Pope praises Teilhard de Chardin

[Kook]

We cannot condemn Fr. de Chardin as a heretic. We do not have the authority to do so. The Church has never condemned him as a heretic. Several of his writings were condemned by the Sacred Congregation of the Faith, but not the man. He died in good standing with the Church. The fact that our Holy Father quotes him shows that he is not a heretic. Benedict XVI is too intelligent to quote a heretic in a positive light. We have to use common sense here.

As to Fr. Kung, I had the article, but I have deleted it. It’s from the early days of Pope Benedict’s pontificate. You may find something is you good a string: Pope Benedict and Hans Kung. It is important to understand that Fr. Kung’s license to teach theology was taken away. He was not suspended. He had been working on ecumenical issues in philosophy. When he met with the Holy Father, the Holy Father told him to take over that project and encouraged him to continue its work.

There was a reson given by the Vatican for this move. Fr. Kung was Joseph Ratzinger’s superior when Ratzinger was professor of theology at the university. It was Fr. Kung who was intrumental in getting Ratzinger invited to Vatican II. Ratzinger was a brilliant theologian, but not well known outside of the university. Kung was well known and had been invited to the Council. He submitted Ratzinger’s name. From there Ratzinger’s fame among the bishops and cardinals took off along with Rahner, whom Ratzinger admires and quotes in his work, Jesus of Nazareth. Ratzinger uses Fr. de Chardin’s methodology, Fr. Rahner’s and Fr. Kung’s for doing his own theology.

It is important to read the works of these men side by side. When you do, you see the method runs across them; however, the conclusions are not the same. This is the difference between them. Ratzinger’s conclusions are more orthodox, though he is much more Franciscan and Augustinian than the others. While he uses the methodology that was created by de Chardin, developed by Rahner, and perfected by Ratzinger, Ratzinger uses the theology of Bonaventure and Augustine.

I believe this thread is rattling some people precisely because Pope Benedict is using the methods of de Chardin and lifting the truths that he finds in de Chardin. We tend to want to throw out everything when we find fault with a part of it. Pope Benedict, being well traind in Bonaventure, does not do this. This is contrary to the Franciscan school of theology, which believes that there is good and truth everywhere often hidden under rubble. For someone like Pope Benedict, who enjoys an academic challenge, probably more than he enjoys being pope, this is exactly how he wants to do Catholic theology.

Again, I am no sure why we are questioning this issue. It’s over and done with. The Holy Father has made his statement and there is no error in what he said. If he had made the statement and never mentioned its source, de Chardin, no one would have noticed. I encourage all to relax on this issue. The statement has theological validity and is consistent with Church doctrine.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

Ok. I amend my prior statement. Teilhard de Chardin wrote a lot of heretical stuff.

Let me know if you find anything on the Kung position. I’ve done a bit of googling looking for it and haven’t found a mention of anything remotely like that.

I also have absolutely no idea how you compare the theological methods of Teilhard, Rahner, Kung, and Ratzinger. They are nothing alike. Teilhard’s pseudo-science bears no resemblance to Rahner’s quasi-Heidegger transcendental faux Thomism, which is nothing like Kung’s Modernism, which is nothing like Pope Benedict’s “neo” (for lack of a better phrase) Augustinian take. I’ve read their works. There is no complementarity, especially in method.

As to the rest of your post, you clearly ignored my prior point on Origen.

 

[Tradycja]

There are several articles on Catholic Answers website that refer to Teilhard de Chardin (as a modernist/person with modernist ideas).

Looks like even Catholic Answers could be considered traditionalist now, since they don’t talk about any “great vision” of Teilhard de Chardin as Pope Benedict XVI does, but on the other hand basically expose Chardin for what he was…a modernist.

We need to pray for the Pope and the Vatican, that this hold that modernism has taken over it, be removed, cast out, and renounced.

