FishEaters Traditional Catholic Forums

Full Version: Christopher West Thanks and Responds to his critics
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5
One aspect of theology is the philosophical meditation on the state of man in relation to God. In this respect, the TOB proposes the three stages in the anthropological development of man, as the 'original man', the 'historical man' and the 'eschatological man'. Adam, as the 'original man' before the Fall, was the apex of corporeal creation, in a state of innocence. If he has not fallen, he would remain a 'little below the angel'. Nevertheless, it was 'not good', as God said in Genesis. The proper destiny and glory of man is the 'eschatological man' of whom Jesus Christ is the model of all of creation, the alpha and the omega - above the angels. Adam may be the magnificent being before the Fall. But, this is devotional postulation of the 'historical man' to whom we all belonged after the Fall. As I said, theology is a philosophical meditation of us, the fallen man, the 'historical man'. My 2-cents worth.
Didn't God say that it was "not good" in reference to Adam being alone and not his corporeal perfection?

By saying Jesus is the model of all Creation, I'm reminded of Tielhard's "Omega Point" in which Jesus is for all intents and purposes, the most highly evolved of us and not really a separate fully man, fully God being part of the Trinity with us as  a separate thing, a Creation. 

JPII's Darwinistic approach blurs the clear distinction between Creator and Creature and makes Christ's share in our humanity and His sharing with us His Divinity a bit too fuzzy.  It could easily be read as a deification of Man.  Which is exactly what the Serpent told Eve to tempt her to eat the fruit. 

If anything JPII's vision of our Fallen Nature is "only slightly fallen" and only on a psychological plain it seems from his approach.  If we say a prayer and work hard, we are back in paradise and we should give God's grace the credit.   And it's my own personal suspicion that JPII just viewed all of this as an emotional and psychological framework that effects some "spiritual transformation" with no concrete perceptible differences in the 3 dimensional Universe we inhabit except in our attitudes.   
(10-23-2009, 11:30 AM)Gerard Wrote: [ -> ]A lot of disordered desires find expression in an overcomplication of a straightforward teaching of the Church.   TOB uses a pseudo intellectualism to obsess about sex.   

One of our profs said that JPII's TOB was really just Augustine's views on sex in different language (and not all that novel).  However, I'm not that familiar with Augustine or TOB, so I can't assess that opinion (although perhaps someone else can).

If it is true, then I don't think it would be classified as "pseudo-intellectualism".
(10-28-2009, 09:45 PM)Gerard Wrote: [ -> ]By saying Jesus is the model of all Creation, I'm reminded of Tielhard's "Omega Point" in which Jesus is for all intents and purposes, the most highly evolved of us and not really a separate fully man, fully God being part of the Trinity with us as  a separate thing, a Creation. 

Wow...

St. Paul Wrote:He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation. For in him were created all things in heaven and on earth, the visible and the invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or powers; all things were created through him and for him. He is before all things, and in him all things hold together. He is the head of the body, the church. He is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, that in all things he himself might be preeminent. For in him all the fullness was pleased to dwell.

Is St. Paul espousing heresy when he says that Christ is the "firstborn of all Creation"?  Or when we say that the Son is the Logos, the principle on which the entire created world rests, are we then nodding in agreement with Teilhard?  Or when Christ says He's the "Alpha and Omega", what does He mean?

You've made a beautiful strawman.  In all that I've read of JPII, I've never ever seen him espouse the notion that we can somehow evolve into divinity (to summarize Teilhard).  Creation proceeds from the Word, and thus Christ can be called the model of all Creation.

Just, wow...

And to comment on the post previous to this one, you can't say "consequently":

Quote:The problem with that take on TOB is that it runs along the lines of Karl Rahner's Supernatural Existential which leads to his "anonymous Christianity" claptrap.    It also bears the influence of Darwin and consequently Tielhard de Chardin.

Premise: "One who believes in Darwin, consequently believes in Teilhard de Chardin." 

I don't think atheists would agree with Teilhard.  Thus, I don't think it can be said that just because one accepts tenets of evolution, necessarily has to believe in the "Omega Point" (since evolution says nothing about the order of grace).  And while I don't want to re-hash a debate on evolution, I do think Pius XII at least thought that discussion on evolution sans Teilhard was possible (given that he allowed such general discussions to take place in the same encyclical in which he condemned the forementioned theory).
The starting perspective of the TOB is the man in history (the 'historical man'), disordered by the 'original sin', in need of salvation, and finds his destiny as the 'eschatological man' in the life-death-and-resurrection of Jesus Christ, the God-man. There is no provision for a material Darwinist evolution or to the pseudoscience theology of Chardin.

There are two accounts of creation in Genesis. The seven-day story ("In the beginning..") ends in the creation of man on the sixth day, and God finds all of creation 'very good'. The other account relates to the creation of Adam-Eve as much as to the Fall; the two aspects are linked in context. The 'not good' refers more than Adam lacking a mate but also to the lacking in human nature in its 'original' state, for in spite of the coupling, the Fall resulted. In this connection, it is not an oversight of God that the Second Person of the Trinity becomes man but it is His will "In the beginning..."

