Scholar Douglas Flippen in the philosophical article "Was John Paul II a Thomist or a [Kantian] Phenomenologist?" gives an intellectual history of Karol Wojtyla. He show how Kantian philosophy mostly in the form of the Kantian philosopher Max Scheler's phenomenology became important to him.
After reading Flippen and other scholars it appears that Wojtyla's attempt to mix Thomist's metaphysics of objective reality and being with the Kantian Scheler subjectivist thought lead to things like the disastrous "ecumenical" Assisi "prayer meeting" and many of the other problematic actions of his pontificate.
Flippin shows the Kantian influences on Wojtyla:
"Father Wojtyla lived at the Belgian college in Rome and the center for... Transcendental Thomism... so called because its approach to the thought of St. Thomas is influenced by the transcendental system of philosophy of Immanuel Kant..."
" ... After earning a second doctorate with a thesis on the ethics of the [Kantian] phenomenologist Max Scheler, Father Wojtyla was appointed in 1954 to the philosophy department of the Catholic University of Lublin..." [https://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=8105]
Scholar Flippen gives an exact time when Wojtyla started thinking that Kantian philosophy became possibly as important as Thomism. He thought that Kant's thought could make up for "a certain lack in the approach of " Thomism. The supposedly solid Thomist Etienne Gilson turned him towards Kant:
"It seems likely that at this time Father Wojtyla would have become more aware of different approaches to the thought of St. Thomas. The reason for this is not only the fact that he was studying at the Angelicum with Father Garrigou-Lagrange, called a traditionalist Thomist for his approach to Thomas through the tradition of the commentaries of Cajetan and John of St. Thomas, but also because Jacques Maritain and Etienne Gilson, the two most famous [supposed] Thomists of the twentieth century, had been active in promoting the thought of Thomas since the 1920s, and this would hardly have escaped notice at the Angelicum. Both Gilson and Maritain, but especially Gilson, could be called historic or existential Thomists because of their interest in recovering the authentic thought of Thomas and because of their conviction that the historic thought of Thomas centered itself on the act of existing as being at the heart of reality..."
"... Father, and then Bishop, Wojtyla lectured at Lublin from 1954 until 1961. In this period of time his understanding and appreciation of the metaphysical approach of St. Thomas increased. This was due not only to his own continuing work on St. Thomas, but also to his interaction with a colleague named Stefan Swiezawski. As George Weigel notes in his biography of John Paul II, "Through faculty colleagues at KUL, and especially Stefan Swiezawski, Wojtyla had his first serious encounter with Etienne Gilson's historical rereading of Thomas Aquinas and with Jacques Maritain's modern Thomistic reading of Catholic social ethics."8 During this period, Father Wojtyla published a number of essays, many of them taking into account the thought of St. Thomas and comparing it favorably with modern thinkers. And yet there is a change of tone in his treatment of the thought of St. Thomas during this period. In the beginning, his praise of Thomas seems unqualified. Toward the end we find criticisms of a certain lack in the approach of Thomas and an emphasis on a positive contribution coming from the phenomenological movement. (Was John Paul II a Thomist or a Phenomenologist?: https://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=8105)
Wikipedia gives a summary of what so-called "existential Thomists" such as Gilson (and Maritain) meant when they falsely claimed "the historic thought of Thomas centered itself on the act of existing as being at the heart of reality":
"The proposition that existence precedes essence (French: l'existence précède l'essence) is a central claim of existentialism, which reverses the traditional philosophical view that the essence (the nature) of a thing is more fundamental and immutable than its existence (the mere fact of its being).[1] To existentialists, human beings—through their consciousness—create their own values and determine a meaning for their life because the human being does not possess any inherent identity or value. That identity or value must be created by the individual. By posing the acts that constitute them, they make their existence more significant.[2][3]
"The idea can be found in the works of philosopher Søren Kierkegaard in the 19th century,[4] but was explicitly formulated by philosopher Jean-Paul Sartre in the 20th century. The three-word formula originated in his 1945[5] lecture "Existentialism Is a Humanism",[6] though antecedent notions can be found in Heidegger's Being and Time.[7]" [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Existence_precedes_essence]
Sadly, Wojtyla trusted that dishonest "existential Thomist"Gilson's "rereading of Thomas Aquina" was true. It was not Thomism. Renowned Thomist Dr. Ralph McInerny shows the dishonesty:
"Gilson's about the passage of [Thomist] Cajetan... when Thomas says that esse [essence] is the actuality of all things, even of forms. Gilson asserts that this is a novelty, unknown to Aristotle... Gilson's attack on Cajetan is one aspect of his criticism of Aristotle... is seen from the angle of Gilson's increasingly inventive interpretation of esse [essence]... it is... painfully clear that he is out to make a case against [Thomist] Cajetan and fairness to the great commentator [of Thomas] will not characterize his criticism..."
