Pierre Teilhard Du Chardin, SJ and the origins of God?

  • Thread starter Thread starter westerly
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Ahimsa said:
Do you know for yourself if Teilhard’s system is irreconcilable with Original Sin?
Click to expand...
What does “know for yourself” mean, precisely? Does it mean that I must think independently of the Magisterium and the Church Fathers, for example, in order for my position to have credence, or to warrant my embracing it?

Actually, I have more confidence–and more good reason to be confident–in a response from someone like von Hildebrand, for example, who could read, digest and interpret de Chardin much more thoughtfully than I, and who could offer me that vantage within an orthodox Catholic purview. For me, as a Roman Catholic, it’s a superior starting point. The wheel needn’t be reinvented in that regard.

By the way, what exactly is a “Jesus Buddhist”? : )
 
pataburd said:
What does “know for yourself” mean, precisely? Does it mean that I must think independently of the Magisterium and the Church Fathers, for example, in order for my position to have credence, or to warrant my embracing it?
Click to expand...
You need not think independently of the Magisterium, but I was curious if you agreed with the Vatican’s statements about Teilhard and Original Sin.
By the way, what exactly is a “Jesus Buddhist”? : )
Click to expand...
Another topic; another thread.🙂
 
Ahimsa said:
I don’t think Teilhard’s system is any more irreconcilable with Original Sin, than evolutionary theory itself is. In other words, Teilhard’s system and evolutionary theory both equally pose problems regarding Original Sin – and yet the Catholic Church as stated that evolution (of the physical body) is compatable with Catholic doctrine.
Click to expand...
Dear Ahimsa,
So, are you establishing an equivalency between physical evolution and "substantial’ evolution in man? It sounds as if man, through some evolutionary (and non-supernatural) process, somehow “grows out of” his fallen nature.

Where does the grace of God and the Sacrifice of Christ fit into all of that? Since these elements are at the core of my Catholic belief, then shouldn’t these tenets–about which the dogma of Original Sin is indispensable–come into clearer relief (i.e. from someone reputed to be a Catholic “guide” or “teacher”)?

In lieu of an outright denial, a subtle attenuation or slight misdirection serves equally as, if not more, effective.

And it’s like starting with less (i.e. sans Original Sin) and from that purporting to build more.

Cordially,
PAB
 
pataburd said:
Dear Ahimsa,
So, are you establishing an equivalency between physical evolution and "substantial’ evolution in man? It sounds as if man, through some evolutionary (and non-supernatural) process, somehow “grows out of” his fallen nature.

Where does the grace of God and the Sacrifice of Christ fit into all of that? Since these elements are at the core of my Catholic belief, then shouldn’t these tenets–about which the dogma of Original Sin is indispensable–come into clearer relief (i.e. from someone reputed to be a Catholic teacher)?

In lieu of an outright denial, a subtle attenuation or slight misdirection serves equally as, if not more, effective. And it’s like starting with less and from that purporting to build more.

Cordially,
PAB
Click to expand...
Are you rejecting what the Magisterium has said about physical evolution, that the physical evolution of the human body from other life-forms, is compatible with Catholic teaching?
 
Ahimsa said:
Are you rejecting what the Magisterium has said about physical evolution, that the physical evolution of the human body from other life-forms, is compatible with Catholic teaching?
Click to expand...
Ahimsa,
No. I am not.

In fact, I found thrilling reading in the painstakingly slow evolution of the physical human body en route to the moment when God breathed a spiritual soul into it. It made me think of the mystery of the Incarnation, of the ineffable Love of God for man, of His election of THIS body in which to suffer, die and rise again for our salvation. In this body which will ultimately be, like His, resurrected and glorified and which will partake of the beatific vision!

It made me reflect on Hebrews 10:
[5] Wherefore when he cometh into the world, he saith: Sacrifice and oblation thou wouldest not: but a body thou hast fitted to me:
. . . on Psalm 138 . . .