I am not a supporter of Mons. Lefebvre, but isn’t it funny that Pope Benedict will talk about the “great vision” of Teilhard Chardin, but he would NEVER talk about any “great visions” of Monsignor Marcel Lefebvre?

Whether or not this or that point of Teilhard de Chardin could be considered in an orthodox way is irrelevant. This praise of Chardin was given in the context of a sermon to *regular faithful, *many of whom don’t have any theological training. Why even mention his name to cause confusion? The role of the Pope should be to promote clarity, not ambiguity and confusion.

MODERNISM
By James Akin
catholic.com/thisrock/1994/9411hotm.asp

Evolution and the Magisterium
By Jimmy Akin
catholic.com/thisrock/2004/0401bt.asp

Can You Trust Thomas Merton?
By Anthony E. Clark
catholic.com/thisrock/2008/0805fea1.asp

 

[Layman]

Probably slipped out? De Chardin was big news decades ago. The Pope is erudite. He would have been well aware of his work, ‘back in the day’.

 

[JReducation]

There are several articles on Catholic Answers website that refer to Teilhard de Chardin (as a modernist/person with modernist ideas).

Looks like even Catholic Answers could be considered traditionalist now, since they don’t talk about any “great vision” of Teilhard de Chardin as Pope Benedict XVI does, but on the other hand basically expose Chardin for what he was…a modernist.

We need to pray for the Pope and the Vatican, that this hold that modernism has taken over it, be removed, cast out, and renounced.

I am not a supporter of Mons. Lefebvre, but isn’t it funny that Pope Benedict will talk about the “great vision” of Teilhard Chardin, but he would NEVER talk about any “great visions” of Monsignor Marcel Lefebvre?

Whether or not this or that point of Teilhard de Chardin could be considered in an orthodox way is irrelevant. **This praise of Chardin was given in the context of a sermon to *regular faithful, ***many of whom don’t have any theological training. Why even mention his name to cause confusion? The role of the Pope should be to promote clarity, not ambiguity and confusion.

The bold is mine.

I’m not sure if I’m understanding you correctly. Are you saying that the Pope is deliberately causing confusion?

As to why mention Father de Chardin and not Archbishop Lefebvre, the answer is pretty obvious. Fr. de Chardin was never excommunicated, Archbishop Lefebvre died outside of the Church. It would be inappropriate to invoke his “genius” in a public setting.

My next statement is pure speculation on my part. I believe that the Holy Father has great admiration for the brilliance of Fr. de Chardin, even if he does not agree with his theology. It is this brilliance that he’s pointing to. Fr. de Chardin was known for his scholarship and his use of reason in his writings. Even if his conclusions were mistaken, we know how committed the Holy Father is to the use of reason and faith together. This is not a secret. He has been promoting this since before he became pope.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[treba]

The bold is mine.

I’m not sure if I’m understanding you correctly. Are you saying that the Pope is deliberately causing confusion?

As to why mention Father de Chardin and not Archbishop Lefebvre, the answer is pretty obvious. Fr. de Chardin was never excommunicated, Archbishop Lefebvre died outside of the Church. It would be inappropriate to invoke his “genius” in a public setting.

My next statement is pure speculation on my part. I believe that the Holy Father has great admiration for the brilliance of Fr. de Chardin, even if he does not agree with his theology. It is this brilliance that he’s pointing to. Fr. de Chardin was known for his scholarship and his use of reason in his writings. Even if his conclusions were mistaken, we know how committed the Holy Father is to the use of reason and faith together. This is not a secret. He has been promoting this since before he became pope.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

Catholic Answers doesn’t agree with you or the Pope it seems:
**"Another cause for concern is Fr. Maloney’s inclusion of dissent theologians. Fr. Teilhard de Chardin is referred to several times, always positively. Fr. Maloney calls him a “modern mystic” whom he “avidly read” (134).
**catholic.com/thisrock/2004/0411revw.asp

