Today, the conciliar church-of-man celebrates the Nativity of Karol Wojtyla. In light of this, Benedict the Abdicator has penned a letter commemorating the 100th anniversary of Wojtyla’s birth. Though the writer evidently endeavored to highlight a number of Wojtyla’s more praiseworthy traits, he ended up providing what Catholics readily perceive as a list of indictments.
Reflecting on Wojtyla’s formative years, Benedict writes:
Karol not only studied theology in books but also through his experience of the difficult situation that he and his Country found itself in. This is somewhat a characteristic of his whole life and work. He studied books but the questions that they posed became the reality that he profoundly experienced and lived.
In other words, Wojtyla was a humanist who was fully committed to personalism, placing man (and his soaring dignity) at the center of all things, with his experiences being the lens through which he perceives objective reality – a philosophy that stands in contrast to the Thomistic understanding that it is by way of the five senses and the intellect that man comes to grasp what is knowable.
As Benedict suggests, this focus on experience includes knowledge even in the area of theology. Sure, Karol Wojtyla read the works produced by the Church’s venerable popes, Saints, Doctors and theologians, but his experiences (and those of other human persons) obviously held greater sway.
At this, I am reminded of a story shared by Cardinal Daniel DiNardo: Shortly after being named Bishop of Sioux City, he found himself in Rome for an ad limina visit. At the end of the audience with John Paul II, DiNardo recalls, “He looked me straight in the eyes and said, ‘Remember bishop, it’s all about the human person.’”
And here you thought it was all about Christ!
In an article published by America Magazine in 2004, Avery Dulles shed light on Wojtyla’s philosophy, citing a paper he had written on “Thomistic Personalism” in 1961 wherein the future John Paul II declared:
When it comes to analyzing consciousness and self-consciousness—there seems to be no place for it in St. Thomas’ objectivistic view of reality. In any case, that in which the person’s subjectivity is most apparent is presented by St. Thomas in an exclusively—or almost exclusively—objective way. He shows us the particular faculties, both spiritual and sensory, thanks to which the whole of human consciousness and self-consciousness—the human personality in the psychological and moral sense—takes shape, but that is also where he stops. Thus St. Thomas gives us an excellent view of the objective existence and activity of the person, but it would be difficult to speak in his view of the lived experiences of the person.
Poor Aquinas, he evidently failed to realize, as Wojtyla concluded, that the objective must yield to the subjective!
Dulles, a Jesuit, provided an excellent example of how Wojtyla’s personalism manifested itself in contraposition to authentic Catholic tradition:
In his talks and writings, Pope John Paul II speaks frequently of Christ’s threefold office as prophet, priest and king. While he elaborates on the first two members of this triad, he has relatively less to say about Christ’s kingly office. The Feast of Christ the King was instituted by Pius XI in 1925 to make it clear that Christ “holds all nations under his sway” (Quas Primas, No. 20). “Nations,” wrote Pius XI, “will be reminded by the annual celebration of this feast that not only individuals but also rulers and princes are bound to give public honor and obedience to Christ” (QP, No. 32, italics supplied).
John Paul II, by contrast, speaks of Christ’s lordship as a triumph of humble submission and of his kingdom as a “kingdom of love and service.” He says relatively little about Christ as lawmaker and judge, perhaps because these themes fit less well into his personalist scheme.
I think it’s fair to say that there’s no perhaps about it; Wojtyla’s personalism left little room for Our Lord’s Kingship. Dulles even made note of the degree to which this is true of the Almighty Council – the New Pentecost by which the church-of-man over which JPII presided was born:
The Second Vatican Council’s “Declaration on Religious Freedom,” with its accent on the mutual independence of church and state, has made it more difficult to speak with the boldness of Pius XI.
To his credit, Dulles concluded, “But we should not allow ourselves to forget that Christ, who lived humbly as a servant in our midst, has been crowned with glory and that he reigns as sovereign Lord at the right hand of the Father.”