Jesus Christ is the God-man, the beloved son of God, and man become 'sons of God' through Him. The God-man is the mode to which man is fashioned after his salvation and resurrection. In this sense the God-man is the model of man. There is no suggestion in the TOB  that the 'historical man' is not in need of salvation through Jesus Christ. "God become man so that man might become a god" (cf St Athanasus in De Incarnatione). This is good patriarchy.

I think the TOB deserves a fair reading. Depending on your intellectual honesty, one can discard it into the dustbin or hold it up for deeper reflection. Again, my 2-cents worth!
(10-24-2009, 06:58 AM)glgas Wrote: [ -> ]
(10-24-2009, 04:09 AM)The_Harlequin_King Wrote: [ -> ]I think sex should be as painful as possible.

We are fortunate that God 'believes' in the freedom instead of the dictature, so the humanity will survive for while.

What you apparently do not understand that the sexuality as intrinsically sinful thing come to our word , only with the absolutism, and interestingly both in the protestant (Puritanism) and the Catholic (St Alphonse's moraltheology) side. Before that the sex was natural part of the life, restricted only with harmful consequences, as the adultery or unnatural sexual encounters.

Meditate on the genealogy of Jesus by the Gospel of Matthew. Only four women is mentioned, and all four is sexually stained by the St Alphonsian sexual morality: Tamar using the fact that traveling men need sexual relief, Rachab the worker of the same need, Ruth seducing his boss, and the adulterous women, who became the mother of Salomon.

In the medieval eves the public nudity on the beaches was natural, the prostitutes were part of the community life, those born outside of the marriage had their rights, and all this with the implicit approval of the Church.

The sins against the castity are that of the lesser ones, those against the humility, for the greed, for the power are more harmful, and the emphasizing of the sexual sins is constructed to hide this more harmful sins.

Just meditete, when did you confessed your sins for the greed, for the pride, for the anger, for the sloth, and if you centered on those what was the reaction of a traditional priest?   

Our Lady of Fatima said that more souls go to Hell because of Sins of the Flesh than any other sin.  Moreover, lust causes abortion, divorce, adultery, screwed up children, unhappy marriages and men who can't get it up and keep it up because porn has re-wired their brain.  It's also a massive distraction to most men most of the time.

Focus on the Elephant in the Room.  It's the economy, stupid.
(10-27-2009, 11:09 PM)Walty Wrote: [ -> ]
(10-27-2009, 11:01 PM)Gerard Wrote: [ -> ]
(10-27-2009, 08:47 PM)anthony Wrote: [ -> ]All this coming from someone who hasn't even studied it?

:laughing:

I'm not sure which one of us you were referring to.  If it's me, I have only read a few of JPII's addresses and I've taken the course of Theology of the Body as presented by Christopher West's organization at a local parish out of curiosity.   

I think part of the issue is that you are familiar with it through Christopher West.  I don't think anyone here would claim that West is anywhere near ok in his approach, nor is it loyal to the actual work of JPII.

Yes, that would seem to be the case.   West is the default guy for TOB, but he put waaaayyy too much of his own schlock in there.  I don't like Weigel, either.  When you go back and take the time to read the primary source, you see that it's not quite what some people say.   This issue is what convinced me that I needed to avoid reading commentary on anything that I hadn't actually read.
(10-29-2009, 01:49 AM)MeaMaximaCulpa Wrote: [ -> ]
(10-28-2009, 09:45 PM)Gerard Wrote: [ -> ]By saying Jesus is the model of all Creation, I'm reminded of Tielhard's "Omega Point" in which Jesus is for all intents and purposes, the most highly evolved of us and not really a separate fully man, fully God being part of the Trinity with us as  a separate thing, a Creation. 

Wow...

St. Paul Wrote:He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation. For in him were created all things in heaven and on earth, the visible and the invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or powers; all things were created through him and for him. He is before all things, and in him all things hold together. He is the head of the body, the church. He is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, that in all things he himself might be preeminent. For in him all the fullness was pleased to dwell.

Is St. Paul espousing heresy when he says that Christ is the "firstborn of all Creation"?  Or when we say that the Son is the Logos, the principle on which the entire created world rests, are we then nodding in agreement with Teilhard?  Or when Christ says He's the "Alpha and Omega", what does He mean?

No.  St. Paul is not espousing heresy.  What in the world makes you think that what St. Paul wrote is the same thing that Tielhard espoused? 

Quote: You've made a beautiful strawman. 

Not the strawman you just put up is truly a work of art.   

Quote: In all that I've read of JPII, I've never ever seen him espouse the notion that we can somehow evolve into divinity (to summarize Teilhard).  Creation proceeds from the Word, and thus Christ can be called the model of all Creation.

Ah yes. Because YOU haven't seen him "espouse the notion" it must not be there.  But espousing notions is what JPII was best at.  He won't directly contradict the Church, but he will espouse a notion of heresy and let a bunch of people fall into actual heresy by his imprudent formulations. 

The point is simple.  Creation as we see it is Fallen.  It is not as it was when God created it.   Unfortunately someone with a Darwinist mentality will view this tri-dimensional existence as an apex of Creation. 

Tielhard, Rahner, von Balthazar, JPII while disagreeing on niggling details, all have the mentality of Man as demi-God to become God someday.  Why else would JPII be "espousing the notion" of "Universal Salvation?"  Because God can't really be damned to Hell.  And if Man is ultimately God, it's illogical that He would be damned. 

Quote:Just, wow...

And to comment on the post previous to this one, you can't say "consequently":

Quote:The problem with that take on TOB is that it runs along the lines of Karl Rahner's Supernatural Existential which leads to his "anonymous Christianity" claptrap.    It also bears the influence of Darwin and consequently Tielhard de Chardin.

Premise: "One who believes in Darwin, consequently believes in Teilhard de Chardin." 

Correction:  One who believe in Darwin may consequently believe in Teilhard de Chardin.   

Your false premise is:  "Consequence =  Necessity"   :P

Quote: I don't think atheists would agree with Teilhard. 

Wow.  You are calling JPII an Atheist.    just wow.....  (at least that's what I think you are saying, because otherwise, it would be completely irrelevant to the discussion at hand.  )

Quote: Thus, I don't think it can be said that just because one accepts tenets of evolution, necessarily has to believe in the "Omega Point" (since evolution says nothing about the order of grace). 

Again, you are conflating "consequence" with "necessity."   Are you denying that there is a logical sequence between someone believing in evolution and therefore (consequently) accepting Tielhard's fantasies? 

Quote:  And while I don't want to re-hash a debate on evolution, I do think Pius XII at least thought that discussion on evolution sans Teilhard was possible (given that he allowed such general discussions to take place in the same encyclical in which he condemned the forementioned theory).

There is no indication that JPII followed the teaching of Pius XII with regards to evolution.  Based on nothing, he affirmed his personal belief in it, based on no scientific argument.   Pius XII allowed discussion provided that arguments both for and against be presented.  JPII and unfortunately BXVI have not followed this prudent course. 

And Pius XII left no room for the polygenism that attempts to undermine the belief in the special creation of man.   Pius XII bound the Church to that position with the Ordinary infallible Magisterium.

"When, however, there is question of another conjectural opinion, namely polygenism, the children of the Church by no means enjoy such liberty. For the faithful cannot embrace that opinion which maintains that either after Adam there existed on this earth true men who did not take their origin through natural generation from him as from the first parent of all, or that Adam represents a certain number of first parents. Now it is in no way apparent how such an opinion can be reconciled with that which the sources of revealed truth and the documents of the Teaching Authority of the Church propose with regard to original sin, which proceeds from a sin actually committed by an individual Adam and which, through generation, is passed on to all and is in everyone as his own"
(10-29-2009, 07:49 AM)iggyting Wrote: [ -> ]The starting perspective of the TOB is the man in history (the 'historical man'), disordered by the 'original sin', in need of salvation, and finds his destiny as the 'eschatological man' in the life-death-and-resurrection of Jesus Christ, the God-man. There is no provision for a material Darwinist evolution or to the pseudoscience theology of Chardin.

There are two accounts of creation in Genesis. The seven-day story ("In the beginning..") ends in the creation of man on the sixth day, and God finds all of creation 'very good'. The other account relates to the creation of Adam-Eve as much as to the Fall; the two aspects are linked in context. The 'not good' refers more than Adam lacking a mate but also to the lacking in human nature in its 'original' state, for in spite of the coupling, the Fall resulted. In this connection, it is not an oversight of God that the Second Person of the Trinity becomes man but it is His will "In the beginning..."

Jesus Christ is the God-man, the beloved son of God, and man become 'sons of God' through Him. The God-man is the mode to which man is fashioned after his salvation and resurrection. In this sense the God-man is the model of man. There is no suggestion in the TOB  that the 'historical man' is not in need of salvation through Jesus Christ. "God become man so that man might become a god" (cf St Athanasus in De Incarnatione). This is good patriarchy.

I think the TOB deserves a fair reading. Depending on your intellectual honesty, one can discard it into the dustbin or hold it up for deeper reflection. Again, my 2-cents worth!


I would counter with the fact that we are unclear on what JPII's personal reflections were on exactly what "Salvation" is.  His tendency to evoke the idea of Universal Salvation is yet another factor in trying to figure out where he stood in relation to healthy Catholic understanding of Revelation and novel errors.  Also, one can't help but notice that he's developed a sort of "Trinity of Man" in his Original/Historical/ Eschatological model. 

When he is talking about "Original Man" is he talking about Adam?  Does he believe in a specific man with a feast day in the Church on Dec. 24th?    Does he believe we can pray to St. Adam for his intercession? 

If he doesn't believe in that.  (and I believe he didn't, considering his unwillingness to affirm anything so fundamental)  We are starting off on completely different ideas and consequently I have no certitude that he's a viable guide for anything and I'll question every word he uses. 
Yep. If everyone had painful sex, this whole discussion wouldn't be necessary.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5