"Though there had been lesser interventions on the subject before, Pius XII issued in 1950 the encyclical Humani Generis, which pronounced against certain philosophical and evolutionary ideas, particularly some associated with Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, S.J."
catholic.com/thisrock/2004/0401bt.asp

"In the middle of the century, a strand of Modernism erupted through the writings of Fr. Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, leading to Pope Pius XII’s 1950 encyclical Humanae Generis."
catholic.com/thisrock/1994/9411hotm.asp

Thomas Merton:“Zen is the ontological awareness of
pure being beyond subject and object. . .” (Mystics and Zen
Masters, 14, emphasis in original).This Daoist ideal
inherited by Zen is, for Fr. Merton, consistent with
Teilhard de Chardin’s (1881–1955) concept of “convergence,”
or the evolutionary progress of man toward a
converging with the love of Christ in what he termed
the “Omega Point.”catholic.com/thisrock/2008/0805_final.pdf

In all these articles Teilhard is seen as an Arch-heretic ie. not just mistaken but a source of Modernism.

CA will now say Teilhard is GREAT! because B16 does. Just like World Catholic Report was totally against altar girls till JPII betrayed them and now its GREAT!

Truth has no meaning for “conservative” Catholics it is just blind obedience to some personality. It is very cultish:bigyikes:

 

[JReducation]

Catholic Answers doesn’t agree with you or the Pope it seems:
**"Another cause for concern is Fr. Maloney’s inclusion of dissent theologians. Fr. Teilhard de Chardin is referred to several times, always positively. Fr. Maloney calls him a “modern mystic” whom he “avidly read” (134).
**catholic.com/thisrock/2004/0411revw.asp

"Though there had been lesser interventions on the subject before, Pius XII issued in 1950 the encyclical Humani Generis, which pronounced against certain philosophical and evolutionary ideas, particularly some associated with Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, S.J."
catholic.com/thisrock/2004/0401bt.asp

"In the middle of the century, a strand of Modernism erupted through the writings of Fr. Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, leading to Pope Pius XII’s 1950 encyclical Humanae Generis."
catholic.com/thisrock/1994/9411hotm.asp

Thomas Merton:“Zen is the ontological awareness of
pure being beyond subject and object. . .” (Mystics and Zen
Masters, 14, emphasis in original).This Daoist ideal
inherited by Zen is, for Fr. Merton, consistent with
Teilhard de Chardin’s (1881–1955) concept of “convergence,”
or the evolutionary progress of man toward a
converging with the love of Christ in what he termed
the “Omega Point.”catholic.com/thisrock/2008/0805_final.pdf

In all these articles Teilhard is seen as an Arch-heretic ie. not just mistaken but a source of Modernism.

CA will now say Teilhard is GREAT! because B16 does. Just like World Catholic Report was totally against altar girls till JPII betrayed them and now its GREAT!

Truth has no meaning for “conservative” Catholics it is just blind obedience to some personality. It is very cultish:bigyikes:

Neither you nor I have allegience to Catholic Answers. Our allegiance is to the Holy Father. Catholic Answers is a private secular non profit corporation, not an official Catholic organization nor an official Catholic voice. The pope is. Even Catholic Answers will recognize that.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[treba]

Neither you nor I have allegience to Catholic Answers. Our allegiance is to the Holy Father. Catholic Answers is a private secular non profit corporation, not an official Catholic organization nor an official Catholic voice. The pope is. Even Catholic Answers will recognize that.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

Our allegiance is not ultimately to the person of the Pope in blind obedience. Our allegiance is to the Faith and to the Pope when he teaches infallibly in Faith,and Morals or in Church discipline.

To say I have to accept Teilhard because the Pope likes him, after he was shown to be a liar and heretic is ridiculous.

 

[Mike_Dye]

Tehard’s writing were condemned he was also a liar and fraud. He was instrumentally involved in the 2 biggest hoaxes of the missing link: “piltdown Man” and “Peking Man” both were frauds.

