That being the case, why do you think some Catholics have decided to stick to “frozen” tradition, as it were, rather than coming into full communion?

I don’t honestly know; I can only speculate. To say why people are traditionalist I’d have to say it depends on their experiences. The [reform of the] liturgy has been a factor; it was a terrible revolution and shock for people. Many of these people feel abandoned, like the Church left them at the dock with the ship. So the reasons are very complicated and vary from one type of traditionalism to another and from countries, cultures and contexts in which they have arisen.

Another issue is there’s a failure to recognize a simple fact of the history of the Church: that all theological disagreements need not be Church-dividing. So, for example, the Jesuits and Dominicans had a tremendous disagreement in the 16th century about the theology of grace. In the end, the Pope forbade them to call each other heretics, which they had been doing. The Pope said, “You may continue to hold your theological opinion,” but he refused to give a doctrinal determination, saying the Jesuits or Dominicans were right. Now, this is a very interesting example, because it shows that Catholicism is broad enough to include a tremendous amount of theological diversity and debate. Sometimes the Church will act, but only when it sees people slipping into heresy and therefore breaking off from communion.

Father Z (Father John Zuhlsdorf "fisks" the Pentin interview with Di Noia here.  Fr. Z's comments are in red or in brackets with his emphases.

DiNOIA: The traditionalists that are now in the Church, such as the Priestly Fraternity of St. Peter, have brought what the Pope has insisted upon: that in the solemnity of the way in which they celebrate the liturgy, especially in the area of the liturgy, they are a testimony to the continuing liveliness of liturgical tradition previous to the Council, which is the message of Summorum Pontificum. The thing is: They can’t say that the Novus Ordo is invalid, but their celebration of the 1962 Missal is something that remains attractive and nourishes faith, even of those who have no experience of it. So that’s a very important factor.

I’ve tried to find an analogy for this. Let’s say the American Constitution can be read in at least two ways: Historians read it, and they are interested in historical context: in the framers, intentions of the framers, the backgrounds of framers and all of that historical work about the Constitution. So, you have a Constitution you can study historically and shed a great deal of light on the meaning of it.  [This analogy doesn't work for me.  Interest in the older forms is not mere interest in history.]

However, when the Supreme Court uses the Constitution, when it’s read as an institutional living document upon which institutions of a country are based, it’s a different reading. So what the framers thought, including not only experts upon whom they’re dependent — they are parallel to the bishops, and the experts are parallel to the periti [theologians who serve participants at an ecumenical council]. [Alas, Your Excellency, this is how we eventually got to the Roe v Wade decision from the Supreme Court.  Analogies limp.]

I must respectfully disagree with Fr. Z about the living tree analogy.  The "living tree" model of interpretation means that one can take the words of a text and pour into them any meaning we want.  We heard this in Canada during the same-sex marriage reference before our Supreme Court — that the word "marriage" was merely a "container" into which the culture could pour whatever meaning it wanted.  I am so not a living tree gal when it comes to the American Constitution!

While I believe we have a living faith in a God who is the same yesterday, today and forever, I do not believe we can be modernist or postmodernist and decide religious texts mean whatever we want them to mean.  This is a huge criticism from those with a more traditional bent, that modernists in the Church can say the Creed, for example, but everything has been emptied of its supernatural content in their minds — treated as metaphor, allegory, etc.

Author: Deborah Gyapong

Deborah Gyapong is a member of the Sodality of the Annunciation of the Blessed Virgin Mary ( in Ottawa, a former parish of the Anglican Catholic Church of Canada (Traditional Anglican Communion) whose members were received individually and corporately into the Roman Catholic Church on April 15, 2012 by Ottawa Archbishop Terrence Prendergast at St. Patrick’s Basilica. Under the provisions of the Apostolic Constitution Anglicanorum coetibus, the community will celebrate an approved Anglican Use liturgy and hopes to soon join with other sodalities across Canada to form the Canadian Deanery of the Personal Ordinariate of the Chair of St. Peter under Msgr. Jeffrey Steenson, Ordinary. As we wait for our priest(s) to be ordained as Catholic priests, God willing, Archbishop Prendergast will provide priests to celebrate our Sunday Eucharist according to the Anglican Use. Deborah is a journalist who covers religion and politics in Canada’s national capital, writing primarily for Roman Catholic newspapers since 2004. Her novel The Defilers, published in 2006, was not a best seller, alas. She spent 17 years at the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation in news and current affairs, including 12 years as a television producer.

