Pope cites Teilhardian vision of the cosmos as a 'living host'

[fosio]

Toward the end of a reflection upon the Letter to the Romans, in which St. Paul writes that the world itself will one day become a form of living worship, the pope said, "**It’s the great vision that later Teilhard de Chardin also had: At the end we will have a true cosmic liturgy, where the cosmos becomes a living host.

“Let’s pray to the Lord that he help us be priests in this sense**,” the pope said, “to help in the transformation of the world in adoration of God, beginning with ourselves.”

Though offered only in passing, and doubtless subject to overinterpretation, Benedict’s line nevertheless triggered headlines in the Italian press about a possible “rehabilitation” of Teilhard, sometimes referred to as the “Catholic Darwin.” That reading seemed especially tempting since, as a consummate theologian, Benedict is aware of the controversy that swirls around Teilhard, and would thus grasp the likely impact of a positive papal reference.

At the very least, the line seemed to offer a blessing for exploration of the late Jesuit’s ideas. That impression appeared to be confirmed by the Vatican spokesperson, Jesuit Fr. Federico Lombardi, who said afterward, “By now, no one would dream of saying that [Teilhard] is a heterodox author who shouldn’t be studied.”

ncronline.org/news/ecology/pope-cites-teilhardian-vision-cosmos-living-host

A Teilhardian-inspired reunderstanding of Catholic doctrine would I think be of interest to all peoples. Even from a scientific perspective, it would impact the sociology, psychology and memetics of Catholic religion.

One can hope that eventually the different religions as well as science will gradually converge, as though different streams flowing from the same source or truth to which we aspire or mould our lives. I was reading recently the atheist philosopher and cognitive scientist Daniel Dennett write that he had no problem with a belief in the ground of all being, that he himself might be said to believe in such.

I hope now with the Holy See spokesperson that no one “would dream of saying that Teilhard is a heterodox author who shouldn’t be studied.” May we be open to evolving and the cosmos, including religion, evolving in unexpected ways and may we be open to seeing the interpenetration of the divine and the created in all of the cosmos, not letting mystery impede us from acting in prayer; for prayer more than an understanding of mind, is a movement of heart in a living mysterious reality. It is a dance of the human spirit and no god worthy of our devotion, no ground of being to which our heart tends, would punish us for a misstep in this dance. And this dance, this prayer, is what animates Teilhard’s theology. I am giving him a second look. I hope you do too.

 

[Cecilianus]

His evolutionary pantheism was certainly false in many respects, but he is certainly worth studying - most theologians make errors (it’s an occupational hazard), and even those who assent to the sin of heresy (which I don’t believe Teilhard did) are still worth studying. I see nothing but beauty and truth in his book The Divine Milieu; it was denied the Imprimatur (something that never happens without a good reason), but whatever the problem was slipped past me.

 

[Cecilianus]

Furthermore, my understanding was that the theosis of the world through man’s divinization was simply a (sometimes unemphasized) Catholic doctrine - I could have sworn that it’s in Nyssa or one of the other Greek Fathers.

 

[NewEnglandPriest]

Just as Aquinas sought to unite Catholic theology with the “new” philosophy of Aristotle, Teilhard sought to unite Catholic theology to science. Obviously Aquinas was much more successful, but Teilhard should get credit for the attempt.

 

[Cecilianus]

Just as Aquinas sought to unite Catholic theology with the “new” philosophy of Aristotle, Teilhard sought to unite Catholic theology to science. Obviously Aquinas was much more successful, but Teilhard should get credit for the attempt.

And where Teilhard erred, let’s finish his job and correct him. Aquinas had no problem correcting the Latin Averroeists instead of just anathematizing them for heresy. Why should we shrink away from correcting Teilhard instead of just dismissing him?

 

[NewEnglandPriest]

And where Teilhard erred, let’s finish his job and correct him. Aquinas had no problem correcting the Latin Averroeists instead of just anathematizing them for heresy. Why should we shrink away from correcting Teilhard instead of just dismissing him?

Of course we should.

 

[Cecilianus]

I just saw an article on the website - misleadingly called “vaticancatholic.com” - of a sedevacantist “monastery” listing “The Heresies of Benedict XVI”, and it is unfortunate that they should cite the Teilhard incident as a “heresy” of our Holy Father. It saddened me to read that; I hope that it doesn’t become a “meme” for the more prevalent enemies of the Church (liberals and secularists) to use in their arsenal of dirt against the Church.

(That article gave the other example of Pope Benedict’s “heresies” as “Pope endorses Bruce Springsteen”. That gives you some clue as to their desperation in their attempts to malign the Vicar of Christ - I hope they come to their senses one of these days.)

 

[manualman]

I fail to see how this quote implies ANYTHING like Fr. Lombardi seems to want it to. I seem to recall Cardinal Ratzinger quoting Nietzche at some point in the past, but nobody implied THAT was some sort of minor canonization of his wackier ideas, was it? Origen is frequently cited as an authoritative Early Father, but is also acknowledged to have embraced some heretical ideas at some point in his life.

Benedict is a scholar and scholars quote other scholars. It is quite simply untrue to try to make a quote a blanket endorsement of a man or a man’s life work.

I’m not smart enough to evaluate the orthdoxy of Teihard de Chardin. But I can read and listen and I neither saw nor heard a blanket endorsement here.