His works were constantly condemned. condemnations was a 1962 monitum (reprimand) of the Holy Office denouncing his 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.".

This post is completely incorrect. It implies that Fr Teilhard was trying to present a hoax and nothing could be further from the truth. He was an anthropologist and a scientist that got caught up in a hoax. When the Vatican ordered him to quit he did immediately without protest. If only the bashers around here would do the same!

 

[JReducation]

Our allegiance is not ultimately to the person of the Pope in blind obedience. Our allegiance is to the Faith and to the Pope when he teaches infallibly in Faith,and Morals or in Church discipline.

To say I have to accept Teilhard because the Pope likes him, after he was shown to be a liar and heretic is ridiculous.

But slow down here. There are some slippery slopes here.

1. We do owe the Holy Father allegiance, even in ordinary teaching. Read canon law or the CCC. It will tell you that Catholics are expected to assent to the Vicar of Christ, not only when he speaks infallibly.
2. What the Holy Father quoted from Fr. de Chardin is not heresy. Look at the satement very carefully. There is nothing in it that is in conflict with doctrine or dogma.
3. Fr. de Chardin was never convicted of being a heretic. Some of his writings were, not the entire collection. There are some people who consider him a heretic; but none of them has the authority to condemn him as such. The writings that were condemned were taken out of the picture. But the ones to which the Holy Father refers have merit. We have to separate what is good from what is bad and keep the good.

Even Aquinas wrote some things that would be considered heresy today. He did wite that Mary was born without orginal sin, but not conceived without original sin. This was later condemned as heresy. But Aquinas is a canonized saint and the Angelic doctor, as well as a mystic. What did we do here? We separated what was truth, from error in Aquinas.

Bonaventure wrote that Francis of Assisi is the Mirror of Perfection. That created a major problem for the Franciscans, because it was misunderstood. Pope Leo XIII had to clarify it in an encyclical.

The idea is to keep what is good. That’s what the Holy Father has done here. There is nothing wrong in what he has said. Do you find error in what he said?

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[Mike_Dye]

But slow down here. There are some slippery slopes here.

1. We do owe the Holy Father allegiance, even in ordinary teaching. Read canon law or the CCC. It will tell you that Catholics are expected to assent to the Vicar of Christ, not only when he speaks infallibly.
2. What the Holy Father quoted from Fr. de Chardin is not heresy. Look at the satement very carefully. There is nothing in it that is in conflict with doctrine or dogma.
3. Fr. de Chardin was never convicted of being a heretic. Some of his writings were, not the entire collection. There are some people who consider him a heretic; but none of them has the authority to condemn him as such. The writings that were condemned were taken out of the picture. But the ones to which the Holy Father refers have merit. We have to separate what is good from what is bad and keep the good.

Even Aquinas wrote some things that would be considered heresy today. He did wite that Mary was born without orginal sin, but not conceived without original sin. This was later condemned as heresy. But Aquinas is a canonized saint and the Angelic doctor, as well as a mystic. What did we do here? We separated what was truth, from error in Aquinas.

Bonaventure wrote that Francis of Assisi is the Mirror of Perfection. That created a major problem for the Franciscans, because it was misunderstood. Pope Leo XIII had to clarify it in an encyclical.

The idea is to keep what is good. That’s what the Holy Father has done here. There is nothing wrong in what he has said. Do you find error in what he said?

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

Exactly right just as I pointed out in the previous post

 

[treba]

But slow down here. There are some slippery slopes here.

1. We do owe the Holy Father allegiance, even in ordinary teaching. Read canon law or the CCC. It will tell you that Catholics are expected to assent to the Vicar of Christ, not only when he speaks infallibly.

Agreed that is why I wrote “Church discipline” but he can be criticized for bring up a heretic whose writing were condemned and who was also forbidden to teach Catholic doctrine.