23 thoughts on “More Commentary on Gerhard Ludwig Müller And Other Appointments”

  1. These are interesting observations. The problem with an extreme form of traditionalism that looks to pre-Vatican II models of the Church in absolute terms is that they are usually integralists, deriving their thought from the early-c20 Modernist crisis. Such people flourished under the auspices of Cardinal Merry del Val but lost their power during the reign of Pope Benedict XV when he pomulgated Ad Beatissimi, his first
    encyclical. From what I have read Archbishop Muller will be an excellent successor to Cardinal Levada.

      1. Exactly, P.K.T.P.

        And the situation is much worse than in the early 20th cent.

        I think many of the English-speaking people have no idea how deep the crisis is (and how right the "bad" integrists are) because of different reasons – but one reason is perhaps because they do not know the disastrous German idealism. At least they do not have read Kant, Hegel and Heidegger – the three most disasterous and influencial philosophers (perhaps besides the French Sartres, Camus & Co. and again the Germans Habermas, Adorno & Co.) in the original language.

        On the deepest ground of modernism there is this philosophical problem: the German (and French) idealism-phenomenalism-existentialism (Kant, Hegel, Heidegger, Sartres).
        The transcendental-philosophy and existence-philosophy – and then again also some Germans, Gadamer and Dilthey, destroying totally the notion of unchanging truth.

        This philosophy destroys all sound thinking. All truth. That´s the problem of modernism – and the Problem of German "theologians" like Rahner, Lehmann, Müller – or Ratzinger, all influenced by this "bad philosophy" [DiNoia] and "nouvelle theology" [cf. also DiNoia] (well, the longer Ratzinger was and is in Rome, the better it seems to become – the healing influence of some non-German and French, not-so-idealistic-transcendental-philsosophical backround. But there is of course also this thinking in Rome – and the rests of the poison in the head, that the Pope got in his German universities, that were (and still are, but it is getting better) all more or less contaminated with this transcendental-philosophy, that maddens your mind.
        Now as there is more influence of the anglo-saxon, analytic(al) philosophy in German universities, it is getting better!)

        This philosophical bottom of the modernistical crisis is explained brilliantly by Pope Pius X (in Pascendi) and remarked by Pius XII (in Humani Generis).

        It´s the problem of all the modern time – of the theologians, of Vat. II, etc.: the non-scholastical or -analytical language (and thinking), and instead of it the ambiguous, confusing, mind-maddening transcendental-philosophical language and thinking.

        Here Bff. as de Galaretta, Tissier, Williamson or other "hardliners" have a point: the problem is philosophical, the modern subjectivism, immanentism, the German idealism and transcendental-philosophy.
        And thereof the total maddening of modern minds.

        I will provide a further example of Müller later; and cf. also my discussion on wdtprs re Müller and modern philosophy and theology under the Müller-thread there!!

  2. Very good remarks re "living tree", Deborah – thanks!

    re Müller: yes, he is very authoritarian. And has some "conservative" (Catholic) standpoints. But only some! He is a disciple of Rahner (via the Rahner disciple Card. Lehmann of Mainz, where Müller – and also myselfe, btw. – studied).

    He is follower of Rahner and the nouvelle theology – the language of this books is exactly this modern german-idealism and existentialism-like Rahnerian language (- well, not that extreme like Rahner himselfe, ok., you can understand Müllers books much better -) , Müller very often quotes Rahner, f.e. in his Katholische Dogmatik — so the same Rahner and nouvelle theology that has just been critizised sharply by DiNoia (see interview with DiNoia at rorate or wdtprs/ Fr.Z.).

    [See also at Fr. Z. (wdtprs) the discussion re Müller, esp. what robtbrown and dspecht wrote there. But I will provide some arguments and quotes from Müller also later here. And cf. also rorate!]

  3. So as I said before, I am German, studied in Mainz and can read – and have done so – Müllers books in the original.

    No, the qoutes are not out of context (or do not become better with more context) or defendable.

    F.e. re Virginity of Mary in birth (cf., as said above, also the discussion re this at wdtprs / Fr.Z. under the Müller-thread.) Müller unambiguously deviates and aberrates from the Catholic – traditional – doctrine.

    Let´s first quote Ott (Grundriss der Katholischen Dogmatik, 8th ed. 1970, S. 247):

    “Virginity in birth:
    Mary gave birth without any injury to her virginal integrity. De fide from common teaching of the Church.
    The dogma says that the bodily integritiy of Mary in the act of birth was not hurt/injured… The way of her parturition had therefore an extraordinary character…

    And he goes on quoting and pointing to Popes, Church-fathers and doctors, that all taught that JESUS came out of the womb like out of the tomb, like sun through glass, like he went through closed doors and walls after resurrection.
    And that Mary had no pains in her birth, that she was totaly active and not-injured etc.