In his letter, Benedict makes no bones about the central role played by the Council in making Wojtyla the humanist that he was:
As a young Bishop – as an Auxiliary Bishop since 1958 and then Archbishop of Kraków from 1964 – the Second Vatican Council became the school of his entire life and work.
Benedict then reveals his own cozy relationship with the Council, writing:
The deliberations of the Council had been presented to the public as a dispute over the Faith itself, which seemed to deprive the Council of its infallible and unwavering sureness.
Yes, you read that correctly… Benedict XVI – the man toward whom some delusional persons are turning as if he can save us from the present ecclesial crisis – actually imagines that the Council is in possession of “infallible and unwavering sureness.”
Benedict went on to note that, upon his election, John Paul II inherited an institution that sociologists compared to “the Soviet Union under the rule of Gorbachev, during which the powerful structure of the Soviet State collapsed under the process of its reform.”
In the face of the ecclesial collapse, John Paul II, according to Benedict, “aroused new enthusiasm for Christ and his Church” from day one when he declared “Do not be afraid! Open, open wide the doors for Christ!”
“This call and tone would characterize his entire pontificate and made him a liberating restorer of the Church,” Benedict suggested.
Oh, yes, so much restoration on Wojtyla’s watch – a tenure that featured dwindling numbers of religious, a scarcity of priests, an explosion of clerical homosexual abusers, empty pews, countless closed parishes, the bankrupting of dioceses, etc.
Modernists like Benedict simply cannot bring themselves to admit that the defining experience of their entire lives – participation in that dreadful event known as Vatican Council II – was an unmitigated disaster. They choose instead to live in a fantasy world that simply does not exist.
He goes on to write:
This was conditioned by the fact that the new Pope came from a country where the Council’s reception had been positive: one of a joyful renewal of everything rather than an attitude of doubt and uncertainty in all.
So, what does the positive reception of the Council in Poland actually look like?
According to the Institute for Catholic Church Statistics (Jan. 2020), only 38 percent of self-identified Catholics in Poland attended Mass in the past year, with just 17 percent receiving Communion. So much for joyful renewal.
Setting his sights on the present day, Benedict states:
It is finally, beyond this objective historical significance, indispensable for everyone to know that in the end God’s mercy is stronger than our weakness.
These are lovely sounding words, but left unsaid is that free will is such that men can, and most certainly do, occasionally reject God and His mercy, even to their last breath, at which point they stand before His justice.
Benedict then draws the most cogent conclusion to be found in the entire letter:
Moreover, at this point [regarding God’s mercy considered apart from His justice], the inner unity of the message of John Paul II and the basic intentions of Pope Francis can also be found.
Amen to that! As has been said in this space many times, both Jorge and Karol are cut from the same cloth; the common thread that joins them, as well as Ratzinger and those who preceded all of them, from John XXIII forward, is the Council from which emerged the counterfeit church-of-man.
I didn’t see a link to the complete letter, so here it is:
https://www.ncregister.com/daily-news/full-text-pope-benedict-xvis-letter-marking-st.-john-paul-iis-birth-centena
“Modernists like Benedict simply cannot bring themselves to admit that the defining experience of their entire lives – participation in that dreadful event known as Vatican Council II – was an unmitigated disaster.”
I think you’ll find that, for them, it was a complete success. The destruction of the Church’s power and ability to command respect was exactly what they were aiming for.
Don Minutella: The Benedict-bot is a Bergoglian invention!
https://fromrome.info/2020/05/16/don-minutella-le-nuove-pseudo-dichiarazioni-a-nome-di-benedetto-xvi/
In spite of the evidence presented in this post all of which is factual and widely known, some people will argue that “Benedict is still the pope”. These people seem to base their argument upon some concoction of canon law and subsequent supposed “partial” and therefore “invalid” resignation on his part.
Canon laws regarding papal elections and resignations are one thing; manifest faith is another. It supersedes any and ALL canon laws the church might draw up.
I’d argue this: Manifest and actual lived faith in Jesus based upon Apostolic Tradition is the true qualifier for any sort of authority- indeed, any sort of membership -within the institutional church in the first place. Not simple designation by group election or individual selection.
Therefore, I’d say that the burden of proof falls upon people who insist that Ratzinger had sufficient manifest faith to assume ecclesial authority in the first place. Even prior to his election, his brain was so addled by Teilhard and other modern philosophers (Fr. William Jenkins of the SSPV once described modern philosophy in general very succinctly in one of his WCBOhio programs: “not fit for human consumption”) that its difficult to reckon that his faith was truly Christian and Catholic to begin with.
Basically, Ratzinger could not resign what he never possessed. Yet even if he had enough Faith to be a member of the Catholic Church, there is still the issue of the 1968 Episcopal Ordination Rites. The man was probably never even a bishop.
Another salient point about Ratzinger’s letter:
THE REVERSE ALCHEMY OF WOJTYLA’S DIVINE MERCY
The theology of Faustina’s Divine Mercy (what Ratzinger calls “an essential center of the Christian faith”) is the Hegelian SYNTHESIS employed to reconcile the THESIS (“conservatives” identified with Wojtyla/Ratzinger) and the ANTITHESIS (the “liberals” identified with Bergoglio).
Ratzinger lays out the framework:
Stated succintly, like an alchemist working in reverse, Wojtyla transforms “objective salvation” (Jesus’s golden doctrine of God granting us mercy through our humble repentance for sins against Him) into “subjective salvation” (Wojtyla’s earthen doctrine of redeeming ourselves and other humans by practicing mercy). So salvation is completely within our control. We only need to follow the reverse-alchemistic formula of not judging others and practicing tolerance toward our neighbor. God is no longer the measure. His justice and sacred economy is irrelevant. Our subjective understanding of “mercy” will be the measure of the new salvation. And this what is meant by “another Gospel” spoken of by St. Paul in Galatians 1:6.
How is this “reverse alchemy” implemented within the context of everyday life of the Counterfeit Church life? Through the “Wojtyla/Divine Mercy” cult. Everyone is familiar with the “mark” [charagma] of the Beast discussed in Apocalypse 13:16-17. But in verses 13:14-15, John first mentions the “image” [eikona] of the Beast. The “mark” and the “image” are different. Here’s the quote about the “image”:
Let me now ask you, what is the most common image promoted by the Counterfeit Church? If you answered the Divine Mercy image, you would be correct. Who started the cult? Wojtyla did, the guy who “had the wound by the sword and lived.” The anti-Christian, reverse-alchemical process begun by the “conservative” (Wojtyla), and canonized by the “liberal” (Bergoglio) will be consummated by a “synthesizer” (Ratzinger/Parolin?) in fulfillment of part of Apocalypse 13.
At some point, expect the Divine Mercy cult and its founder to be elevated to a level of importance in the Counterfeit Church such that public avoidance of this cult would result in excommunication (i.e., causing one to “be slain”). The goal: Mercy without Justice. Tolerance without Truth.
“As has been said in this space many times, both Jorge and Karol are cut from the same cloth; the common thread that joins them, as well as Ratzinger and those who preceded all of them, from John XXIII forward, is the Council from which emerged the counterfeit church-of-man.”
So, Louie, at what point do you make the logical conclusion that not just Jorge is a false pope?
Actually, I think it is more telling about the condition of the hierarchy- specifically the College of Cardinals -that they could elect someone like him and nary one of them point out his neo-Modernism and how that could be an problem. And to boot, regard him as “conservative”(!).
I mean, Ratzinger IS a kind of conservative. But then much of what constitutes “conservatism”, whether in purely political affairs or in theology, is simply yesterday’s liberalism/radicalism.
Better to toss the whole liberal vs. conservative construct in the trash and rediscover and recover Apostolic Tradition.
Even if that entails going back to the drawing board, institutionally speaking.
A materially heretical pope, or even one who excommunicates himself by being privately an actual heretic, but never publicly manifests, beyond reasonable doubt, that he is not Catholic and an actual heretic not just material heretic. Can be run out of Rome to Koln, and die in Portugel, to preserve the dogma of the faith know as the dogma of the infallible pope and the dogma of the infallible Church.
He may not want to save the Church, but he is not capable of giving her a final death blow.
You seem to speak derogatorily about those who claim Vatican I’s dogma of the infallible pope is based on Peter keeping the faith because Christ prayed for him. Yet Peter can privately lose the faith, he just cannot manifest publicly that he has lost the faith.
The bishop in white know as Francis has publicly manifest himself to not be Catholic by denying publicly the necessity of faith in Christ Jesus for salvation. Pope Benedict could be a material heretic.
Speaking of Vatican II as being infallible, the Dimond brother circus says pope Paul VI tried to generically dognify the unintentional doctrines of Vatican II sometime after Vatican II. But I would argue he failed simply because he said generically “doctrines of Vatican II” rather then stating each doctrine individually that he intended to dognify in a “we declare define and profess ………….” or “let all who say……… be anathema” statement.
If we don’t own any cows we could probably argue till the cows come home, that is forever, just what all the unintentional doctrines of Vatican II are!
What does it matter to you if you don’t even accept the authority of the PRE Vatican 2 popes?
I’m not sure if you want honest feedback and discussion here or just cheerleaders.
Wojtyla did indeed propose that Thomism, for all of its strengths, failed to see the personalist side of the faith as fully as our belief in the Trinity requires.
The pre-Conciliar Church was perfectly Thomist, and all of the bishops who covered up sexual abuse were perfectly Thomist. The protection of the objectively-infallible institution was done at the expense of the persons of those who were little and humble and vulnerable.
We may debate Wojtyla’s legacy, and we may also debate what knowing role he played in the cover-ups.
But let’s not pretend that everything in the Church was just fine and dandy in 1957. Thomism reigned, and with it a mentality in which bishops mistreated priests, priests mistreated laity, all in the name of the “one true faith.”
A more humble critique of both 1957, 1979, and 2013 would help us to move forward in faith rather than just sit and throw stones.
We need the Holy Spirit to renew relationships within the Church, not just “dogmatic knowledge,” more than ever. Wojtyla, for all of his flaws, deeply understood that. Do you?
I believe that modernism began to rear its ugly head during PiusXII’s reign with and because of his forfeiting on the hierarchy of purposes of marriage with his private letter to the Italian midwives of endorsing the practice NFP and to the changes he brought to the liturgy of Holy Week with reinstating Bugnini. I know the sedevacantist followers of Novus Ordo watch don’t like to hear this but I do feel it necessary to repeat and beat my drum on these crucial points.
Do we need a Third Pentecost?
From Pius XI, Quas Primus
In the first Encyclical Letter which We addressed at the beginning of Our Pontificate to the Bishops of the universal Church, We referred to the chief causes of the difficulties under which mankind was laboring. And We remember saying that these manifold evils in the world were due to the fact that the majority of men had thrust Jesus Christ and his holy law out of their lives; that these had no place either in private affairs or in politics: and we said further, that as long as individuals and states refused to submit to the rule of our Savior, there would be no really hopeful prospect of a lasting peace among nations. Men must look for the peace of Christ in the Kingdom of Christ; and that We promised to do as far as lay in Our power. In the Kingdom of Christ, that is, it seemed to Us that peace could not be more effectually restored nor fixed upon a firmer basis than through the restoration of the Empire of Our Lord. We were led in the meantime to indulge the hope of a brighter future at the sight of a more widespread and keener interest evinced in Christ and his Church, the one Source of Salvation, a sign that men who had formerly spurned the rule of our Redeemer and had exiled themselves from his kingdom were preparing, and even hastening, to return to the duty of obedience.
And birds of another feather:
https://www.gorby.ru/en/presscenter/news/show_30141/
This “human dignity” idea is at the root of so many problems, and is used to justify all kinds of junk … and this came about because it is taught now that Everybody is made in God’s “image and likeness.” However, the Church used to teach (a long time ago) that Man lost most all of the “image and likeness ” of God at the Fall, and the ONLY way to restore it was to become a Christian, where God would come to dwell in your heart, and thus begin to restore the “image and likeness.” This indwelling was what would restore you and made you acceptable to God …
The Modern Church teaching has taken focus on the tiny remaining image and likeness due to creation, and hyper-amplified it and created the Doctrine of Human Dignity, doing away with most of the consequences of the Fall. This is the doctrine to which all others must bow down.
St Thomas Aquinas can spell it out more exactly for you:
“Thirdly, inasmuch as man knows and loves God perfectly; and this image consists in the likeness of glory. Wherefore on the words, “The light of Thy countenance, O Lord, is signed upon us” (Psalm 4:7), the gloss distinguishes a threefold image of “creation,” of “re-creation,” and of “likeness.” The first is found in all men, the second only in the just, the third only in the blessed..”
…
All men have a shadow of the “image” due to their being creatures of the good God, which Thomas says is “creation.: The Christian is justified and so is a new Creation, a new creature, which Thomas identifies as a “re-creation. Thirdly he identifies the “likeness” as belonging only to the blessed, by which I think he means those in Heaven…
…So I conclude that one has to be mindful when people throw around that idea that Human Dignity is the result of everyone having the “image and likeness”…They do not. It is a lie…And this error is earning compound interest in what’s left of the Catholic Church..even “traditional” people get caught up in it…
…and, if you have any dignity, it is only due to the good God allowing you to share in the providence of His unfolding creation, and not what or who you are or what you do.
Saint Paul is driving the idea of a future restoration of the image of God in
1 Corinthians 15:
“47 The first man was from the earth, a man of dust; the second man is from heaven. 48 As was the man of dust, so are those who are of the dust; the second man is from heaven. 48 As was the man of dust, so are those who are of the dust; and as is the man of heaven, so are those who are of heaven. 49 Just as we have borne the image of the man of dust, we will also bear the image of the man of heaven. 50 What I am saying, brothers and sisters,is this: flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable….”
Notice in particular that St Paul says it is the image of the fallen Adam (the man of dust) that we bear…not directly God.
Anastasia, sedevacantists hold no illusions as to the shortcomings of Pope Pius XII. Nor of those of Pius XI, Benedict XV, and even Leo XIII. Unlike Pope St Pius X, these pre V2 Popes were soft in dealing with the modernists already inside the Church. If only they dealt with the modernists like Pope St Pius X.
HE LOST HIS FAITH FOR SURE IN 1986 AT ASSISI.
IT STARTED WITH PIUS IX IN 1929 AND THE VATICAN BANK SCANDAL.
Correct Tom. Modernism has been in the Church since before Pius X; otherwise he wouldn’t have written Pascendi in 1907. Furthermore, none of the pre-Vatican 2 popes taught heresy or gave harmful liturgical disciplines to the Universal Church.
“…the Church used to teach (a long time ago) that Man lost most all of the “image and likeness ” of God at the Fall…”
That sort of mindset actually has its origins in Augustine rather than Apostolic Tradition.
Augustine superimposed much of his neo-Platonist tendencies and leftover Manichaeism upon Tradition. I also tend to think he had a great deal of personal guilty feelings and baggage from his own life which play into his low regard for the natural capacities of mankind. The way one person put it, he never seemed to be able to deal properly with the fact that he had sex with a concubine and fathered a child with her. Personally I believe much in his “Confessions” are a testament to this quip.
The fact is however, that there is no such thing as “Man” or “human nature” in the sense which the Augustine’s doctrine of original sin purports. They are abstractions and little else. There is only individual people who, while they share a common biological origin, also have individual souls which are created directly by and in the image and likeness of God. So to say that “human nature” is “tainted” or “corrupted” from conception or birth simply doesn’t make a whole lot of sense. We disfigure the image and likeness of God in each of ourselves individually when we sin. Likewise, we don’t inherit the culpability for the sins of our ancestors through sexual generation- it simply doesn’t make any sense to assert that. And Jesus never claimed this was the case; in fact he stated the contrary. Nor does Paul, for all the flogging of Romans 5:12 that both Catholics and Protestants have done to “prove” original sin.
While the whole “dignity of man” trope which began at V2 and was really flogged by JPII is just neo-Modernism, it does nonetheless stand to reason that while sin does darken the intellect, otherwise the natural powers of reasoning which God has given us have a lot to offer. It is not as if we’re troglodytes who suddenly receive an infusion of all knowledge at baptism. Even though he defended original sin, Aquinas himself understood this. His philosophy based upon the commonsense and Being is a testament to this. And while reason cannot lead us to mysteries which only God could Himself reveal about Himself (in Jesus), it can lead us to the “doorstep” of that revelation.
The whole “original sin” thing just needs to be discarded. It’s wrought more problems throughout the history of the church, Christian theology and personal faith than can be counted. I’d even argue that we’re it not for doctrine of original sin and Augustine’s otherwise massive influence in the West, it is possible we may not have ever faced the Protestant revolutions nor the widespread rise of modern philosophies and later Modernism/neo-Modernism…and then V2. But we will never know.
You’re asking the wrong question.
The authority of a pope- indeed of anyone who has been given a designation of authority in the institutional church -has to be based upon personal manifest faith which in turn is based in the Apostolic Tradition.
In terms of papal primacy in matters of discipline, liturgical rites and church government, one is hard-pressed to find anything in either Apostolic Tradition or the early church which lends testimony to the supposition that Peter or his successors at Rome had absolute, final sway in those matters based upon some supernatural gift which Jesus gave to Peter. Rome did and still does to an extent enjoy a kind of primacy and was treated with deference when disputes or difficulties arose among other churches. But this was due to the fact that the church of Rome was regarded by other churches to express the Apostolic Tradition in a more “pure” form due to it having been founded by Peter AND Paul.
So, a pope isn’t where the buck stops in terms of doctrine and dogma. The old oath of papal coronation even expressed this. In matters of discipline, rites and government, this was simply an historical development- not a matter of some metaphysical grant by Jesus to Peter.
giuseppepellegrino wrote: “Wojtyla did indeed propose that Thomism, for all of its strengths, failed to see the personalist side of the faith as fully as our belief in the Trinity requires.”
Well the “personal” side of faith is just that: personal and therefore private. The church has practically nothing to say about it because it is between a given person and God.
Wojtyla was a phenomenologist and very much a neo-Modernist in terms of his intellectual foundation. His foundation therefore, intellectually speaking, was the mind rather than Being and beings external to the mind- which makes him the furthest thing from a Thomist.
giuseppepellegrino wrote: “The pre-Conciliar Church was perfectly Thomist…”
I’d say that this is debatable because there is “Thomism” and then there are ‘thomisms”. It’s a complex and complicated story.
giuseppepellegrino wrote: “But let’s not pretend that everything in the Church was just fine and dandy in 1957. Thomism reigned, and with it a mentality in which bishops mistreated priests, priests mistreated laity, all in the name of the “one true faith.”
While it was before my own time and therefore I have no first-hand testimony to this, there is sufficient evidence that there is a lot of truth in what you say here.
giuseppepellegrino wrote: “We need the Holy Spirit to renew relationships within the Church…”
I’d say rather that the church has to recover and rediscover Apostolic Tradition and a Christian philosophy grounded in Being. The Holy Spirit came to the Apostles only once in order to remind them of what they actually witnessed Jesus say and do. Appeals to “the Holy Spirit” as some Star Wars-like force or whathaveyou end up doddering off in all sorts of weird avenues- too many to list here.
I’m not sure I agree with your reasoning here.
I would say rather that:
God creates each of us both in his image (possessing intellect and will) and likeness (inherently good in and of itself- not absolutely “good” as God is, but relatively good as a creature can be).
It is our own personal sins- rather than some “fallen nature” -which respectively abuses that image and disfigures/destroys that likeness.
And where do you think those “personal sins” emanate from? From our “fallen nature” of course. You sound very Pelagian, NQP. One of the few heresies that did not originate in the East.
I guess you cherry pick and have no issue with contraception just like many seds.
Anastasia, Pius XII didn’t teach contraception to the Universal Church. You would learn much about the Catholic Faith if you watch this video where Fr Jenkins explains the Catholic teaching (starting around minute 24):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p2E0lmhuxco&feature=emb_title
NFP is contraception when it plans in thought, word and deed to have exclusive recourse to the infertile period in order to avoid conception. It is not complicated to understand. Only those who wish not to understand this will never understand due to their pride.
PiusXII spoke out of two sides of his mouth. One side he spoke the true traditional teachings of the Catholic Church and on the other side of his mouth NFP. NFP clearly contradicts the doctrine on marriage and contraception.
Anastasia,
I recommend you read Chapter 5 of Contra Crawford regarding Pius XII’s allocution to midwives, because his apparent endorsement of periodic continence (as you allege) is nowhere near as black and white as you make it seem: archive.org/details/ContraCrawfordBoD/page/n79/mode/2up
It appears you didn’t watch the video I posted, so here’s another resource that clearly shows traditional Catholic teaching on the matter (pre-Pius XII as well as Pius XII):
http://www.cmri.org/03-nfp.html
The Church pre-Council was FAR from being perfectly Thomistic…there was a reason Pope St.Pius X required the Oath Against Modernism. The Church was infected with the likes of JPII and their professors on the upper levels, it’s how JPII got his PhD thesis in the subject approved. Granted it was originally rejected by the Univ in Rome but it was accepted in the seminary in Poland.
And the Church under Personalism/JPII exploded in heresy, apostasy, child rape, sexual perversion and every evil under the sun. And it was JPII’s Vatican who continued the cover up culture. “You will know them by their fruits” says Our Lord and the fruits of JPII were utterly rotten.
The application of Thomism as the “all or nothing” of the Catholic Church is a cognitive distortion. Even St. Thomas would disagree. Yes, Thomism is the intellectual foundation of the Church’s theology, but the Church also includes the writings of the Fathers, Doctors, Saints and even pagans like Plato or Aristotle. What the Church RIGHTLY does not do is flip the subjective and objective…which is what it seems Personalism does and what makes it insane and a reflection of the “enlightenment/enstupidment” philosophers.
Truth is not a “personal experience” it is the correspondence between thought and reality with reality leading the way. It is OBJECTIVE and it is a Person, Jesus Christ. Thoughts LEAD, emotions (per the saints and even the current seculars) should follow and be managed.
I would take strict Thomism any day of the week (which is sanity and order) over the chaos and insanity/emotionalism/self centeredness of “personalism”. Truth is LIFE “I am the Way, the Truth and the Life”…it’s the only thing that sets us free. And God bless St. Thomas for helping us order our messy heads to the right order of God so that by His grace we can follow Him better, love Him more, and shine for Him here:+) I learned NOTHING from JPII and his ridiculous made up philosophy…St. Thomas was a breath of fresh air and between him, Scripture and the Wisdom of the Saints has helped me grow in utter freedom and ability:+) God bless St. Thomas and may Our Lord have mercy on JPII. God bless~
How does a personal, individual sin “emanate” from some abstract “fallen nature” which we somehow all possess? Furthermore, what exactly does “fallen nature” even mean and entail?
Frankly, when one really examines the entire notion of original sin and the accompanying fallen nature, not a whole lot of it makes much sense. More importantly, it has nothing to do with the God of Israel found in either the OT or God’s Self-Revelation in Jesus found ok the NT- which some have referred to as the “biblical metaphysic”. It has much more in common with gnosticism, eastern philosophies/religions and what Mircea Eliade termed the “primitive” or “archaic” ontology found in some iteration in practically every culture or people on earth prior to the coming of Jesus.
BTW, re Pelagianism: that entails the belief that mankind (individuals) are not in need of redemption from their (individual, personal) sins.
I have never claimed this to be the case in any of my comments. Much less do I actually believe it to be the case. In fact, I’ve stated exactly to the contrary on at least one occasion.