1. What the Holy Father quoted from Fr. de Chardin is not heresy. Look at the satement very carefully. There is nothing in it that is in conflict with doctrine or dogma.

And because he mentions him you now defend Chardin as not a heretic, instead of caution people not to accept this and the Pope is wrong to imply he is orthodox. You think you are practicing the virtue of loyalty but you betray the Faith, which is above the person of the Pope… All of Teildard’s writings were condemned not just some.

1. Fr. de Chardin was never convicted of being a heretic. Some of his writings were, not the entire collection. There are some people who consider him a heretic; but none of them has the authority to condemn him as such. The writings that were condemned were taken out of the picture. But the ones to which the Holy Father refers have merit. We have to separate what is good from what is bad and keep the good.

A heretic is someone who holds obstinately to a doctrine contrary to the Catholic Faith.
Tehard did this and was disobedient because he was forbidden to write theology.

The idea is to keep what is good. That’s what the Holy Father has done here. There is nothing wrong in what he has said. Do you find error in what he said?

Yes He has given confusion and scandal by referring to a heretic as an inspiration for Catholics with no cautionary warnings. It also implies pantheism.(see next post)

 

[JReducation]

Agreed that is why I wrote “Church discipline” but he can be criticized for bring up a heretic whose writing were condemned and who was also forbidden to teach Catholic doctrine.

You are calling Fr. de Chardin a heretic. The Church never did. In fact, he died in communion with the Church.

And because he mentions him you now defend Chardin as not a heretic, instead of caution people not to accept this and the Pope is wrong to imply he is orthodox. You think you are practicing the virtue of loyalty but you betray the Faith, which is above the person of the Pope… All of Teildard’s writings were condemned not just some.

You will have to prove that all of Fr. de Chardin’s writings were condemned, not I. Second, if I betray the faith, then so does the Pope. I’m only supporting the Holy Father’s right to say what he said. You, on the other hand, are condemning him by association with Fr. de Chardin.

A heretic is someone who holds obstinately to a doctrine contrary to the Catholic Faith.
Tehard did this and was disobedient because he was forbidden to write theology.

Your definition of a heretic is correct. Fr. de Chardin was not a theologian. He was an anthroplogist and philosopher. He was ordered to stop writing certain things and he did. His license to teach was never revoked, because he obeyed. He was never condemned a heretic by anyone with the authority to do so.

Yes He has given confusion and scandal by referring to a heretic as an inspiration for Catholics with no cautionary warnings. It also implies pantheism.(see next post)

I’m not confused. Are you? I’m not scandalize. Are you? Where is the pantheism?

Why don’t you stop fighting the Holy Father and join the Franciscans of the Renewal. They’re very humble and very obedient and faithful to the Holy Father. You may learn much from them. They’re very holy people.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[treba]

His system of thought contradicts the Catholic Faith, for there is not the slightest doubt that Teilhard’s system is a form of evolutionary pantheism.

Teilhard himself admitted it. In 1954 when he wrote to friend: “I do not admit the ‘anti-pantheist’ position which you attribute to me. I am, on the contrary, essentially pantheist in my thinking and by temperament; and my whole life has been spent in proclaiming that there is a true ‘pantheism of union’ (Deus omnia in omnibus) (a pan-Christism, as Blondel used to say) in opposition to the (oriental) pseudo-pantheism of dissolution — Deus omnia.”

Then, a few weeks later, he wrote: “I am well aware that it is not on account of any verbal infelicities that my essays have constantly been set aside (as redolens pantheismum). It is because my censors have felt — and rightly — that for me the whole Universe, including the relations between the Divine and the Created, between the Natural and the Supernatural, is organically all of [one] piece….”

“I am essentially Pantheist in my thinking and in my temperament.”
(“Hymn of the Universe” New York: Harper and Row 1966, pg. 53-54)

**It was his evolutionary pantheism that led him to reject the doctrine of Original Sin **— a denial which in 1926 cost him his post as a teacher at the Institut Catholique and led to his transfer to China, with an order not to publish any material on theological or philosophical subjects, but to confine his writing to scientific subjects.