    And now what Müller says, exactly contraditcting this bodily-physical apsect of extraordinary birth (Katholische Dogmatik, Freiburg: Herder 1995, S.498)

    The dogma “is not about/does not mean anomalous/extraordinary physiological particularities in the natural act of birth (like f.e. not-opening of the birth canal[s], not-injury of the hymen or non-occurrence of the birth-pain[s]), but about the healing and saving influence of the grace of the Savior on human nature, that was “hurt/injured” ["verletzt" – Müller himselfe uses the quotation-marks here!!] by original sin.”

  4. FWIW, the late orthodox Anglo-Catholic theologian (something of an Anglican Thomist) Eric Mascall (1905-1993) had a chapter on "Liberation Theology" in his last book, which was never published, but of which I have a photocopy of part of the manuscript, and which was written ca. 1985. The manuscript was entitled *The Overarching Question: Divine Revelation or Human Invention;* Ch. V is entitled "Is Liberation Theology Really Necessary?" Mascall's answer to the question is a qualified "No," but much of the chapter is devoted to comparing and critiquing the views of the two most prominent "liberation theologians" of the movement, Jan Sobrino and Gustavo Gutierrez. His conclusion is that Sobrino's version of "liberation theology" totally subordinates Christian Truth to Marxist analytical categories and is thus findamentally heterodox (especially as regards Christology), but that Gutierrez's version is totally orthodox in its underlying doctrinal stance and assumptions, however one may assess his "political application" of them.

    Mascall was himself an old-fashioned "Christian Socialist" of a 1920s and 30s English Anglo-Catholic sort, which no doubt affected his sympathies, but in the light of what he wrote nearly 30 years ago I am not inclined to be shocked or scandalized by Mueller's friendship with Gutierrez.

  5. Thanks William Tighe for your insights.

    But let me provide a last example of Müller, again from his Katholische Dogmatik, (Freiburg: Herder 1995, ²1996), perhaps the worst example at all (but not cited yet in the debate, as far as I can see).

    It illustrates also the bad modern philosophical (Kantian-Rahnerian-transcendental-philosophical) backround and thinking (and phrasing).
    (And the method of re-interpreting and confusing traditional concepts by this modern philosophy-theology, as Deborah so exactly pointed to).

    On p. 300 he writes re the RESSURECTION (my translation, but very dificult because of this modernistical transcendentalism-existentialism-language):

    "A shooting film camera could neither have hold/shooted in picture and sound the resurrection-ongoing/occurrence ("Auferstehungsereignis"), that is in essence/to the marrow the carrying out/actualisation of the personal relation(ship) of the father with the Son in the Holy Ghost, nor the easter-apparitions of Jesus in front of his disciples. Technical apparatuses or also animals lack – in contrast to the human intellect – the possibility of transcendental experience and therefore of beeing adressed by the Word of God via sensuously perceptible phenomena and signs. Only the human intellect in its inner unity of categoriality and transcendentality is determinable by the spirit of God, in order to perceive the person-reality ("Personwirklichkeit") of Jesus as the cause of the sensible-mental (perceptional) notion/image in the sensible perceptional image, that is caused by the revelation-ongoing/occurrence ("Offenbarungsereignis")."

    So the dog of the apostles would not have wagged the tail when Jesus appeared – because it could not have seen, heard and smelled him – because the poor dog has not "the possibility to make a transcendent(al) experience"…

    Well, Müller goes on and affirms that the resurrection and the apparitions were not pure subjective things, some hallucination, pure imagination or sth. like that.

    But they are events only for the minds of beeings that are able of transcendent(al) experiences resp. perceptions – and perhaps only for believers, because later he states (301) that the resurged Jesus "could not be seen or recognized in a natural manner / by natural means ("auf natürliche Weise"). A medicinal-empirical verification of the occurrence/event is neither possible nor were it an adequate criterion…

    (or shortly before (300, bottom): "The occurrence/event of the resurrection of Jesus is therefore transcendent re the possibilities of beeing and of knowledge/cognition of the created world…)

    So wondering how the unbelieving Thomas could see the Lord at all – and why the Lord proofed in an empirically way that he was not a ghost but really-materially here with flesh and body…?!
    – Fortunatelly Müller was not there back then, because then our Lord would not have been allowed to do so – and Thomas and the poor dog would not have been allowed to adore the Lord or to wag the tail…!!

