Jacques Maritain
#21
(01-28-2010, 12:45 PM)JamieF Wrote: Be very careful with Von Hildebrand - Pope Pius XII's endorsement was for some of his early works - not some of his later works which contain comments that verge on heresy and were built on by modernists.  Here is one quote:
Mmmhmmm..... :sneaky:

Quote:I thought God was the deepest source of happiness in human life.
Are you married? I will say plainly that my wife is my deepest source of happiness in my life. Of course God is too, although he is a source of happiness that is limitless, and because of God's very way of being our relationship differs greatly from the one I share with my wife. Both afford different kinds of happiness. Experientially though, my wife makes me most happy out of any one or thing in the world. That is how we are ordered, and that's what God intended for the married. I don't think God is offended by my testimony, for He knows full well that He does not present Himself to us the way other humans do. You should really try to be more understanding of Dr. Von Hildebrand, especially since elsewhere (if not in the surrounding text) he makes ample defense of the prime importance of the love of God. This is no more a sign of "modernism" (pff) than the 'subsists in' clause. We live this life always with a veil before our eyes. We do not see God, nor do we always feel emotionally moved by His Love. This is normal, and not an evil.

Or maybe its the bloody translation, dude.

Quote:It is because of the endorsement of Pius XII that seems to blind many to the problems of Von Hildebrand.  Frankly, you would be better to stick to the writings of TRULY orthodox writers like Garigou-Lagrange.  At least he won't put you wrong or confuse you.
I haven't been confused by Von Hildebrand. He is straight forward, and methodical. Only an idiot would take him to mean that one's spouse is a higher good than God, or the source of all happiness and joy. I do not think you really think that. That is such an elementary error, not even my un-catechized brother would read him that way. I think you give him too much credit.

Quote:And for those here who would recommend that people read the likes of Maritain with the excuse that while they may spew heresies, there are some good things in their writings - would you eat porridge with poison mixed in?  If not, why would you poison your soul in the same way?
So you believe in being spoon-fed by some intelligentsia from within the Church? Adult Catholics can read what they want, provided they're smart enough. If they encounter anything troublesome that is beyond their grasp, they can ask their priest, who should read with them, and try their best to not insult an honorable man such as Dr. Von HIldebrand, especially since there is no evidence that he was trying to overthrow dogma. I for one am glad the Index was crushed. Those who will be poisoned want to be poisoned. Those who thirst for truth, and deeper understanding will only grow if by reading some horrible idea they are offended. A Catholic who is intelligent enough to read such books is also humble enough to examine each step in any author's writings carefully and without haste. (Perhaps then we should be forbidden to read all theology, because we seem to be quite proficient at passing swift condemnation...Since rarely does this attitude coincide with those who assume themselves to be, shall we say, smarter than the rest?)

Quote:All Catholics should avoid all works by the modernists and stick exclusively to works we know are safe and follow logic - it is that which will beat the modernists, not an "understanding" of their lies.
Complete and utter nonsense. Even if the two aforementioned authors were crypto-heretics, it would actually be helping their (alleged) cause were we to simply be uneducated about their writings. Clinging to our Baltimore Catechisms at night while we sleep (which, sorry to say, weren't and aren't bloody enough) isn't going to make things all better.


As for Garigou-Lagrange, I have nothing bad to say. Excellent writer, and probably very holy.

(01-29-2010, 04:42 AM)Oldavid Wrote: Yes, indeed, I concur with most of the above.Since about 1840 "theologians" have been incorporating very subtle inferences of modernism into their writings. Even be cautious of Garigou- Lagrange as he has "blessed" Darwinism under the cloak of Scholasticism.    Dear God, I know that we deserve it but can we bear it?
Oh quit being so dramatic.  :laughing:

I can tell the lot of you spend your whole morning glue to Tradition in Action.  :puke:
Reply
#22
As for Garigou-Lagrange, I have nothing bad to say. Excellent writer, and probably very holy.

(01-29-2010, 04:42 AM)Oldavid Wrote: Yes, indeed, I concur with most of the above.Since about 1840 "theologians" have been incorporating very subtle inferences of modernism into their writings. Even be cautious of Garigou- Lagrange as he has "blessed" Darwinism under the cloak of Scholasticism.    Dear God, I know that we deserve it but can we bear it?
Oh quit being so dramatic.  :laughing:

Thanks Anthony,
Even though I find some of your statements difficult to understand I appreciate your incisiveness and good-naturedness.
I've read garigou-Lagrange cover to cover twice and would probably have done so again but I loaned the books to a priest who gave them away....I loved it all except the bit where he blessed Darwinism....which I expect that he had to do or it would never have been published.
Clearly I don't know all about everything but I do know that Darwinism is a perverse and ridiculous superstition.
What's Tradition in Action?.