But he left behind him in France groups of disciples, to whom he sent material containing an account of new developments in his philosophical system, in pure disobedience.

Since these were not published but were private communications, they required no nihil obstat from a censor nor any imprimatur from a bishop or religious superior.

“According to my own principles, I cannot fight against Christianity; I can only work inside it by trying to transform and convert it. A revolutionary attitude would be much easier, and much more pleasant, but it would be suicidal. So I must go step by step, tenaciously.” (Letter, Mar. 21, 1941)

“What increasingly dominates my interest is the effort to establish within myself, and to diffuse around me, a new religion (let’s call it an improved Christianity if you like) whose personal God is no longer the great Neolithic landowner of times gone by, but the Soul of the world…” (Letter to Leontine Zanta, Jan. 26, 1936)

“Christ saves. But must we not hasten to add that Christ, too, is saved by Evolution?” (Le Christique, 1955)

But they were widely circulated among his disciples and eventually came to the notice of the Holy Office and in 1950 led to promulgation by Pope Pius XII of the encyclical Humani Generis.

The Pope did not mention Teilhard by name, but it was obvious to anyone who knew anything of Teilhard’s thought that this was one of the main targets and that it was being categorically rejected as contrary to the Faith.

Before he died in 1955, Teilhard consulted a confrère about his voluminous manuscripts and was told he was free to dispose of them as he wished. He bequeathed them to a group of disciples in France and they began to publish them in a series of books.

These came to the notice of the Holy Office and prompted the monitum of June 30, 1962, in which Teilhard’s books were described as abounding in grave theological and philosophical errors. They were not to be admitted into seminary libraries or other Catholic educational establishments.

"I am essentially Pantheist in my thinking and in my temperament."
(“Hymn of the Universe” New York: Harper and Row 1966, pg. 53-54)

So this is not a heretic? One can be a heretic de facto which his writing attitude clearly shows.

 

[JReducation]

His system of thought contradicts the Catholic Faith, for there is not the slightest doubt that Teilhard’s system is a form of evolutionary pantheism.

Teilhard himself admitted it. In 1954 when he wrote to friend: “I do not admit the ‘anti-pantheist’ position which you attribute to me. I am, on the contrary, essentially pantheist in my thinking and by temperament; and my whole life has been spent in proclaiming that there is a true ‘pantheism of union’ (Deus omnia in omnibus) (a pan-Christism, as Blondel used to say) in opposition to the (oriental) pseudo-pantheism of dissolution — Deus omnia.”

Then, a few weeks later, he wrote: “I am well aware that it is not on account of any verbal infelicities that my essays have constantly been set aside (as redolens pantheismum). It is because my censors have felt — and rightly — that for me the whole Universe, including the relations between the Divine and the Created, between the Natural and the Supernatural, is organically all of [one] piece….”

“I am essentially Pantheist in my thinking and in my temperament.”
(“Hymn of the Universe” New York: Harper and Row 1966, pg. 53-54)

**It was his evolutionary pantheism that led him to reject the doctrine of Original Sin **— a denial which in 1926 cost him his post as a teacher at the Institut Catholique and led to his transfer to China, with an order not to publish any material on theological or philosophical subjects, but to confine his writing to scientific subjects.

But he left behind him in France groups of disciples, to whom he sent material containing an account of new developments in his philosophical system, in pure disobedience.

Since these were not published but were private communications, they required no nihil obstat from a censor nor any imprimatur from a bishop or religious superior.

