SSPX Bishop Tissier de Mallerais Holding Firm
#11
anthony Wrote:
Quote:


This is an hilariously simple, inadequate and downright incorrect interpretation of personalism. [Image: doh.gif] He might as well be denying St. Thomas Aquinas' philosophy of the personhood and human essence..


If you are going to dismiss what he says you must provide a suitable alternative. 




Reply
#12
Comforting words from His Excellency.
Reply
#13
Scipio_a Wrote:
anthony Wrote:
Quote:


This is an hilariously simple, inadequate and downright incorrect interpretation of personalism. [Image: doh.gif] He might as well be denying St. Thomas Aquinas' philosophy of the personhood and human essence..


If you are going to dismiss what he says you must provide a suitable alternative. 
Cats said that his critique (if it can even be called a critique) of what he calls personalist philosophy is really just a focus on those who took a certain view of it...Adopting it and making it their own. A "liberal" view, if you will. Personalism is anything but harmless if taken along with other important (and vital) aspects of morality and ethics, especially since it agrees with Thomas and Aristotle that human beings posses a nature and that this nature has ethical import.

However, I am not competant enough myself to explain the said philosophy, especially since it isn't a complete system of thought. It certainly isn't wrong or contrary to the faith, so long as it is understood in its proper context. Let the Bishop who claims to "know it all" put forth a thorough critique, one that refrains from making non-sequiturs.

Quote:This error corrupted the so-called Declaration on Religious Liberty, saying that everyone has the right not to be prevented from worshipping the Divinity according to his own mind. This comes directly from personalism.
The text in bold seems completely orthodox to me.

Quote: The true definition of the human person was given by Boethius: an individual substance of a rational nature.
Okay. Fine. Individual substance. Rational nature.

Quote:The Thomist insists on “the rational nature”, because man has an intellect that is made to discover, to grasp, the truth; and to hold the truth. Thus the perfection of the intellect is to know the truth, because the truth is the object of the intellect. Thus the perfection of the human person consists in possessing the truth.
Does not follow.


Quote: But now, the new “personalists” take the same definition of the human person, but stress rather the “individual substance”. The person consists of being an “individual”, so they must have rights according to their individuality. That is to say, to have liberty without consideration of the truth.

What he concludes here cannot be gathered from what precedes it. Does not follow.


Quote:By stressing the “individual substance”, the human person has the right of an “individual”, his own principles, his own choices, without consideration of the truth. The possession of the truth is not essential in the new definition.
Are we to understand that Boethius stressed the intellectual nature of man to the exclusion of his objective and individual substance? Why should we accept the former rather than the latter?


Quote:This was the teaching of Jacques Maritain in France, who was a Thomistic philosopher, but converted to “personalism”. He had great influence on Pope Paul VI and on the Second Vatican Council.
Yes, he had a great influence on the post-conciliar Church and the sad but good man who became Paul VI. But you have not quoted anything of his here, nor have you given a decent account of personalism or how it pertains (or fails to pertain) to the faith.
           
Quote:Personalism insists that the individual must be free, must be independent, must choose by himself. In this consists “human dignity”. And this was condemned by Pope St. Pius X Letter to the French Bishops against Sillonism.
In the document on Religious Liberty, it says that man cannot and should not be coerced into accepting truth. They cannot be forced to participate in the true cult of worship, but are obliged to follow their conscience in all matters of discernment, whether it be truth (subject or object). If personalism has influenced this writing in the above light, then it is wholly orthodox.



Other than that, the interview is good. I hope he doesn't convert Rome from her present errors over to theirs though.
Reply
#14
Dietrich von Hildebrand was a personalist. I'm having a difficult time tying anything he wrote to heresy.
Reply
#15
Personalism and Phenomenology are simply too shadowy and indirect modes of thinking for use in developing policies governing a Universal Church. 

From my reading of them they are generally attempts to distill the religious experience of one individual into an academic exercise in order to evoke that same religious experience in another.  It's akin to trying to put lightning in a bottle.  The Catechism of Trent wisely would recommend reflection and meditation for the person to discover on their own what God wanted to reveal to them interiorly.

They should be particular schools of thought and spiritualities for those who are attracted to them.  But to form policy based on them was a disaster. 


Reply
#16
anthony Wrote:However, I am not competant enough myself to explain the said philosophy, especially since it isn't a complete system of thought. It certainly isn't wrong or contrary to the faith, so long as it is understood in its proper context. Let the Bishop who claims to "know it all" put forth a thorough critique, one that refrains from making non-sequiturs.


So basically, you, like I, have to default to assuming it is othodox because John Paul II, who we were blessed to have!, developed it as a sort of personal crusade in philosophy (as well as several others of great import who held to it or espoused it)?  Or do you have more to offer on this subject?
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)