But I am rejecting the (implicit?) analogy between evolution of the physical body and (salvific) "evolution’ of the spiritual soul.

Cordially,
Patrick
 
For Reference:

WARNING REGARDING THE WRITINGS OF FATHER TEILHARD DE CHARDIN
Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office

On June 30, 1962, the Holy Office issued a monitum (warning) regarding the writings of Father Teilhard de Chardin. In 1981 the Holy See reiterated this warning against rumors that it no longer applied. Following is the text of both the monitum and the 1981
statement:

(I)
Admonition

"Several works of Fr. Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, some of which were posthumously published, are being edited and are gaining a good deal of success.

"Prescinding from a judgement about those points that concern the positive sciences, it is sufficiently clear that 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.

"Given at Rome, from the palace of the Holy Office, on the thirtieth day of June, 1962.

Sebastianus Masala, Notarius"
(II)
Communiqué of the Press Office of the Holy See (appearing in the English edition of L’Osservatore Romano, July 20, 1981)

"The letter sent by the Cardinal Secretary of State to His Excellency Mons. Poupard on the occasion of the centenary of the birth of Fr. Teilhard de Chardin has been interpreted in a certain section of the press as a revision of previous stands taken by the Holy See in
regard to this author, and in particular of the Monitum of the Holy Office of 30 June 1962, which pointed out that the work of the author contained ambiguities and grave doctrinal errors.

"The question has been asked whether such an interpretation is well founded.

“After having consulted the Cardinal Secretary of State and the Cardinal Prefect of the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, which, by order of the Holy Father, had been duly consulted beforehand, about the letter in question, we are in a position to
reply in the negative. Far from being a revision of the previous stands of the Holy See, Cardinal Casaroli’s letter expresses reservation in various passages^×and these reservations have been passed over in silence by certain newspapers^×reservations which
refer precisely to the judgement given in the Monitum of June 1962, even though this document is not explicitly mentioned.”
(And, I am aware that Pope Benedict XVI has cited/quoted de Chardin, but he has also quoted Martin Luther (the heresiarch). Oh, why does he do such things?) : )
 
pataburd said:
Which sounds like a complete de-Personalization of the Holy Spirit. What’s to be gained in that?
Click to expand...
Thank you very much Pataburd for your answer. May God bless you. My answer to your question is : Which sounds like an incomplete and dangerous re-Personalization of the Holy Spirit ! Incomplete because it was the beginning of a rediscovery, dangerous because in such a situation Teilhard was obliged to make mistakes.
 
Ahimsa said:
I don’t think Teilhard’s system is any more irreconcilable with Original Sin, than evolutionary theory itself is. In other words, Teilhard’s system and evolutionary theory both equally pose problems regarding Original Sin – and yet the Catholic Church as stated that evolution (of the physical body) is compatible with Catholic doctrine.
Click to expand...
Evolution doesn’t pose any problem for Original Sin which is concerned with the original choice of evil and its effects on human beings.
 
tonyrey said:
Evolution doesn’t pose any problem for Original Sin which is concerned with the original choice of evil and its effects on human beings.
Click to expand...
Updated evolution poses a big problem for Original Sin. The current theory is that humanity evolved as a population from a population. In other words, humanity is the result of polygenism. The Catholic teaching is that there are two, real, sole parents of the human species which is monogenism. There is only one person who committed the original sin and he is father of humanity. This is why there is only one Jesus Christ Who redeemed all of humanity.

Blessings,
granny

The human person is worthy of profound respect from the moment of conception.
 
Granny, from a micro-perspective, if Homo sapiens were the first of God’s chosen children, the species would still be both biologically distinct and would contain two real, biologically distinct parents. My understanding is that even if we were or weren’t a hybrid species separate from the Australopithecines (sp?) and the other members of the Homo genus, we would still be the children of Eve- where we draw the point between allegory and history when it comes to the Old Testament should be based on both observable fact and testable data, as well as the knowledge imparted by faith… my own opinion is that, as a living document, the Bible has never lacked in complexity. I just don’t see a conflict- our knowledge of God can be increased by scientific reasoning. It’s difficult to imagine that we were given the ability to reason without a plan for our faith to be bolstered by an increased awareness of the universe around us…and if we were to move to a discussion regarding a more accurate portrayal of the source of our biological identity, I don’t think the church should hide from testing the material for soundness. If we did indeed come from a subgroup within a population, it’s best we see where and how that reconciles with ancient knowledge, so that we may have a more accurate understanding of the language of the bible.
 
tonyrey said:
Evolution doesn’t pose any problem for Original Sin which is concerned with the original choice of evil and its effects on human beings.
Click to expand...
Here’s how evolution poses a problem for the idea of original sin.

(Note that I am not claiming that this problem is absolutely irresolvable, only that for many Catholics it is a problem that has not yet been satisfactorily resolved.)
  1. Darwin’s idea was called “descent with modification by means of natural selection”.
  2. Natural selection means that, given a certain number of organisms, some of these organisms will survive and some will not.
  3. The organisms that do not survive are organisms that do not survive long enough to reproduce.
  4. If a whole species does not produce individuals who reach reproductive age, that species will go extinct.
  5. Not surviving long enough to reproduce means that death as occurred.
  6. A species going extinct means that death as occurred at the species level.
  7. Death, whether at the individual level or the species level, is necessary for “natural selection” to occur.
  8. No death means no natural selection.
  9. If the darker-haired ancestors of the polar bear had not died out before being able to reproduce, then the lighter-haired ancestors would not have been “selected”.
  10. Thus, death was necessary for the evolution of polar bears.
  11. Death was necessary for evolution in general.
and yet
12. Original sin is the act, after which, death entered the world.
13. In Genesis, original sin happened after all the other organisms had been created.
14. This implies that death did not enter the world until humans appeared on the scene, according to Genesis.
15. According to Genesis, the diversity of non-human organisms was achieved without death*.*
16. Diversity of organisms without death is impossible according to evolutionary theory.
  1. Thus, original sin poses a problem for the theory of evolution; and the theory of evolution poses a problem for original sin.
 
westerly said:
Granny, from a micro-perspective, if Homo sapiens were the first of God’s chosen children, the species would still be both biologically distinct and would contain two real, biologically distinct parents. My understanding is that even if we were or weren’t a hybrid species separate from the Australopithecines (sp?) and the other members of the Homo genus, we would still be the children of Eve- where we draw the point between allegory and history when it comes to the Old Testament should be based on both observable fact and testable data, as well as the knowledge imparted by faith… my own opinion is that, as a living document, the Bible has never lacked in complexity. I just don’t see a conflict- our knowledge of God can be increased by scientific reasoning. It’s difficult to imagine that we were given the ability to reason without a plan for our faith to be bolstered by an increased awareness of the universe around us…and if we were to move to a discussion regarding a more accurate portrayal of the source of our biological identity, I don’t think the church should hide from testing the material for soundness. If we did indeed come from a subgroup within a population, it’s best we see where and how that reconciles with ancient knowledge, so that we may have a more accurate understanding of the language of the bible.
Click to expand...
What you are saying is true in general. In particular, there were two, real, sole parents of the human species. We look to the various science disciplines to discover information about these two parents. First there is a difference, I believe it is time, between Homo sapiens and Homo sapiens sapiens. This indicates a development of modern human anatomy.

Then, as now, God directly creates the spiritual soul which is so uniquely united with the material body that one can say that it is because of its spiritual soul that the body made of matter becomes a living human person. What the various science disciplines can do is to search out the history of the human anatomy, but this does not warrant an universal conclusion that in no way, no how, could two human parents exist. There is just not enough of hard data to rule out every possibility which could take place, every day, all over the earth, going backwards thousands and thousands of years. In other words, two first parents endowed with intellect and will could easily exist.

It is my intention to respect the current ban on evolution discussion, see sticky at top of this forum.

Blessings,
granny

John 3: 16 & 17.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top