I completely don't understand - Jesuit Pierre Teilhard De Chardin and Pope Benedict

  • Thread starter Thread starter FishyPete
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
JM3 said:
I did read it and posted it. It would seem that your opinion differs from the Church’s.
Click to expand...
Now you have me thinking I’m going crazy. look up on the Internet “ban on Chardin”.

I do think share any negative view of anyone!

I Am confused. that’s it.

The man’s writing was called dangerous! Am I going nuts?

And you are leading me away from my point! Please don’t.

I ask for other opinions please.
 
Dont know if this helps you

But none of his writings were ever part of the Index of Forbidden Books.
 
JM3 said:
I did read it and posted it. It would seem that your opinion differs from the Church’s.
Click to expand...
In 1925, Teilhard was ordered by theJesuit Superior GeneralWlodimir Ledóchowskito leave his teaching position in France and to sign a statement withdrawing his controversial statements regarding thedoctrine of original sin. Rather than leave the Jesuit order, Teilhard signed the statement and left forChina.

This was the first of a series of condemnations by certainecclesiasticalofficials that would continue until after Teilhard’s death. The climax of these condemnations was a 1962monitum(reprimand) of theHoly Officecautioning on Teilhard’s works. From the monitum:

“The above-mentioned works abound in such ambiguities and indeed even serious errors, as to offend Catholic doctrine… For this reason, the most eminent and most revered Fathers of the Holy Office exhort all Ordinaries as well as the superiors of Religious institutes, rectors of seminaries and presidents of universities, effectively to protect the minds, particularly of the youth, against the dangers presented by the works of Fr. Teilhard de Chardin and of his followers”.[7]

However, it is noteworthy that the Holy Office did not place any of Teilhard’s writings on theIndex Librorum Prohibitorum*(Index of Forbidden Books), which existed during Teilhard’s lifetime and at the time of the 1962 decree.

they banned the original sin thing. sorry but I told you I was on a phone.
 
Marie5890 said:
Dont know if this helps you

But none of his writings were ever part of the Index of Forbidden Books.
Click to expand...
sorry my mistake. it was the original sin thing they banned.

but that doesn’t change my original question!
 
FishyPete said:
1962monitum(reprimand) of theHoly Office*cautioning on Teilhard’s works.
Click to expand...
Not a reprimand, a warning.

ourladyswarriors.org/dissent/cdfchard.htm
FishyPete said:
sorry my mistake. it was the original sin thing they banned.

but that doesn’t change my original question!
Click to expand...
A search only brings up sites like this:
His copious writings, executed in disobedience to his Superiors and in defiance of Church Authority, were eagerly devoured by multitudes of priests and religious prior to the false Second Vatican Council
Click to expand...
I think I’ll stick with the Church on this. 🙂
 
FishyPete said:
i agree with you but that doesn’t change my original question!!
Click to expand...
My Question: Why does Pope Benedict site his work and seems to praise him, even though he (Pierre Teilhard De Chardin) was silenced by the Church itself, which has to date not lifted the ban?
Click to expand...
Is it because Pope Benedict finds some redeeming qualities in his “Cosmic Liturgy”?
Click to expand...
As I posted (38) before (perhaps, you didn’t read it).

vatican.va/roman_curia/pont_committees/eucharist-congr/documents/rc_committ_euchar_doc_20110215_50-testo-base_en.html
  1. The Preparation of the Gifts also helps us realise we are involved in what is sometimes called a ‘cosmic liturgy’, that is, the movement of the whole of creation towards the ultimate eschatological goal of the glorification of God and the transformation of the world. The goal of the Eucharist is to begin here and now the ‘Christification’ of the whole cosmos so that it is taken up into the worship of God who will be ‘all in all’ as St. Paul writes (1 Cor 15:28). The fact that we use bread and wine, simple elements of creation, reminds us of the sacredness of creation. The world is not something indifferent, raw material merely to be utilized simply as we see fit. Rather, it is created by God and forms an essential part of the divine plan. Linked to humanity it is associated with our calling to be sons and daughters in the one Son of God, Jesus Christ (cf. Eph 1:4-12). The Eucharist has a cosmic character. Teilhard de Chardin has written beautifully of the Eucharist in terms of the ‘hymn of the Universe’.
Click to expand...
Here’s more.
  1. Christ’s sacrifice present on the altar makes it possible for all generations of Christians to be united with his offering. In the Roman catacombs the Church is often represented as a woman in prayer, arms outstretched in the praying position reminiscent of Christ who stretched out his arms of the Cross. The point is clear: in communion with Christ, the Church offers herself and intercedes for all.[59] What is it we can offer? We give to God our sufferings and prayers, works and acts of love. Uniting them with Christ and his total offering gives new value to everything. Even the smallest thing offered takes on new value. We are allowing Jesus Christ’s self-sacrificing love to touch and transform all our limited efforts at building communion with others. If united with Christ’s self-sacrifice, all becomes permeated with love. And this is no small thing. By associating ourselves and the world around us with Christ’s sacrifice we are contributing to what Teilhard de Chardin called the ‘amorization’ (from the Latin word for love) of the universe.
Click to expand...
#1) there was no ban.

#2) Leave theology to the theologians.

:twocents:
 
FishyPete said:
still my original question was if Pope Benedict uses the things he finds correct no matter Chardins mistakes. I’m guessing he does.

that’s why I posted Chardins quotes which seem really odd!
Click to expand...
Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI is, probably, the greatest theologian we’ve had in many centuries. I think we can trust him. Also, from what I understand, Chardin wrote in french and, sometimes, the exact meaning isn’t always translatable into english.
 
JM3 said:
Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI is, probably, the greatest theologian we’ve had in many centuries. I think we can trust him. Also, from what I understand, Chardin wrote in french and, sometimes, the exact meaning isn’t always translatable into english.
Click to expand...
Completely agree!! w/ bolded
 
FishyPete said:
What does the redemption of all creation mean? Animals and plants and buildings can’t sin?
Click to expand...
Sin is just the most important example of what St. Paul and the Church Fathers called “corruption”: things falling apart and sliding back into the nothingness from which they were made. Death is the other really obvious example–in fact, we speak of sin as spiritual death.

Things die. Things fall apart. Entropy is inevitable. That’s what creation needs to be redeemed from. Sin is what that looks like in the will of a rational being (human or angel). It’s where corruption starts, and healing the wills of rational beings is key to healing the corruption of all creation. But we have tended to speak as if that was it–the only thing that mattered. Rather, just as corruption spread from the wills of angels and human beings to all of creation, so redemption spreads from Jesus (in whom our estrangement from God is healed) to all of creation.

I didn’t get any of this from de Chardin. I got it from St. Athanasius and other Church Fathers!

The key passage in Scripture for this is Romans 8. Athanasius’ On the Incarnationfleshes out what it means in some depth.

Edwin
 
Contarini said:
Sin is just the most important example of what St. Paul and the Church Fathers called “corruption”: things falling apart and sliding back into the nothingness from which they were made. Death is the other really obvious example–in fact, we speak of sin as spiritual death.

Things die. Things fall apart. Entropy is inevitable. That’s what creation needs to be redeemed from. Sin is what that looks like in the will of a rational being (human or angel). It’s where corruption starts, and healing the wills of rational beings is key to healing the corruption of all creation. But we have tended to speak as if that was it–the only thing that mattered. Rather, just as corruption spread from the wills of angels and human beings to all of creation, so redemption spreads from Jesus (in whom our estrangement from God is healed) to all of creation.

I didn’t get any of this from de Chardin. I got it from St. Athanasius and other Church Fathers!

The key passage in Scripture for this is Romans 8. Athanasius’ On the Incarnation fleshes out what it means in some depth.

Edwin
Click to expand...
Thank you.
 
JM3 said:
Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI is, probably, the greatest theologian we’ve had in many centuries. I think we can trust him. Also, from what I understand, Chardin wrote in french and, sometimes, the exact meaning isn’t always translatable into english./QQUOTE

thanks and I agree,

but I think the thing that bugs me the most is than many including respected Catholic theologians have considered him to be a pantheism advocate, I.e. NO PERSONAL GOD.

And it is his very quote:

"you know already what is dominating my interests and my inner preoccupations and it is the effort to establish in myself, and to spread all around me, a new religion (call it even improved Christianity), in which the personal God ceases to be the great Neolithic master of the past to become the soul of the World that our religious and cultural era cries out for”.

that bothers me immensely!!!
Click to expand...
 
FishyPete said:
thanks and I agree,

but I think the thing that bugs me the most is than many including respected Catholic theologians have considered him to be a pantheism advocate, I.e. NO PERSONAL GOD.

And it is his very quote:

"you know already what is dominating my interests and my inner preoccupations and it is the effort to establish in myself, and to spread all around me, a new religion (call it even improved Christianity), in which the personal God ceases to be the great Neolithic master of the past to become the soul of the World that our religious and cultural era cries out for”.

that bothers me immensely!!!
Click to expand...
Pantheism is a vague term, often. And in the quote you cite, de Chardin doesn’t say that God isn’t personal–he says that God isn’t “the great Neolithic master,” which is a weird and contemptuous way of putting it, but I think he means that God isn’t some sort of literal monarch in the sky, which is true. Remember that God is three Persons, so clearly not exactly the same as what we mean by a person.

Ratzinger wrote beautifully of the personal nature of God in Introduction to Christianity, describing personhood as relationality. That’s why the Trinity is so important to the Christian concept of God. God defines personhood for us–without the concept of a relational God, Ratzinger argues, we wouldn’t understand what it means to be a person. This was very helpful to me, because frankly I sometimes find more “impersonal” ways of thinking about God helpful too. Growing up, I tried so hard to believe in God as a person like me to whom I could speak and who could speak to me, and it was like shouting into the void. I couldn’t help suspecting that I was talking to an “imaginary friend.” A lot of folks have that experience, and for many it leads to a complete loss of faith. I was able to go on being a Christian because of the great Christian philosophers and mystics and the way they have spoken of God–as the act of Being itself, or as the unimaginable reality behind being. But at the same time, I know that Christians don’t think of God as simply impersonal, and that that view of God is cold and arid. Ratzinger brings these things together better than any modern theologian I’ve read.

So what I’m saying is that he takes ideas from de Chardin but may not agree with everything de Chardin wrote–or perhaps the quotes you cite just need to be better understood. It doesn’t really matter that much. De Chardin is probably a bit like Origen–a theologian with brilliant ideas who desired to be orthodox but pushed the boundaries a bit in places. But I don’t think you need to worry about it. If you want things simple, de Chardin probably isn’t the best place to go.

In fact, the fact that you can read Ratzinger and get something out of him proves that you are hardly “unintellectual” in your approach to the faith! 🙂

God bless,

Edwin
 
Contarini said:
Pantheism is a vague term, often. And in the quote you cite, de Chardin doesn’t say that God isn’t personal–he says that God isn’t “the great Neolithic master,” which is a weird and contemptuous way of putting it, but I think he means that God isn’t some sort of literal monarch in the sky, which is true. Remember that God is three Persons, so clearly not exactly the same as what we mean by a person.

Ratzinger wrote beautifully of the personal nature of God in Introduction to Christianity, describing personhood as relationality. That’s why the Trinity is so important to the Christian concept of God. God defines personhood for us–without the concept of a relational God, Ratzinger argues, we wouldn’t understand what it means to be a person. This was very helpful to me, because frankly I sometimes find more “impersonal” ways of thinking about God helpful too. Growing up, I tried so hard to believe in God as a person like me to whom I could speak and who could speak to me, and it was like shouting into the void. I couldn’t help suspecting that I was talking to an “imaginary friend.” A lot of folks have that experience, and for many it leads to a complete loss of faith. I was able to go on being a Christian because of the great Christian philosophers and mystics and the way they have spoken of God–as the act of Being itself, or as the unimaginable reality behind being. But at the same time, I know that Christians don’t think of God as simply impersonal, and that that view of God is cold and arid. Ratzinger brings these things together better than any modern theologian I’ve read.

So what I’m saying is that he takes ideas from de Chardin but may not agree with everything de Chardin wrote–or perhaps the quotes you cite just need to be better understood. It doesn’t really matter that much. De Chardin is probably a bit like Origen–a theologian with brilliant ideas who desired to be orthodox but pushed the boundaries a bit in places. But I don’t think you need to worry about it. If you want things simple, de Chardin probably isn’t the best place to go.

In fact, the fact that you can read Ratzinger and get something out of him proves that you are hardly “unintellectual” in your approach to the faith! 🙂

God bless,

Edwin
Click to expand...
Thank you Edwin and God bless you.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top