  6. I think Müller's point is that Thomas (and the hypothetical apostolic dog) would not necessarily have recognized (initially in Thomas' case) what they saw, not that they would have been unable to "see" the risen Christ at all. His analysis seems to fit the scriptural witness, the only alternative explanation of Thomas' non-recognition being wilful blindness. If you are convinced that with the help of modern photographic technology you could have done better than the apostles, I'm very happy for you.

  7. Michael:

    But he says excatly this – that they could not have seen Him at all.
    "..[Jesus] could not be seen or recognized in a natural manner / by natural means ("auf natürliche Weise"). A medicinal-empirical verification of the occurrence/event is neither possible nor were it an adequate criterion…

    The film reel would have been empty, the camera could not have shooted any sound or picture, as Müller states.
    A shooting film camera could neither have hold/shooted in picture and sound… nor the easter-apparitions of Jesus in front of his disciples.

    1. I see that the misunderstandings here are more profound than I had assumed. I don't have the time, and this is not the place to expound on the eschatological aspects of the theology of the body. While I am uneasy with the likely quality of the translation, Müller, on the points you have quoted, strikes me as being in excellent patristic company (though obviously references to video and photography will not be found in the Fathers). Christ's resurrected body is, in a word, transcendent as ours will be and so not subject to the material limitations ours are currently saddled with.

      We really should exercise a bit of reserve before questioning the orthodoxy of teachings merely on the basis that they strike us as unfamiliar or difficult to understand, particularly when they are expressed by a recognized theologian who demonstrably enjoys the Holy Father's doctrinal confidence.

    1. Seriously, I don't have much time for "heresy-hunting" efforts against curial officials via the internet on Catholic websites. It smacks of sedevacantism. Belief in Mary's virginity "in partu" does not require specific belief that the Christ-child's body passed without breaching the hymen. There have been Church Fathers on both sides of this question.

  8. So which ones??

    – -The two only ones that were on the heterodox side to my knowledge were Origines and Tertullian, two men that are known also for other errors.

    The great and saint Churchfathers were unanimously teaching the physical-bodily virginity and therefore integrity of Mary in partu.

    (cf. not only Ott but also Diekamp, Diekamp-Jüssen, Pohle(-Gummersbach) etc. – they all say that there is a clear, infallible Church teaching re that. Show me please one single manual – pre-Counciliar, of course – that teaches the opposite.
    Mary remaining – truely, bodily – virgin in partu is a de fide dogma, according to all Catholic handbooks.)

    1. The issue is not whether she was a virgin "in partu." If you could find Müller specifically denying the applicability of the term (and so Mary's perpetual virgitnity), then you would perhaps have a point. The issue is instead what the various Fathers mean by "in partu," and for some (you can do your own research if you are really that interested, as I am not) it seems to have simply meant freedom from labour pains and the debilitating aspects of childbearing.

      Even modern "traditionalists" hold varying views on the meaning of "in partu." Check here: .

      I somehow suspect that I am being baited here, and will leave any further discussion of Müller orthodoxy (or presumed lack thereof) to others, though really if that's all you've got…

      1. To clarify, I don't necessarily hold a different meaning. I was just pointing out that there is some latitude in the dogma, as whatever physiological facts may logically follow from the truth of the doctrine…are not, in themselves, the content of the doctrine. It's "The Dogma of the Perpetual Virginity," not "The Dogma of Our Lady's Lady-Parts"

        But, nevertheless, certain physical facts may be logically implied such that to deny them would make one suspect, at least, of denying the dogma. Just like if you denied Christ had toenails or stomach acid, you would be suspect of denying the Incarnation, even though these are mere material facts rather remote from the "meaning of" the dogma itself.

        It's like…the meaning of the statement "Barack Obama is president of the United States" is NOT that he gets to wear the presidential bathrobes, even if that is a fact following from the statement. But it's not the content or meaning of that statement.

        1. Again, I can totaly agree with you, Sinner:

          But also again:

          Müller is exactly doing this denial:

          The German "Es geht nicht um…" is clear.

          He excludes "phyisological anomalities in the natural process of birth" – so then how does this not implicitly deny corporal virginity?!?

          But more, he expressely excludes that the dogma is about the "not-injuring of the hymen" or the "not-opening of the birth-canal(s)".

