Voris Condemns Modernism Yet Praises JP II
#41
"John Paul II didn't change any of the traditional principles of sexuality."

God wishes to establish in the world devotion to My Immaculate Heart.   -Our Lady of the Rosary at Fatima

John Paul II should have focused his energies on making God's wish become a reality.  He didn't.  I'm not impressed with what he did instead.
Reply
#42
(11-17-2011, 06:16 PM)Albino_Luciani Wrote: "John Paul II didn't change any of the traditional principles of sexuality."

God wishes to establish in the world devotion to My Immaculate Heart.   -Our Lady of the Rosary at Fatima

John Paul II should have focused his energies on making God's wish become a reality.  He didn't.  I'm not impressed with what he did instead.

What sort of person disobeys a wish from Heaven?
Reply
#43
I've read the aticle from the Remnant before, and it admits that maybe the ToB is helpful for our culture. As for Alice von Hildebrand, her criticism is of Chris West, not John Paul II. Her husband, referred to as a Doctor of the Church by Pius XII, was the first major theologian that I know of to point out how (obviously) the primary meaning (as opposed to end) of sex was love. He also used the linguistic styls of phenomenology. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy: Phenomenology is the study of structures of consciousness as experienced from the first-person point of view. The central structure of an experience is its intentionality, its being directed toward something, as it is an experience of or about some object. An experience is directed toward an object by virtue of its content or meaning (which represents the object) together with appropriate enabling conditions. John Paul's use of this has nothing to do with rejection of objective philosophy. Read what he wrote about Kant, Descartes, Aquinas, and scholasticism in Crossing the Threshold of Hope. Randy Engel is more of an amateur than Chris West, and if you read his book, please cite one heresy, just one heresy, of ToB.

I read all of that first article and let me review some of his points:

"Some The theology of the body also abuses the philosophical idea of man as incarnate spirit."

Man is both an incarnate spirit and a spiritulized body. Catechism: "spirit and matter, in man, are not two natures united, but rather their union forms a single nature."

"Some say it helps them in their married life, others say it helps them their consecrated religious life."

Exactly. John Paul's explanations have made sense for a lot of people and do no include the graphic stuff of Chris West. You also have to keep in mind that some people's threshold are far less sensitive then yours.

He didn't unerstand how the body is a "gift to each other". Someone has issues with his eyes... Who ever spoke about the body as a gift before Vatican II? Isn't it a beautiful way of expressing or natures, a manner of speaking consonant with modern ways?

"For example, St. Augustine, at the beginning of the twelfth book of his treatise on the Trinity, explicitly excludes the idea of man’s divided sexual nature representing the image and likeness of God in us."

As stated here, St. Augustine denies that the two genders represents the Trinity, which is obviously true. But it is just as true to say that a man and his wife, coming together, phsycally, psychologically, psychically merging into one in order to form new life, can be seen as a symbol of the dual Love of the Trinity creating the Love between them (Holy Ghost). It's not a perfect symbol, but there rarely is such a thing. When I was young I read the reissue of the old book Charity and Sex and the Young Man by Fr. Herbert J Raterman, Roman Catholic Books, 1999. Traditional though it was, it said that sexual experiences, in its intimacy, were the closet one could get in life to an understanding of the intimacy of Heaven.

"out of such banal ideas as 'the body reveals us as a person'"  He just doesn't get it. The human body, and the human body alone, is fit to be impersonalized. Not a bears body, not a tiger's, but a humans. Deep truth, and not wrong to contemplate on

"Man’s will to reproduce is too powerful to take on sexual sin by any other method than distraction from the cause of temptation."                    Nope. Some people aren't nearly as sensitive as others. Don't criticize others just because they are not like you

Reply
#44
John Paul II did so much to spread devotion to Mary. Even the Luminous mysteries sprung from this desire of his. It was his bishops who wouldn't cooperate. He had much trouble with liberals preventing his work
Reply
#45
(11-17-2011, 06:44 PM)aquinasg Wrote: John Paul II did so much to spread devotion to Mary. Even the Luminous mysteries sprung from this desire of his. It was his bishops who wouldn't cooperate. He had much trouble with liberals preventing his work

He didn't have a devotion to Mary. If he did, he would have done what she told the Popes to do at Fatima. He also wouldn't have modified the Rosary as Mary herself gave it.

He was a liberal.
Reply
#46
aquinasg, I didn't feel like reading everything you wrote. Too much, and too much incoherence.

I'll just say that it appears that you believe that good will is synonymous with sound thought and/or orthodoxy. It isn't. Good intentions aren't good enough. Reject sentimentalism.

Many traditionalists think the modernist infection of the Church flows from malevolent intentions in its human architects. I don't share this view. I think Blondel, de Lubac, Rahner, and all the rest thought they were doing good. Their good intentions instead led to disaster.

Also, it appears that you're unfamiliar with the modernist roots of phenomenology. Look into it.

By the way, read this again, slowly and carefully:

http://www.seattlecatholic.com/article_2...osary.html
Reply
#47
(11-17-2011, 06:44 PM)aquinasg Wrote: John Paul II did so much to spread devotion to Mary. Even the Luminous mysteries sprung from this desire of his. It was his bishops who wouldn't cooperate. He had much trouble with liberals preventing his work

The luminator mysteries are not part of the Rosary. I pray the Rosary of the Blessed Virgin Mary...not the Rosary of JPII.

Reply
#48
(11-17-2011, 07:08 PM)Petertherock Wrote:
(11-17-2011, 06:44 PM)aquinasg Wrote: John Paul II did so much to spread devotion to Mary. Even the Luminous mysteries sprung from this desire of his. It was his bishops who wouldn't cooperate. He had much trouble with liberals preventing his work

The luminator mysteries are not part of the Rosary. I pray the Rosary of the Blessed Virgin Mary...not the Rosary of JPII.


:clap:
Reply
#49
John Vennari is being ridiculous. John Paul didn't modify the Rosary. He merely added more mysterious for people to mediate on. You don't have to use them, but you may. The fact that you criticise our Holy Pontiff shows you have big issues Servire Deo. Was the rosary Mary gave to St. Dominic "perfection"? If so, why are the prayers from Fatima now added to it. John Paul pointed out an obvious fact that the main focus of Jesus's life was missing from it. He took NOTHING whatsoever away from the Marian aspect of the Rosary. Those decades are still there. But he thought people might want to mediate on more. What could possibly be wrong with that?  It is done right sinful to disrespect the Pope so much as to believe these absurd allegations. You all are accepting the most foolish reasoning just to feel different than others within the Church. You love the tradition gifts you have with attacking others. And when it comes to the Pope, it is sinful. Disrespect for the Holy Father cannot be excused.

Jackson K. Eskew, have you read the book by Randy Engel? Have you read the Theology of the Body? I would bet you have read neither, since you didn't cite a single heresy in the former. Yet you ASSUME that the amateur is right and John Paul II, who taught these matters from the chair, was a heretic. You aren't a traditional Catholic. You are a fool

And obviously you hardly read anything of my last post, so how do you know it was incoherent (I read your article but you won't even read my brief post?)? Phenomenology as used by has to do with form and presentation, not subjectivist principles. And, read what John Paul II wrote Kant, Descartes, Aquinas, and scholasticism in Crossing the Threshold of Hope. Mr. von Hildebrand, called a doctor of the Church by Pius XII, used such language as well.
Reply
#50
Sorry about the grammatical incoherence in that last one. I am rushing to go do something. But it stands on it own, don't judge the substance by the externals
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)