"[W]hat he [Gilson] is attributing to Thomas is not found in Thomas... he should [have] made clear that he was not using the language of Saint Thomas." ("praeambula fidei : Thomism and the God of the Philosphers," page 52-53, 153)
The Remnant newspaper recently appears to be saying that Francis is the
same as Pope John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI which I will attempt to
show is inaccurate. However, the newspaper is right in saying that the
Vatican II's ambiguities which were a forerunner of Amoris Laetitia's
ambiguity lead to false ecumenism within the Church and outside.
Strangely, the non-traditionalist conservative Matthew Schmitz put it best:
"[T]he post-Vatican II settlement [of]... Upholding Catholic teaching
on paper but not in reality as led to widespread corruption... a culture
of lies... that allowed men like McCarrick to flourish."
It
allowed the Church of John Paul II and Benedict XVI to keep heretics and
homosexual predators in the hierarchy such as McCarrick and others like
him to flourish and to promote neo-sacrilegious media productions such
as the Assisi fiasco and the kissing of the Koran.
This was
wrong and God will judge them for their failures to be good fathers
(popes) in allowing evil men into God's Church to abuse and to lead many
to indifferentism and away from salvation which is only in Jesus
through His Church.
Both sincerely in my opinion because of
false philosophical personal ideas while not totally abandoning Thomism
tried to do the practically almost impossible task of being loyal to the
infallible teachings of the Church while holding on to neo-modernist
Personalist versions of Kantian and Hegelian philosophy as well as the
ambiguities of Vatican II.
Benedict if you read his later writings finally rejected Kantianism, but apparently couldn't completely give up Hegelianism.
However, he realized in a vague way that the ambiguity of Vatican II
was destroying the Church so he brought back the Traditional Latin Mass
and attempted to fight against sex abuse, the Vatican gay lobby and
reform the finances to the Church.
Unfortunately, in my opinion,
these efforts united the financially corrupt old guard of Cardinal
Angelo Sodano and the Vatican gay lobby which brought about Vatileaks
and other pressures against Benedict that eventually lead to the
Benedict resignation and the papacy of Jorge Bergoglio whose pontifical
validity has been questioned by many even in the hierarchy from the
beginning to this day.
As Bishop René Gracida has said there was never universal acceptance of Bergoglio by the Church.
But even more importantly, there are reasonable doubts about the
validity of Benedict's resignation and Bergoglio's lawful election to
the papacy which were never present with the other papacies which Bishop
Gracida declares must be investigated and interpreted by the cardinals
as John Paul's conclave constitution explicitly states.
This is one reason that Francis is not the same as Benedict and John Paul.
The other reason that The Remnant is wrong about apparently recently
saying Francis is the same as Benedict and John Paul can be put simply
in analogy:
John Paul and Benedict were sincere doctors with medicine that was getting the patient sicker.
Benedict realized the medicine was bad and slowly started giving good medicine.
But in my opinion, Francis is a doctor who is trying to kill the patient by slow poisoning.
In my opinion, it is obvious that Francis doesn't have even a remnant
of Thomism. Nor does he apparently care about being loyal to the
infallible Church teachings. He appears to be a nihilistic postmodernist
like his favorite theologian Michel de Certeau.
Francis's only
grasp of reality or meaning appears to be leftist and Peronist ideology
as well as his close friend the kissing bishop's Bernard Haring
Hegelian situation ethics all dressed in religious language.
While Benedict and John Paul upheld Church teachings on paper while not
always in reality, Francis with Amoris Laetitia, the Argentine letter,
the death penalty Catechism change and the latest indifferentism papal
statement isn't even upholding the infallible teachings on paper.
George Gilder wrote a book called "Sexual Suicide" which helped me
return to the Church because it showed that the Catholic teachings on
sexuality were true and those outside those teachings were committing
slow suicide.
Francis in my opinion is trying to kill the Church by slow suicide.
He will not succeed because Jesus promised the gates of Hell will not prevail.
Those who don't oppose him in my opinion are his accomplices unless they are in invincible ignorance.
In my opinion, it appears that if Francis doesn't convert he may be
heading down a path of destruction along with all his accomplices if
they don't convert if they aren't in invincible ignorance.
I feel sorry for them.
We must pray for him and his accomplices, but most of all we must pray
for all those abused and lead away from salvation by their promotion of
heresy.
Pray an Our Father now for the restoration of the Church.
No comments:
Post a Comment