          So, as you rightly said (at very least) he gets suspect of denying the dogma.
          (By denying it´s implications)

          God bless!

  9. @Dear Michael:

    I for my part also decided not to discuss this matter further.

    But then I read your link – thank´s btw. for promoting it – and can not resit now to give a brief answer.

    Because the text in the link above is in clear accord with what I said so far and contradicts what Müller says.
    So I am really wondering why you posted it. (?!)
    The text of renegatetrad states:

    "That (to use the frank biological terms) Mary's hymen was not ruptured, at least, seems unquestionable. If the dogma of her virginity in partu is to have any meaningfulness to it rather than just being an empty tautology, that seems to be the bare minimum."

    But that is what expressely Müller objected.
    See above: the dogma "does not mean anomalous/extraordinary physiological particularities in the natural act of birth (like f.e. … not-injury of the hymen …)"

    So hope you see that this is the contradiction I have been pointing to so far (and am now tired to reiterate further…)

    1. You should see my posts on the Rorate thread, however.

      Muller isn't denying these things happened. Not at all. He's denying that they are the essence or meaning of the dogma.

      They may be material facts logically adjunct to the dogma, but so what? Christ having to defecate and urinate is a material fact adjunct to the Incarnation. It is not the content or meaning of the dogma.

      When you contemplate the glorious truth of the perpetual virginity, if you are contemplating Mary's hymen or thinking that's what the dogma is "about"….you are carnally minded. That may follow as an accidental material implication, to be sure. But this fact is not the specific Truth which the article of faith is guarding.

      1. Müller isn't denying these things happened. Not at all. He's denying that they are the essence or meaning of the dogma….They may be material facts logically adjunct to the dogma, but so what?"

        Sorry, Sir:

        a) This is a contradiction in itself. If they are "facts logically adjunct to the dogma" they of course belong to the "meaning" of the dogma (and also to its essence). Logical implications do so (as I stated more than once now; it´sclear from logic but also theology, cf. Ott, introduction, §4).

        b) NO, Müller is not speaking of the "essence of the dogma" or only excluding some concrete details but he excludes "physiological anomalies in the natural process of birth" straightforward at all! ("Es geht nicht um…".)
        So, please, how can there be a real virginity without "physilogical anomalies in the natural birth-process"??
        – If – in your own words – If the dogma of her virginity in partu is to have any meaningfulness to it rather than just being an empty tautology?!

        c) He is not only clearly denying sth. that belongs to the essence of the dogma ("extraord. physiolog. anomalies in the birth-process"), all the context shows that he understands the dogma in a "spiritualized", not physiological-corporal way.
        There is not the lightes shadow of (a) doubt
        (please pay attention also to the Rahner-quote at the end of Müllers article (p.499) and that Rahner puts "virginal" in apostrophes…. and to the text as a whole – it is absolutely clear that Müller uses only the old term but transforms it to sth. totaly "spiritual").

        d) And that´s in accord with his philosophical backround and with his general introduction of his work.

  10. And to explain my view even more preceisely:

    I would also go so far that it is perhaps no detail at all that is essential to meet the minimum of the dogma. At very least (for the very minimum) it is only that it is some physilogical-bodily aspect at all.

    So I can agree with renegatetrad:
    Our Lady remained even a physiological virgin in the miraculous birth of Christ, to be sure, but just how,…

    or like the quoted Ratzinger put it:
    "The cavalier divorce of 'biology' and theology omits precisely man from consideration…
    The attempt to preserve a spiritual, distilled remainder after the biological element has been eliminated denies the very spiritual reality which is the principal concern of the faith in the God become flesh.

    But that is what Müller does – he seperates biology from faith/theology, hyper-spiritualizes the faith and rejects any physiological extraordinary aspect at all, see above!!!

    So in short: The details may not be de fide – but it is de fide that there is a real bodily-phsical-biological virginity and integrity (as the renegatetrad, Ratzinger and myselfe hold)

    But Müller does reject any physiological meaning, so therefore does not even meet the very minimum of the dogma (let alone more than the absolute minimum…!)

    1. We got just an affirmation of the analysis above by a German university-theologian (so not an SSPXer!) – one of the rare thomistic, traditional thinking official dogmatics-theologians in Germany – Dr. Obenauer.


      He says that materialiter Müller is deviating from the old meaning of the dogma, for the very reason that he is following the modern "hermeneutism" and "strong comtemporary tendencies towards spiritualization" of old concepts that did not have only a "spritiual" meaning.

Leave a Reply