“According to my own principles, I cannot fight against Christianity; I can only work inside it by trying to transform and convert it. A revolutionary attitude would be much easier, and much more pleasant, but it would be suicidal. So I must go step by step, tenaciously.” (Letter, Mar. 21, 1941)

“What increasingly dominates my interest is the effort to establish within myself, and to diffuse around me, a new religion (let’s call it an improved Christianity if you like) whose personal God is no longer the great Neolithic landowner of times gone by, but the Soul of the world…” (Letter to Leontine Zanta, Jan. 26, 1936)

“Christ saves. But must we not hasten to add that Christ, too, is saved by Evolution?” (Le Christique, 1955)

But they were widely circulated among his disciples and eventually came to the notice of the Holy Office and in 1950 led to promulgation by Pope Pius XII of the encyclical Humani Generis.

The Pope did not mention Teilhard by name, but it was obvious to anyone who knew anything of Teilhard’s thought that this was one of the main targets and that it was being categorically rejected as contrary to the Faith.

Before he died in 1955, Teilhard consulted a confrère about his voluminous manuscripts and was told he was free to dispose of them as he wished. He bequeathed them to a group of disciples in France and they began to publish them in a series of books.

These came to the notice of the Holy Office and prompted the monitum of June 30, 1962, in which Teilhard’s books were described as abounding in grave theological and philosophical errors. They were not to be admitted into seminary libraries or other Catholic educational establishments.

"I am essentially Pantheist in my thinking and in my temperament."
(“Hymn of the Universe” New York: Harper and Row 1966, pg. 53-54)

So this is not a heretic? One can be a heretic de facto which his writing attitude clearly shows.

I repeat, this is your opinion of the man. You’re welcome to have it. The Church does not agree with you. For one, you and I do not know the state of Fr. de Chardin’s soul when he died. We know that he died after receiving the sacraments of the Church and that he died within his religious community. That counts for something.

The other point, which is more important here is the Holy Father’s statement. Where is the error in his statement?

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[jimmy]

Here it is on the Vatican website:

http://www.vatican.va/news_services/or/or_eng/text.html

On Friday afternoon, 24 July, the Holy Father celebrated Vespers with the faithful of Aosta, Italy, in the city’s Cathedral. During his Homily, the Pope commented on a brief passage from the Letter to the Romans

We ourselves, with our whole being, must be adoration and sacrifice, and by transforming our world, give it back to God. The role of the priesthood is to consecrate the world so that it may become a living host, a liturgy: so that the liturgy may not be something alongside the reality of the world, but that the world itself shall become a living host, a liturgy. This is also the great vision of Teilhard de Chardin: in the end we shall achieve a true cosmic liturgy, where the cosmos becomes a living host. And let us pray the Lord to help us become priests in this sense, to aid in the transformation of the world, in adoration of God, beginning with ourselves.

What is so offensive about what the pope said? That he used Teilhard de Chardin’s name without cursing it? Do you oppose the idea of the cosmic liturgy as spoken of by St. Maximus the Confessor?

 

[treba]

I repeat, this is your opinion of the man. You’re welcome to have it. The Church does not agree with you. For one, you and I do not know the state of Fr. de Chardin’s soul when he died. We know that he died after receiving the sacraments of the Church and that he died within his religious community. That counts for something.

The other point, which is more important here is the Holy Father’s statement. Where is the error in his statement?

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

B16:
“This is also **the great vision of Teilhard de Chardin: **in the end we shall achieve a true cosmic liturgy”

The Great Vision of Teilhard was Pantheism!

It is not my opinion it is what Teilhard ( of himself),Pius XII, 1962 Holy Office, and his Jesuit superiors said!!

If you still insist that his teachings are not heretical then all that I can say is you must convert to save your soul!!!
I will pray for you!!! You are lost

 

[JReducation]

B16:
“This is also **the great vision of Teilhard de Chardin: **in the end we shall achieve a true cosmic liturgy”

The Great Vision of Teilhard was Pantheism!

It is not my opinion it is what Teilhard ( of himself),Pius XII, 1962 Holy Office, and his Jesuit superiors said!!

