Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => The Sacred: Catholic Liturgy, Chant, Prayers => Topic started by: Geremia on May 16, 2019, 10:34:06 AM
-
Intellectual and especially pleasures are greater than carnal/bodily pleasures, St. Thomas shows in Ia IIae, q.31, a.5 (https://isidore.co/aquinas/summa/FS/FS031.html#FSQ31A5THEP1). This explains what attracts the religious to leave the world by taking vows of poverty and chastity.
Fr. Garrigou.-Lagrange, O.P.'s Life Everlasting (https://isidore.co/calibre/#panel=book_details&book_id=5870) (pt. 1, §3 "Soul Immensity and Beatific Vision"):
Following St. Gregory the Great, St. Thomas writes: Temporal goods appear desirable when we do not have them; but when we do have them, we see their poverty, which cannot meet our desire and which therefore produces disillusion, lassitude, and often repugnance. In spiritual goods the inverse is true. They do not seem desirable to those who do not have them and who desire especially sensible good. But the more we possess them the more we know their value and the more we love them.⁴ For the same reason, material goods, the same house, the same field, cannot belong simultaneously and integrally to many persons. Spiritual goods, on the contrary, one and the same truth, one and the same virtue, can belong simultaneously and completely to all. And the more perfectly we possess these goods, the better we can communicate them to others.⁵ This is especially true of the sovereign good.
- Ia IIae, q.31, a.5 (https://isidore.co/aquinas/summa/FS/FS031.html#FSQ31A5THEP1); q.32, a.2 (https://isidore.co/aquinas/summa/FS/FS032.html#FSQ32A2THEP1); q.33, a.2 (https://isidore.co/aquinas/summa/FS/FS033.html#FSQ33A2THEP1).
- Ia IIae, q. 28, a.4 (https://isidore.co/aquinas/summa/FS/FS028.html#FSQ28A4THEP1) ad 2; IIIa, q. 23, a. 1 (https://isidore.co/aquinas/summa/TP/TP023.html#TPQ23A1THEP1) ad 3.
See also SCG III qq. 26 (https://isidore.co/aquinas/ContraGentiles3a.htm#26)-44, where he addresses questions like "That human felicity does not consist in pleasures of the flesh," "That ultimate felicity does not lie in the act of prudence," "That felicity does not consist in the operation of art," ending with (q. 37) "That the ultimate felicity of man consists in the contemplation of God." But he goes further, arguing "That human felicity does not consist in the knowledge of God gained through demonstration" and even that "Human felicity does not [even] consist in the knowledge of God which is through faith"!
-
Fr. Garrigou-Lagrange was a 20th century teacher of John Paul II and many other Vatican II modernists.
By their fruits you shall know them.
I'd go with another teacher from a better time, there's 19 centuries and innumerable saints to choose from.
-
correction:
Intellectual and especially spiritual pleasures are greater than carnal/bodily pleasures, St. Thomas shows in Ia IIae, q.31, a.5 (https://isidore.co/aquinas/summa/FS/FS031.html#FSQ31A5THEP1).
-
Fr. Garrigou-Lagrange was a 20th century teacher of John Paul II and many other Vatican II modernists.
So? One, like St. Thomas Aquinas, can learn truths even from Jєωs and Muslims.
Do you disagree with what Fr. G.-L. wrote here?
-
Intellectual and especially spiritual pleasures are greater than carnal/bodily pleasures, St. Thomas shows in Ia IIae, q.31, a.5 (https://isidore.co/aquinas/summa/FS/FS031.html#FSQ31A5THEP1).
Drinking some specific belgium beer is a holy experience, since it's made by monks. (j/k).
-
Fr. Garrigou-Lagrange was a 20th century teacher of John Paul II and many other Vatican II modernists.
By their fruits you shall know them.
I'd go with another teacher from a better time, there's 19 centuries and innumerable saints to choose from.
What here do you object to??
-
Drinking some specific belgium beer is a holy experience, since it's made by monks. (j/k).
Ah! But what if those monks are not holy?
-
So? One, like St. Thomas Aquinas, can learn truths even from Jєωs and Muslims.
Do you disagree with what Fr. G.-L. wrote here?
You can say the same about JPII or B16.
Rat poison is 99% nutritious food.
-
Ah! But what if those monks are not holy?
When God works the miracle of changing yeast, sugar and grains into gourmet alcohol, this is a holy transformation. ;)
-
Fr. Garrigou-Lagrange was a 20th century teacher of John Paul II and many other Vatican II modernists.
By their fruits you shall know them.
I'd go with another teacher from a better time, there's 19 centuries and innumerable saints to choose from.
Garrigou-Lagrange is a completely orthodox, non-Modernist theologian.
Now you're going to throw out anyone who taught someone who later lost the Faith and/or became a Modernist?
Better throw out St. Thomas Aquinas himself, too!
Give me a break. That's not what Our Lord meant by "judge a tree by its fruits". You can't just use private interpretation on Scripture like that, and ignore all other Catholic principles.
For example, the Catholic Church also teaches: Any teaching is received according to the manner of the receiver." That explains how a good teacher (Garrigou-Lagrange) can teach someone who ends up Modernist (JP2).
I could point to all kinds of rotten graduates of Catholic schools. That doesn't mean the Catholic Church is a "bad tree".
JP2 was a bad pupil. Garrigou-Lagrange was a spotless teacher.
-
Now I understand why some hate the 1962 Missale. It's the same emotional "cooties" kind of thinking. Throw the baby out with the bathwater! The baby pooped in the tub; better throw out the water, the bathtub, and the baby himself!
Not TOO emotional, are you?
Who needs reason and logic when you can have spiritual cooties, feelings, and guilt by association?
-
When God works the miracle of changing yeast, sugar and grains into gourmet alcohol, this is a holy transformation. ;)
i concede. Norm knew! Cheers.
-
Garrigou-Lagrange is a completely orthodox, non-Modernist theologian.
Those that have eyes to see, let them see.
Fr. Garrigou-Lagrange was a 20th century teacher of John Paul II and many other Vatican II modernists.
By their fruits you shall know them.
I'd go with another teacher from a better time, there's 19 centuries and innumerable saints to choose from.
-
Lagrange was a mixed bag, in my opinion:
Perfectly orthodox in strictly doctrinal works, but sometimes “questionable” in exegesis and liturgical matters.
-
Lagrange was a mixed bag, in my opinion:
Perfectly orthodox in strictly doctrinal works, but sometimes “questionable” in exegesis and liturgical matters.
In what way was he "questionable" on liturgical matters specifically?
-
Those that have eyes to see, let them see.
Again, what do you specifically object to in what Geremia posted?
-
St Peter was a modernist TBH. He taught a guy, who taught a guy, who taught a guy, who taught a guy (insert number of "who taught a guy" here as needed) who taught the guy who taught John Paul II. Thus ultimately, St Peter himself trained John Paul II the modernist. I guess we shouldn't read 1 Peter or 2 Peter. Stick with theologians that don't have apostolic succession leading to modernists
(Satire)
-
Again, what do you specifically object to in what Geremia posted?
What I said before suffices:
You can say the same about JPII or B16.
Rat poison is 99% nutritious food.
Fr. Garrigou-Lagrange was a 20th century teacher of John Paul II and many other Vatican II modernists.
By their fruits you shall know them.
I'd go with another teacher from a better time, there's 19 centuries and innumerable saints to choose from.
JPII, B-16, Cardinal Athanasius Schneider, Cardinal Castrillon Hoyos…… they all say some good things too. However, I would not quote them.
I'd go with another teacher from a better time, there's 19 centuries and innumerable saints to choose from.
-
What I said before suffices:
JPII, B-16, Cardinal Athanasius Schneider, Cardinal Castrillon Hoyos…… they all say some good things too. However, I would not quote them.
I'd go with another teacher from a better time, there's 19 centuries and innumerable saints to choose from.
Bishop Athanasius Schneider is not a Cardinal.
You’re just deflecting the question.
Is there anything objectionable about what Fr. GL wrote in this post?
-
What I said before suffices:
JPII, B-16, Cardinal Athanasius Schneider, Cardinal Castrillon Hoyos…… they all say some good things too. However, I would not quote them.
I'd go with another teacher from a better time, there's 19 centuries and innumerable saints to choose from.
I happen to like Bishop Schneider, but even if I didn't, Paul literally quoted Greek pagans lol.
"I won't quote people who don't meet [insert arbitrary standard here]" seems bizarre to me.
-
In what way was he "questionable" on liturgical matters specifically?
I can show modernism in exegesis, but I really do not know what I was thinking when I added "liturgical matters."
Thank you for the polite correction.
It was a senior moment.
-
Bishop Athanasius Schneider is not a Cardinal.
You’re just deflecting the question.
Is there anything objectionable about what Fr. GL wrote in this post?
Cardinal, Bishop?, LOL, it just shows you how much I read from Vatican II people. Which is my point. There is nothing wrong with what GL wrote, just like there is nothing wrong with most of what JPII, B-16, Athanasius Schneider, Castrillon-Hoyos, and all of Vatican II. As a matter of fact, people are still debating even here whether there is anything wrong with Vatican II.
My point should more clearly be seen by even the blind by now. Do not quote any GL here, unless one is Poche and going to quote JPII, B-16, Athanasius Schneider, Castrillon-Hoyos, and all of Vatican II.
I'd go with another teacher from a better time, there's 19 centuries and innumerable saints to choose from.
-
LastTradhican,
This is basically the same argument you made about the Holy Spirit vs. Holy Ghost. Just because it is modern doesn’t mean it is wrong. If it’s correct than it is correct.
-
LastTradhican,
This is basically the same argument you made about the Holy Spirit vs. Holy Ghost. Just because it is modern doesn’t mean it is wrong. If it’s correct than it is correct.
Strawman. The Holy Spirit thread was thoroughly explained/clarified by Matthew and Ladislaus postings. Nowhere did I disagree with them. I even said Exactly! They explained it more thoroughly than I.
I've explained myself clearly here. By your logic, why don't we all begin quoting the orthodox quotes by JPII, B-16, Vatican II? Rat poison is 99% nutritious food, and the rats can't tell the difference. GL, JPII, B-16, Vatican II are all rat poison.
There 19 centuries of saints, doctors, Fathers, popes to read and learn and quote from, there is no need to quote GL, JPII, B-16, VatII to teach anything.
-
Cardinal, Bishop?, LOL, it just shows you how much I read from Vatican II people. Which is my point. There is nothing wrong with what GL wrote, just like there is nothing wrong with most of what JPII, B-16, Athanasius Schneider, Castrillon-Hoyos, and all of Vatican II. As a matter of fact, people are still debating even here whether there is anything wrong with Vatican II.
My point should more clearly be seen by even the blind by now. Do not quote any GL here, unless one is Poche and going to quote JPII, B-16, Athanasius Schneider, Castrillon-Hoyos, and all of Vatican II.
I'd go with another teacher from a better time, there's 19 centuries and innumerable saints to choose from.
"Paul, there's like, 19 centuries of faithful Jєωιѕн leaders to quote from. Why did you have to quote that random Cretan poet who was almost certainly a pagan."
And why did St Thomas Aquinas quote Aristotle. Man was a total pagan, ya know?
As for the first two words, unless you're referencing something else, we get that Sedevacantists aren't gonna think these people are bishops, and sedeplenists will. I don't see how that's a "Vatican II thing" unless sedeplenism in general is a Vatican II thing. There's also a spectrum of thought on Vatican II that's not as black and white as "there's nothing wrong, nothing to see here" and its polar opposite. Vatican II was really vague, and to everyone's detriment.