I can tell the lot of you spend your whole morning glue to Tradition in Action.  :puke:
[/quote]
Reply
#23
(01-28-2010, 12:45 PM)JamieF Wrote: Be very careful with Von Hildebrand - Pope Pius XII's endorsement was for some of his early works - not some of his later works which contain comments that verge on heresy and were built on by modernists.  Here is one quote:

"The very meaning and value which marriage possesses of its own cannot be understood if we fail to start from the great and prominent reality of the love between man and woman. And here, let us be frank, we touch on a kind of scandal in Catholic writings on marriage. In them one hears much of the will of the flesh, the remedy for concupiscence, mutual help and assistance, procreation; but one hears very little of love. We mean the love between man and woman, the deepest source of happiness in human life, the great glorious love of which the Song of Solomon says: “If a man would give all the substance of his house for love, he would despise it as nothing.”

I thought God was the deepest source of happiness in human life. 

Yeah, even Plato picked up on that.

From CE:

Quote:Hence the acquisition of happiness depends on the working out of the good for man in man's life. What then is the good? For Socrates it is eupraxia, which receives closer definition at the hands of Plato, as such harmonious functioning of the parts of man's soul as shall preserve the subordination of the lower to the higher, of the non-rational to the rational. In this view happiness becomes for Plato less the reward than the inevitable concomitant of such harmony. It is the property of the whole soul; and the demand of any element of the soul for preferential treatment in the matter of happiness Plato would thus look upon as unreasonable.

And the ultimate good, the ultimate happiness then, by definition, is God.  And for Plato this means leaving the cave to get to the "really-real" which in many aspects is the spiritual and the Beatific Vision.

Plato is the bees' knees.
Reply
#24
(01-29-2010, 11:50 PM)anthony Wrote:
(01-28-2010, 12:45 PM)JamieF Wrote: Be very careful with Von Hildebrand - Pope Pius XII's endorsement was for some of his early works - not some of his later works which contain comments that verge on heresy and were built on by modernists.  Here is one quote:
Mmmhmmm..... :sneaky:

Quote:I thought God was the deepest source of happiness in human life.
Are you married? I will say plainly that my wife is my deepest source of happiness in my life. Of course God is too, although he is a source of happiness that is limitless, and because of God's very way of being our relationship differs greatly from the one I share with my wife. Both afford different kinds of happiness. Experientially though, my wife makes me most happy out of any one or thing in the world. That is how we are ordered, and that's what God intended for the married. I don't think God is offended by my testimony, for He knows full well that He does not present Himself to us the way other humans do. You should really try to be more understanding of Dr. Von Hildebrand, especially since elsewhere (if not in the surrounding text) he makes ample defense of the prime importance of the love of God. This is no more a sign of "modernism" (pff) than the 'subsists in' clause. We live this life always with a veil before our eyes. We do not see God, nor do we always feel emotionally moved by His Love. This is normal, and not an evil.

Or maybe its the bloody translation, dude.

Quote:It is because of the endorsement of Pius XII that seems to blind many to the problems of Von Hildebrand.  Frankly, you would be better to stick to the writings of TRULY orthodox writers like Garigou-Lagrange.  At least he won't put you wrong or confuse you.
I haven't been confused by Von Hildebrand. He is straight forward, and methodical. Only an idiot would take him to mean that one's spouse is a higher good than God, or the source of all happiness and joy. I do not think you really think that. That is such an elementary error, not even my un-catechized brother would read him that way. I think you give him too much credit.