If you still insist that his teachings are not heretical then all that I can say is you must convert to save your soul!!!
I will pray for you!!! You are lost

You’re missing or avoiding the point. Is the Pope lost? Did the Pope say something that is heretical?

I’m defending the Pope’s right to say what he said. You keep focussing on de Chardin. Let’s get back to the Pope. Is he wrong? Is he lost? Does he need to convert?

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[treba]

You’re missing or avoiding the point. Is the Pope lost? Did the Pope say something that is heretical?

I’m defending the Pope’s right to say what he said. You keep focussing on de Chardin. Let’s get back to the Pope. Is he wrong? Is he lost? Does he need to convert?

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

If you won’t agree that Chardin’s writings are heretical what the point?

 

[JReducation]

Let’s take analyze what the Holy Father said.

We ourselves, with our whole being, must be adoration and sacrifice,

A priest should not just offer adoration and sacrifice, but become adoration and sacrifice. This is what was preached by St. Francis, St. Bonaventure, St. Catherine and St. Therese of Liseuxe. There is no heresy here.

and by transforming our world,

A priest must transform the world. St. Paul would agree with this. So would St. Francis, St. Dominic and St. Ignatius of Loyola and other great missionaries.

give it back to God.

This sounds like the very thing that Christ did on the cross.

The role of the priesthood is to consecrate the world so that it may become a living host,

The world must become the Body of Christ. No heresy there. St. John’s prologue reminds us that all was created through Him and all was created for Him. Therefore, it is reasonable to expect the world to become one with him.

a liturgy:

A liturgy is a celebration and a sacrifice offered to God the Father. The world should become a celebration and a sacrifice that is offered to God the Father. It is the role of the priest to transform the world through his ministry so that it can be offered to God the Father. There is no heresy there.

so that the liturgy may not be something alongside the reality of the world,

The liturgy is not a parallel reality. It exists within the reality of the world. That sounds like incarnation theology. Christ did not exist as a parallel reality. He had a true human nature. Therefore, the liturgy must embrace humanity and divinity, not co-exist next to humanity. There is nothing contrary to doctrine there either.

but that the world itself shall become a living host, a liturgy.

We already discussed this above.

This is also the great vision of Teilhard de Chardin:

So, Teilhard de Chardin believed in all the above. Give credit where credit is due. If Teilhard formulated these ideas into words, why can’t he get credit? They are noteworthy.

in the end we shall achieve a true cosmic liturgy,

In the end, the entire universe will be absorbed into the reality that is God. St. Augustine said, “Our hearts will not rest until they rest in you.” Therefore, he understood that the universe was directed toward union with God. That’s not pantheism. It’s not saying that God is in trees. It’s saying that the proper end of all human beings is eternal union with God. This is a fundamental principal of eschatology. There is nothing heretical here either.

where the cosmos becomes a living host.

The universe becomes a living host. The universe is not found in the host. It’s the other way around the host draws the universe into itself. Christ calls all things to himself. This theology is referring to all men and women. When all men and women are drawn into the mystery of Christ’s passion and resurrection there will be reason to celebrate (hence the word “liturgy.”). There is nothing heretical here either.

And let us pray the Lord to help us become priests in this sense, to aid in the transformation of the world, in adoration of God, beginning with ourselves.

There is nothing heretical in this prayer either.

So . . . Where is the great error?

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[JReducation]

If you won’t agree that Chardin’s writings are heretical what the point?

The fact is that the OP is about something that the Pope said and which he credits de Chardin with.

You say that I am lost. I’m not sure why, but we’ll let my confessor decide that.

We’re talking about what the Holy Father said. I see nothing heretical in what the Holy Father said. I’m not interested in de Chardin, because he’s not the pope. Because de Chardin wrote some things that were condemned does not make the Pope a heretic and does not mean that the Pope cannot quote whatever good de Chardin may have taught.

If the Holy Father said something heretical, prove it. Otherwise, admit that he did not do so. But be honest.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF