Voris Condemns Modernism Yet Praises JP II
#31
John Paul II probably didn't even know who Chris West ways, let alone know all the details of his talks. Why tae such a lame shot at your Holy Father? Gosh, shameful. We don't have to believe the Pope is prudent, but whether you like the idea of new ideas or not, John Paul II taught those matters as Pope so they deserve our respect. And don't get hung up on Casti Conubii , All of its principles are found in John Paul's writings. Again, you are getting hung up on language styles. We are talking about principles sir, so literary expression. The language of the theology of the body has gained a wide interest among Catholics who thought the CHurch was repressive. If it's not for you, that's fine. But why are you critizing it without even mentioning one principle from it which you think is wrong?

By the way, Casti Conubii was considered "modernist" in its day as well:

24. This mutual molding of husband and wife, this determined effort to perfect each other, can in a very real sense, as the Roman Catechism teaches, be said to be the chief reason and purpose of matrimony, provided matrimony be looked at not in the restricted sense as instituted for the proper conception and education of the child, but more widely as the blending of life as a whole and the mutual interchange and sharing thereof.

Reply
#32
(11-17-2011, 01:08 PM)aquinasg Wrote: John Paul II probably didn't even know who Chris West ways, let alone know all the details of his talks. Why tae such a lame shot at your Holy Father? Gosh, shameful. We don't have to believe the Pope is prudent, but whether you like the idea of new ideas or not, John Paul II taught those matters as Pope so they deserve our respect. And don't get hung up on Casti Conubii , All of its principles are found in John Paul's writings. Again, you are getting hung up on language styles. We are talking about principles sir, so literary expression. The language of the theology of the body has gained a wide interest among Catholics who thought the CHurch was repressive. If it's not for you, that's fine. But why are you critizing it without even mentioning one principle from it which you think is wrong?

By the way, Casti Conubii was considered "modernist" in its day as well:

24. This mutual molding of husband and wife, this determined effort to perfect each other, can in a very real sense, as the Roman Catechism teaches, be said to be the chief reason and purpose of matrimony, provided matrimony be looked at not in the restricted sense as instituted for the proper conception and education of the child, but more widely as the blending of life as a whole and the mutual interchange and sharing thereof.

I don't mention TOB principles because I'm not really opposed to them.  I am opposed to the style (difficult, literary, convoluted) and the timing (we don't need new presentations in this world when the old is rejected, rather we need new things that we can graft into the old, and the old must therefore first be respected).  JP2 didn't have to personally correct West, but none of his chosen bishops did either.

I am not completely anti-JP2, I respect many things about him, but he did some really bizarre things.  If people really thought the church was repressed on sex, why didn't he just teach them it wasn't and reiterate the Church's traditional teachings?
Reply
#33
(11-17-2011, 02:01 PM)newyorkcatholic Wrote: I am not completely anti-JP2, I respect many things about him, but he did some really bizarre things.  If people really thought the church was repressed on sex, why didn't he just teach them it wasn't and reiterate the Church's traditional teachings?

Because he obviously didn't care about the Church's traditional teachings.
Reply
#34
(11-17-2011, 02:11 PM)Servire Deo Wrote:
(11-17-2011, 02:01 PM)newyorkcatholic Wrote: I am not completely anti-JP2, I respect many things about him, but he did some really bizarre things.  If people really thought the church was repressed on sex, why didn't he just teach them it wasn't and reiterate the Church's traditional teachings?

Because he obviously didn't care about the Church's traditional teachings.

I was asking more rhetorically.  Of course he should have reiterated the traditional teachings, but didn't, and there's something wrong there.  I'd rather not speculate on motive, but your statement is unfortunately a possible answer.
Reply
#35
(11-17-2011, 03:14 PM)newyorkcatholic Wrote:
(11-17-2011, 02:11 PM)Servire Deo Wrote:
(11-17-2011, 02:01 PM)newyorkcatholic Wrote: I am not completely anti-JP2, I respect many things about him, but he did some really bizarre things.  If people really thought the church was repressed on sex, why didn't he just teach them it wasn't and reiterate the Church's traditional teachings?

Because he obviously didn't care about the Church's traditional teachings.

I was asking more rhetorically.  Of course he should have reiterated the traditional teachings, but didn't, and there's something wrong there.  I'd rather not speculate on motive, but your statement is unfortunately a possible answer.

Either he didn't care or had contempt. I'll leave that for you to decide.
Reply
#36
(11-17-2011, 03:15 PM)Servire Deo Wrote:
(11-17-2011, 03:14 PM)newyorkcatholic Wrote:
(11-17-2011, 02:11 PM)Servire Deo Wrote:
(11-17-2011, 02:01 PM)newyorkcatholic Wrote: I am not completely anti-JP2, I respect many things about him, but he did some really bizarre things.  If people really thought the church was repressed on sex, why didn't he just teach them it wasn't and reiterate the Church's traditional teachings?

Because he obviously didn't care about the Church's traditional teachings.

I was asking more rhetorically.  Of course he should have reiterated the traditional teachings, but didn't, and there's something wrong there.  I'd rather not speculate on motive, but your statement is unfortunately a possible answer.

Either he didn't care or had contempt. I'll leave that for you to decide.

He also could have been compromised (illness, e.g. dementia).  Or more likely than all three choices, he could have been misguided and thought he was doing best and supporting traditional teachings and just amplifying them or whatever.
Reply
#37
(11-17-2011, 03:19 PM)newyorkcatholic Wrote:
(11-17-2011, 03:15 PM)Servire Deo Wrote:
(11-17-2011, 03:14 PM)newyorkcatholic Wrote:
(11-17-2011, 02:11 PM)Servire Deo Wrote:
(11-17-2011, 02:01 PM)newyorkcatholic Wrote: I am not completely anti-JP2, I respect many things about him, but he did some really bizarre things.  If people really thought the church was repressed on sex, why didn't he just teach them it wasn't and reiterate the Church's traditional teachings?

Because he obviously didn't care about the Church's traditional teachings.

I was asking more rhetorically.  Of course he should have reiterated the traditional teachings, but didn't, and there's something wrong there.  I'd rather not speculate on motive, but your statement is unfortunately a possible answer.

Either he didn't care or had contempt. I'll leave that for you to decide.

He also could have been compromised (illness, e.g. dementia).  Or more likely than all three choices, he could have been misguided and thought he was doing best and supporting traditional teachings and just amplifying them or whatever.

ggreg has talked about that. In the Apostasy following Vatican II, many trads thought that Paul VI and successors were prisoners of the Vatican and that they weren't really running the show. Bullocks. JPII might have been senile that last few years but that doesn't change anything of substance.
Reply
#38
John Paul II didn't change any of the traditional principles of sexuality. He merely presented it in a fashion he thought would click with people better. You don't have to prefer it, but my beef was with people on here saying it was heresy (modernism) without backing such a statement up with anything
Reply
#39
(11-17-2011, 06:05 PM)aquinasg Wrote: John Paul II didn't change any of the traditional principles of sexuality. He merely presented it in a fashion he thought would click with people better. You don't have to prefer it, but my beef was with people on here saying it was heresy (modernism) without backing such a statement up with anything

Yes he did.

NFP is heresy.
Reply
#40
(11-17-2011, 01:08 PM)aquinasg Wrote: But why are you critizing it without even mentioning one principle from it which you think is wrong?

Perhaps we wrongly assume that you're already familiar with certain basic issues. Your definition of true traditionalism, for example, indicates a grave deficiency in this respect.

At any rate, you might read this:

http://arturovasquez.wordpress.com/2009/...chatology/

You might also study John Paul II and the ‘Theology of the Body’ –
A Study in Modernism
, by Randy Engel. Here:

http://www.newengelpublishing.com/produc...-Body.html

Regarding Christopher West, you might see:

http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/document.php?n=999

and especially:

http://www.remnantnewspaper.com/Archives...t_show.htm



Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)