Quote:And for those here who would recommend that people read the likes of Maritain with the excuse that while they may spew heresies, there are some good things in their writings - would you eat porridge with poison mixed in?  If not, why would you poison your soul in the same way?
So you believe in being spoon-fed by some intelligentsia from within the Church? Adult Catholics can read what they want, provided they're smart enough. If they encounter anything troublesome that is beyond their grasp, they can ask their priest, who should read with them, and try their best to not insult an honorable man such as Dr. Von HIldebrand, especially since there is no evidence that he was trying to overthrow dogma. I for one am glad the Index was crushed. Those who will be poisoned want to be poisoned. Those who thirst for truth, and deeper understanding will only grow if by reading some horrible idea they are offended. A Catholic who is intelligent enough to read such books is also humble enough to examine each step in any author's writings carefully and without haste. (Perhaps then we should be forbidden to read all theology, because we seem to be quite proficient at passing swift condemnation...Since rarely does this attitude coincide with those who assume themselves to be, shall we say, smarter than the rest?)

Quote:All Catholics should avoid all works by the modernists and stick exclusively to works we know are safe and follow logic - it is that which will beat the modernists, not an "understanding" of their lies.
Complete and utter nonsense. Even if the two aforementioned authors were crypto-heretics, it would actually be helping their (alleged) cause were we to simply be uneducated about their writings. Clinging to our Baltimore Catechisms at night while we sleep (which, sorry to say, weren't and aren't bloody enough) isn't going to make things all better.


As for Garigou-Lagrange, I have nothing bad to say. Excellent writer, and probably very holy.

(01-29-2010, 04:42 AM)Oldavid Wrote: Yes, indeed, I concur with most of the above.Since about 1840 "theologians" have been incorporating very subtle inferences of modernism into their writings. Even be cautious of Garigou- Lagrange as he has "blessed" Darwinism under the cloak of Scholasticism.    Dear God, I know that we deserve it but can we bear it?
Oh quit being so dramatic.  :laughing:

I can tell the lot of you spend your whole morning glue to Tradition in Action.  :puke:

If no one read their writings, they would have had no success.  It is their popularity that enabled them to triumph. It is nearly ridiculous to suggest that we should read the writings of heretics or else they will flourish.  Garigou-Lagrange wrote vehemently and often against the ideas of people like Maritain - it is sufficient for me to read his responses than the original works because there is a much smaller chance of being taken in by it.  I am not as smart as Garigou-Lagrange - why should I try to analyze Maritain when he has already done it far better than I could?  What is curious is how this has a parallel in modernism - in which we are told to go to "original sources" and work from there - ignoring scholastic tradition which has clearly explained those sources for near one thousand years.
Reply
#25
Maritain hung out with Dorothy Day and Saul Alinskey.  All I need to know.  I doubt I will ever read him, but might, in the "know your enemy" spirit.  When reading leftists, the first time I spot a bad premise, or get a whiff of Hegel, I lose interest.  Also, a lot of that garbage are "triggers" for me, and I don't want to have to check back into deprogramming.  I had years of that crap injected into my brain.  Reading "Caritas in Veritate" was a huge chore.

Oldavid, you do know that Maritain is esteemed by certain (many?) Distributists don't you?  Granted, probably from the Dorothy Day wing of the party.
Reply
#26
(01-16-2010, 12:01 AM)anthony Wrote: 10 bucks says none of you have read Maritain, or Rahner (not that I would recommend it without having taken Tylenol beforehand).

:fish:
Reply
#27
(05-05-2010, 02:10 PM)James02 Wrote: Maritain hung out with Dorothy Day and Saul Alinskey.  All I need to know.  I doubt I will ever read him, but might, in the "know your enemy" spirit.  When reading leftists, the first time I spot a bad premise, or get a whiff of Hegel, I lose interest.  Also, a lot of that garbage are "triggers" for me, and I don't want to have to check back into deprogramming.  I had years of that crap injected into my brain.  Reading "Caritas in Veritate" was a huge chore.

Oldavid, you do know that Maritain is esteemed by certain (many?) Distributists don't you?  Granted, probably from the Dorothy Day wing of the party.

Goodness me!
Your impertinence is only outdone by your ignorance.
Reply
#28
(05-05-2010, 02:37 PM)Walty Wrote:
(01-16-2010, 12:01 AM)anthony Wrote: 10 bucks says none of you have read Maritain, or Rahner (not that I would recommend it without having taken Tylenol beforehand).

:fish:

I was reading some Rahner this past week (Theological Investigations 11) and I can honestly say that I don't think he truly believed in the resurrection.
Reply
#29
(01-16-2010, 01:42 AM)Marc Wrote: I won't say much about Karl Rahner, only that I have always been in complete and fervent agreement with his thesis of the Anonymous Christian

I'm pleasantly surprised.  :)
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)