Pope praises Teilhard de Chardin

[treba]

Let’s take analyze what the Holy Father said.

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.

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.

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

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 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.

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.

We already discussed this above.

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, 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.

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.

There is nothing heretical in this prayer either.

So . . . Where is the great error?

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

Will you admit Chardin’s teachings are heretical?

 

[JReducation]

Will you admit Chardin’s teachings are heretical?

I admit what the Church admits. There were writings that were in conflict with faith and doctrine and they should not be allowed to be used as sources of formation in theology or Catholic philosophy. I also agree with the Holy Father. Fr. de Chardin said some things that were of great value.

I stand by the Church’s ruling on Fr. de Chardin.

Do you believe that the Holy Father’s statement was heretical, because it uses de Chardin’s teaching on the cosmic liturgy as its source?

Do you believe that the Holy Father is a heretic?

Do you believe that the Holy Father is deliberately spreading heresy?

Do you believe that the Holy Father is lost?

Please don’t go back to Fr. de Chardin. This is not about him. This thread is a big deal because the Holy Father uses one of his teachings. Let’s talk about this particular teaching and the Holy Father. What is wrong with if? If anything . . . so far you have pointed to Fr. de Chardin’s writings, but not to this specific topic that the Pope has selected from among his writings.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[treba]

Please don’t go back to Fr. de Chardin. This is not about him. This thread is a big deal because the Holy Father uses one of his teachings. Let’s talk about this particular teaching and the Holy Father. What is wrong with if? If anything . . . so far you have pointed to Fr. de Chardin’s writings, but not to this specific topic that the Pope has selected from among his writings.

If you won’t admit his teachings are heretical how can we talk about what the Pope said?
This is basic first principle and if you can’t see the importance then it is clear you are not a clear thinker.

I admit what the Church admits. There were writings that were in conflict with faith and doctrine and they should not be allowed to be used as sources of formation in theology or Catholic philosophy. I also agree with the Holy Father. Fr. de Chardin said some things that were of great value. I stand by the Church’s ruling on Fr. de Chardin.

Does that mean that you agree his writings were heretical? yes or no please

 

[JReducation]

If you won’t admit his teachings are heretical how can we talk about what the Pope said?
This is basic first principle and if you can’t see the importance then it is clear you are not a clear thinker.

I guess I can assume that you do not believe that the Holy Father is a clear thinker either, since he and I agree on this particular point taught by de Chardin.

Does that mean that you agree his writings were heretical? yes or no please

The Church did not call them heresy. Therefore, neither will I. Neither you nor I have the power to call them heretical, if the Church has not done so. Therefore, some are inconsistent with Church doctrine, as the Sacred Congregation said.

Sorry, but I stand with the Church. You have to decide where you stand. You have failed to prove that what Pope Benedict lifted from de Chardin is heretical. I did too for that matter. I read it carefully and find nothing heretical in this particular statement or this particular citation of Fr. de Chardin’s writings.

The entire cosmic host imagery that the Holy Father used is lifted from Fr. de Chardin and it’s very consistent with the teaching of the Doctors and mystics of the Church as well as with the writings of Paul. I already showed, in my analysis how there is nothing in conflict with Church teaching. You have not proven that there is a conflict.

The ball is in your court. If there is a conflict. You have the Holy Father’s words. Find it. If you cannot find it, then graciously back off.

But don’t go back to Fr. de Chardin. What you’re doing is hiding behind Fr. de Chardin, because you don’t want to come out and call the Holy Father a heretic. So you’re going about it in a roundabout way. If you persuade your readers that EVERYTHING Fr. de Chardin wrote is heresy, then you don’t have to publicly call Pope Benedict a heretic. He stands convicted by association. But you have failed to prove that this particular citation that Pope Benedict is using is heresy.

If you can prove it, please do so. If not, admit that you can’t.

I find nothing heretical in this citation and I have studied many years of theology and taught it. There is nothing in this citation contrary to the faith.

Sorry!

Br. JR, OSF

 

[Lainey63]

You wont get a straight answer from him he is a typical Franciscan following feelings more than facts

Shows what you know about Franciscans-nothing

 

[treba]

I guess I can assume that you do not believe that the Holy Father is a clear thinker either, since he and I agree on this particular point taught by de Chardin.

The Church did not call them heresy. Therefore, neither will I. Neither you nor I have the power to call them heretical, if the Church has not done so. Therefore, some are inconsistent with Church doctrine, as the Sacred Congregation said.

Sorry, but I stand with the Church. You have to decide where you stand. You have failed to prove that what Pope Benedict lifted from de Chardin is heretical. I did too for that matter. I read it carefully and find nothing heretical in this particular statement or this particular citation of Fr. de Chardin’s writings.

The entire cosmic host imagery that the Holy Father used is lifted from Fr. de Chardin and it’s very consistent with the teaching of the Doctors and mystics of the Church as well as with the writings of Paul. I already showed, in my analysis how there is nothing in conflict with Church teaching. You have not proven that there is a conflict.

The ball is in your court. If there is a conflict. You have the Holy Father’s words. Find it. If you cannot find it, then graciously back off.

But don’t go back to Fr. de Chardin. What you’re doing is hiding behind Fr. de Chardin, because you don’t want to come out and call the Holy Father a heretic. So you’re going about it in a roundabout way. If you persuade your readers that EVERYTHING Fr. de Chardin wrote is heresy, then you don’t have to publicly call Pope Benedict a heretic. He stands convicted by association. But you have failed to prove that this particular citation that Pope Benedict is using is heresy.

If you can prove it, please do so. If not, admit that you can’t.

I find nothing heretical in this citation and I have studied many years of theology and taught it. There is nothing in this citation contrary to the faith.

Sorry!

Br. JR, OSF

Easy boss easy…

I forgot you’re Franciscan and not Dominican. Lets take it slowly.

To deny Original Sin, is that heretical?
yes.

Can one be a Pantheist and a Catholic?
no.

Holy Office:
“works abound in such ambiguities and indeed even serious errors, as to offend Catholic doctrine… against the dangers presented by the works of Fr. Teilhard de Chardin and of his followers.”"

So his works were said to be in serious error against the faith and dangerous and they are still considered such because it was renewed in 1982.= Heretical --just another way of saying serious errors against the Faith. Simple

Ok lets keep going don’t get tired now

Are you a Sedevicantist ? Because they believe a Pope can not be a heretic, which you seem to be acting like.

I believe a Pope can be a heretic.

Now wait don’t get your hopes up. I don’t think that B16 is a Heretic.

I think he could be, but I don’t think he is, at least I hope not. But I think he knows enough about Teilhard to know that it was EXTREMELY imprudent and scandalous to bring up his name in such a positive light, as POPE. If Teilhard is so close to the Fathers of the Church, as others have said on this thread, why not use those Fathers? ( BTW their writings were not condemned) IS he serious about bringing SSPX back?

NO! Because he does stupid things like this!! Teilhard has the effect on a SSPXer like a shot gun fired at a deer. They sense danger and will run away.

I bet if I asked you if his writings were heretical 2 years ago you probably would agree because 100% of orthodox theologians would agree his teachings were heretical. Now you struggle like a lawyer for Henry the VIII to defend the Pope.

He is a man and can teach error otherwise the First Vatican Council’s ruling on when the Pope is infallible wouldn’t make any sense.

I hope this makes you happy

I still worry about you though, your not a very clear thinker.

 

[JReducation]

Easy boss easy…

I forgot you’re Franciscan and not Dominican. Lets take it slowly.

To deny Original Sin, is that heretical?
yes.

Can one be a Pantheist and a Catholic?
no.

Holy Office:
“works abound in such ambiguities and indeed even serious errors, as to offend Catholic doctrine… against the dangers presented by the works of Fr. Teilhard de Chardin and of his followers.”"

So his works were said to be in serious error against the faith and dangerous and they are still considered such because it was renewed in 1982.= Heretical --just another way of saying serious errors against the Faith. Simple

Ok lets keep going don’t get tired now

Are you a Sedevicantist ? Because they believe a Pope can not be a heretic, which you seem to be acting like.

I believe a Pope can be a heretic.

Now wait don’t get your hopes up. I don’t think that B16 is a Heretic.

I think he could be, but I don’t think he is, at least I hope not. But I think he knows enough about Teilhard to know that it was EXTREMELY imprudent and scandalous to bring up his name in such a positive light, as POPE. If Teilhard is so close to the Fathers of the Church, as others have said on this thread, why not use those Fathers? ( BTW their writings were not condemned) IS he serious about bringing SSPX back?

NO! Because he does stupid things like this!! Teilhard has the effect on a SSPXer like a shot gun fired at a deer. They sense danger and will run away.

I bet if I asked you if his writings were heretical 2 years ago you probably would agree because 100% of orthodox theologians would agree his teachings were heretical. Now you struggle like a lawyer for Henry the VIII to defend the Pope.

He is a man and can teach error otherwise the First Vatican Council’s ruling on when the Pope is infallible wouldn’t make any sense.

I hope this makes you happy

I still worry about you though, your not a very clear thinker.

Here is some clear thinking for you. You may want to be more concerned about this. I hope.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=364455

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=364163

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=363454

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[Lainey63]

Easy boss easy…

I forgot you’re Franciscan and not Dominican. Lets take it slowly.

To deny Original Sin, is that heretical?
yes.

Can one be a Pantheist and a Catholic?
no.

Holy Office:
“works abound in such ambiguities and indeed even serious errors, as to offend Catholic doctrine… against the dangers presented by the works of Fr. Teilhard de Chardin and of his followers.”"

So his works were said to be in serious error against the faith and dangerous and they are still considered such because it was renewed in 1982.= Heretical --just another way of saying serious errors against the Faith. Simple

Ok lets keep going don’t get tired now

Are you a Sedevicantist ? Because they believe a Pope can not be a heretic, which you seem to be acting like.

I believe a Pope can be a heretic.

Now wait don’t get your hopes up. I don’t think that B16 is a Heretic.

I think he could be, but I don’t think he is, at least I hope not. But I think he knows enough about Teilhard to know that it was EXTREMELY imprudent and scandalous to bring up his name in such a positive light, as POPE. If Teilhard is so close to the Fathers of the Church, as others have said on this thread, why not use those Fathers? ( BTW their writings were not condemned) IS he serious about bringing SSPX back?

NO! Because he does stupid things like this!! Teilhard has the effect on a SSPXer like a shot gun fired at a deer. They sense danger and will run away.

I bet if I asked you if his writings were heretical 2 years ago you probably would agree because 100% of orthodox theologians would agree his teachings were heretical. Now you struggle like a lawyer for Henry the VIII to defend the Pope.

He is a man and can teach error otherwise the First Vatican Council’s ruling on when the Pope is infallible wouldn’t make any sense.

I hope this makes you happy

I still worry about you though, your not a very clear thinker.

Your condescending, degrading & insulting manner really doesn’t prove your point…it actually makes you less credible. Personal attacks are not allowed on CAF. No one really wants to listen to someone who suffers from spiritual arrogance…which by the way is not something the Dominicans promote.

 

[JReducation]

Your condescending, degrading & insulting manner really doesn’t prove your point…it actually makes you less credible. Personal attacks are not allowed on CAF. No one really wants to listen to someone who suffers from spiritual arrogance…which by the way is not something the Dominicans promote.

The bold is mine.

The tradition of our holy Father Dominic is a very humble tradition. Our holy Father told his friars to preach with humility and charity above all things. By the way, in case someone is wondering, Franciscans and Dominicans consider each other as part of one family. Thus we refer to our founders, Dominic and Francis, as our fathers. They were very close in their mission and vision. The difference between them was the clerical status of the the two orders. The Dominicans are a clerical order and the Franciscans are a lay order. We have priests, but we were not founded to be an order of priests, but an order of brothers. The Dominicans have coadjutor brothers, which the Franciscans do not have, because the Dominicans were founded to be priests. For that reason the two orders did not unite.

However, they worked together for centuries at the University of Paris. Bonaventure and Aquinas were cooperators and close friends. To this day, we study together around the world.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[anon5216]

Ran across this thread as I just recently starting looking into Teilhard de Chardin’s book: “The Phenomenon of Man”.

It’s not simplistic reading and I can understand why some people might feel threatened by his writings.

However, Benedict XVI is clearly not threatened, and I find it very refreshing that this pope is encouraging Catholics to tackle more challenging thoughts and writings, by way of his very public example.

I know Benedict XVI also thought well of the Dominican priest/theologian/mystic: Meister Eckhart.
Hopefully he will also bring this great thinker to the forefront of awareness of modern day Catholics.

 

[Hesychios]

Ran across this thread as I just recently starting looking into Teilhard de Chardin’s book: “The Phenomenon of Man”.

I have always been a closet ‘fan’ of Teilhard de Chardin (even now, as an Orthodox). I have read several of his books.

One does not have to agree with every speculation one reads, the man had that touch of genius, though. It showed in all his life’s works.

http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/41ZJRANVXYL.BO2,204,203,200_PIsitb-sticker-arrow-click,TopRight,35,-76_AA240_SH20_OU01.jpghttp://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/41JCAPpc0BL.BO2,204,203,200_PIsitb-sticker-arrow-click,TopRight,35,-76_AA240_SH20_OU01.jpghttp://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/41tARQ6%2B%2BRL.BO2,204,203,200_PIsitb-sticker-arrow-click,TopRight,35,-76_AA240_SH20_OU01.jpg

It’s not simplistic reading and I can understand why some people might feel threatened by his writings.

…I find it very refreshing that this pope is encouraging Catholics to tackle more challenging thoughts and writings, by way of his very public example.

Bravo!

I know Benedict XVI also thought well of the Dominican priest/theologian/mystic: Meister Eckhart.
Hopefully he will also bring this great thinker to the forefront of awareness of modern day Catholics.

I had no idea!

I read Meister Eckhart too! I was always intrigued by his notion of the ‘heart’.

http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51W57XKKDRL.BO2,204,203,200_PIsitb-sticker-arrow-click,TopRight,35,-76_AA240_SH20_OU01.jpghttp://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51WktA%2BxwBL.BO2,204,203,200_PIsitb-sticker-arrow-click,TopRight,35,-76_AA240_SH20_OU01.jpghttp://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/419P93D89WL.BO2,204,203,200_PIsitb-sticker-arrow-click,TopRight,35,-76_AA240_SH20_OU01.jpg

…Benedict XVI is clearly not threatened…

The present Pope is something of an intellectual dynamo.

 

[JReducation]

I believe that the problem that some people are having with this pope is the same that they had with Pope John Paul II. Many people like things in black and white and many like to have the faith spelled out as we did in the older catechisms. John Paul II and Benedict XVI are more the scholars who like to dismantle doctrine, morals and discipline and analyze what they mean. They are not into dismantling for the purpose of undoing them. No. No pope can undo dogma or teach new dogma. But a pope can take the onion and peel it until it gets to the center and as he goes he can comment on what he sees. This is what these two men have in common. Maybe this is why they were such good friends and had so much trust in each other.

They could take Eckert, Bonaventure, de Chardin, Kung, Rahner, Luther and many other writers and peel away at them like an onion. And in the midst of the layers, if they found truth, they would point it out, without endorsing the other layers that were mistaken. They were not afraid to navigate through what I call “super writings” and lift out what was true in them and throw the rest away.

We have to learn that skill. He have to acquire that kind of courage, to go through the scholarly works of Christianity and lift out the truth and discard the rest. One of the most interesing books that I have read and am reading again is Jesus of Nazareth by Pope Benedict. He goes out on many limbs in his book. He pulls from Bonaventure, Rahner, Augustine, Aquinas, Schweitzer and Lang. That’s quite a combo of resources, along with the Fathers of the Church and the scriptures. It takes a genius to put this together and make it flow. As you go through it, you should be able to say “This is Augustine” or “This is Bonavneture” or “These are the Fathers of the Church” and so forth. If you can identify where each statement comes from, it all makes sense and it is easier to read.

I believe that both John Paul II and Benedict XVI have introduced a new era of high scholasticism to the Church. I don’t mean the scholasticism of Aquinas. But a scholasticism that includes him and many others too. We Catholics need to get on the ball and catch up on our readong. That’s the best that I can say. That includes the clergy too.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[Kook]

I believe that the problem that some people are having with this pope is the same that they had with Pope John Paul II. Many people like things in black and white and many like to have the faith spelled out as we did in the older catechisms. John Paul II and Benedict XVI are more the scholars who like to dismantle doctrine, morals and discipline and analyze what they mean. They are not into dismantling for the purpose of undoing them. No. No pope can undo dogma or teach new dogma. But a pope can take the onion and peel it until it gets to the center and as he goes he can comment on what he sees. This is what these two men have in common. Maybe this is why they were such good friends and had so much trust in each other.

They could take Eckert, Bonaventure, de Chardin, Kung, Rahner, Luther and many other writers and peel away at them like an onion. And in the midst of the layers, if they found truth, they would point it out, without endorsing the other layers that were mistaken. They were not afraid to navigate through what I call “super writings” and lift out what was true in them and throw the rest away.

We have to learn that skill. He have to acquire that kind of courage, to go through the scholarly works of Christianity and lift out the truth and discard the rest. One of the most interesing books that I have read and am reading again is Jesus of Nazareth by Pope Benedict. He goes out on many limbs in his book. He pulls from Bonaventure, Rahner, Augustine, Aquinas, Schweitzer and Lang. That’s quite a combo of resources, along with the Fathers of the Church and the scriptures. It takes a genius to put this together and make it flow. As you go through it, you should be able to say “This is Augustine” or “This is Bonavneture” or “These are the Fathers of the Church” and so forth. If you can identify where each statement comes from, it all makes sense and it is easier to read.

I believe that both John Paul II and Benedict XVI have introduced a new era of high scholasticism to the Church. I don’t mean the scholasticism of Aquinas. But a scholasticism that includes him and many others too. We Catholics need to get on the ball and catch up on our readong. That’s the best that I can say. That includes the clergy too.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

Perfectly ok, as long as you recognize when someone is promoting heresy. Aquinas was fine with quoting from Aristotle and Avicenna. Everybody knew where they screwed up, though. I think Nietzsche is great stuff for folks trying to understand modernity, as long as it’s perfectly clear that it’s insight as to why the society has so much corruption.

If people are acknowledging that Luther was a heretic, that Teilhard was a heretic, that Kung is a heretic, and so forth, none of this is a big deal. I wouldn’t suggest to any lay person to just pick up these guy’s writings and read them. Therein lies the danger. “We Catholics” don’t need to be reading their **** (for lack of a better word) without sufficient guidance in doing so. Neither, for that matter, should clergy.

 

[John92]

Traditionalists are such worryworts. Read the rest of what he has to say. Those words might not be the best but his meaning is clear: the world should be sanctified, we should all do what we can to glorify God and spread his message and worship him just as when we are at Mass, etc.

Pope Benedict XVI is our friend, a friend we should cherish (not to mention the whole, y’know, Successor of St. Peter thing . . .).

 

[JReducation]

Perfectly ok, as long as you recognize when someone is promoting heresy. Aquinas was fine with quoting from Aristotle and Avicenna. Everybody knew where they screwed up, though. I think Nietzsche is great stuff for folks trying to understand modernity, as long as it’s perfectly clear that it’s insight as to why the society has so much corruption.

If people are acknowledging that Luther was a heretic, that Teilhard was a heretic, that Kung is a heretic, and so forth, none of this is a big deal. I wouldn’t suggest to any lay person to just pick up these guy’s writings and read them. Therein lies the danger. “We Catholics” don’t need to be reading their **** (for lack of a better word) without sufficient guidance in doing so. Neither, for that matter, should clergy.

Wait a minute, you just excommunicated several people who are not excommunicated. Kung and de Chardin have never been called heretics by the Church. In fact, Kung and Pope Benedict are very good friends. A month or so after his election, Pope Benedict invited Fr. Kung to spend an afternoon with him at his summer residence. They talked and the talk ended with them agreeing to disagree on a number of issues. However, the Holy Father appointed him as the head of the Ecumenical committee for his country. This was in the Catholic press all over the place.

De Chardin’s writing have received numerous critiques for certain points. But not everything that he wrote has been rejected. That’s why the Holy Father quotes him and included him on his reading list when he taught theology. He has great respect for some of de Chardin’s points and he rejects other points.

The same with Luther. Some of what Luther wrote has validity and some is heresy. You learn to read and separate what you can use from what you cannot use. That’s how theology is studied and taught at higher levels. Not everything that Aquinas wrote has been adopted by the Church. Some of his ideas were rejected and many were used in theology and philosophy. The same thing happened with Bonaventure. A good example that I can point to is Bonaventure’s and Aquinas’ teachings on the Immaculate Conception. Both of them rejected it. It was John Duns Scotus who finally convinced the Church hierarchy of the Immaculate Conception.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[Kook]

Wait a minute, you just excommunicated several people who are not excommunicated. Kung and de Chardin have never been called heretics by the Church. In fact, Kung and Pope Benedict are very good friends. A month or so after his election, Pope Benedict invited Fr. Kung to spend an afternoon with him at his summer residence. They talked and the talk ended with them agreeing to disagree on a number of issues. However, the Holy Father appointed him as the head of the Ecumenical committee for his country. This was in the Catholic press all over the place.

De Chardin’s writing have received numerous critiques for certain points. But not everything that he wrote has been rejected. That’s why the Holy Father quotes him and included him on his reading list when he taught theology. He has great respect for some of de Chardin’s points and he rejects other points.

The same with Luther. Some of what Luther wrote has validity and some is heresy. You learn to read and separate what you can use from what you cannot use. That’s how theology is studied and taught at higher levels. Not everything that Aquinas wrote has been adopted by the Church. Some of his ideas were rejected and many were used in theology and philosophy. The same thing happened with Bonaventure. A good example that I can point to is Bonaventure’s and Aquinas’ teachings on the Immaculate Conception. Both of them rejected it. It was John Duns Scotus who finally convinced the Church hierarchy of the Immaculate Conception.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

You radically misstate Aquinas’s view on the Immaculate Conception.

The Pope’s relationship with Hans Kung is a non sequitur. Lots of Catholics have friends who are heretics. That doesn’t have anything to do with their religious beliefs and often is in spite of them. You continue to float this thing of Kung being appointed directly by Pope Benedict to some sort of committee without any supporting documentation despite its being requested.

I was quite clear (I thought) that not everything the named parties wrote was heretical. It’s necessary to know where their heresies are, though. Otherwise, they shouldn’t be read at all, especially in cases like Teilhard where the ambiguity and propensity to make up words is prevelant.

Also, I excommunicated no one. Official declarations are not necessary to recognize heresy. To claim otherwise is absurd. Was Arius not a heretic before Nicea? Was Eutyches orthodox prior to Chalcedon? Somebody should have told Athanasius and Tertullian that you can’t call somebody a heretic without having an official decree of anathema in hand first. Where did they get off making such claims about Arius and Marcion, anyway?

It’s pretty clear. If someone denies Church teaching, they are a heretic. Every Protestant buys into some form of heresy. We don’t need their millions of individual believers to be named in a papal bull or conciliar document to know that. Papal infallibiilty is a dogma. Kung denies it. Kung is a heretic. The teachings on original sin, to give one example, are quite clear. Teilhard denied them. He was a heretic. The Holy Office condemned his work, as mentioned above. If any lay Catholic denies the perpetual virginity of Mary, they are a heretic. This isn’t rocket science.

In conclusion, I find it disturbing that posters here want Catholics to pick up and read material that remains under the censure of Rome.

 

[japhy]

What would happen if the Pope quoted Origen?

Not everything a heretic says is necessary heretical.

 

[centurionguard]

Father de Chardin’s writings have never been condemned. What was said by Pope John Paul II was that they did not represent official Catholic dogma. Father de Chardin never wrote them to represent authoritative theology. Fr. de Chardin was a cosmologist. This places him in the field of metaphysics more than in theology. He used theology to shed light on contemporary cosmology. The authors of the Wikipedia article show a lack of understanding of Father de Chardin’s writings.

Thus, he wrote that the world would be transformed into one cosmological body of Christ. He uses the word host in a different context than that which it is used in Eucharistic theology. He borrowed many words from theology to explain cosmology. The Holy Father is right in his use of Fr. de Chardin’s writings. He is not using it in a sacramental sense, but in speaking of an eseschatologicaleality where the world will become the body of Christ. The Holy Father is stating that one of the missions of a priest is to make this happen through his ministry to help people in their on-going conversion.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

I have always liked the writings of Teilhard de Chardin. He was ahead of his time when he published the writings of his books; and he is still far ahead of time in most schools of thought. I am glad you pointed out the truth that Teilhard de Chardin writings have “never” been condemned nor has he been excommunicated as number of misinformed Catholics tend to believe.

In The Jesuit and the Skull… Peking Man:
Teilhard refers to the super-human as the Omega Point. It is, for him, the apex of cosmic evolution. Teilhard, scientifically speaking, can only imagine what the reality of Omega might be like…a pure conscious energy. Teilhard proclaims this cosmic energy almost in the mode of poetry. “In the discovery of the sidereal world, so vast that it seems to do away with all proportion between our own being and the dimensions of the cosmos around us, only one reality seems to survive and be capable of succeeding and spanning the infinitesimal and the immense: energy… that floating, universal entity from which all emerges and into which all falls back as into an ocean; energy…the Omni-Presence of God.”

 

[EasterJoy]

What would happen if the Pope quoted Origen?

Not everything a heretic says is necessary heretical.

Exactly.

When someone is both a scholar and a prince of the Church, he can read academic works written by a heretic or a pagan and be secure that he knows when to say, “This is in error” and when to say, “This is excellent theology, and brilliant exposition.” After all, couldn’t Aquinas read Aristotle, and know what the Greek philosopher had to say was worthwhile and what was in error?

Catholics can read what they want. It is what we must believe that Rome teaches without error. Pornography is an exception, and there are others, but there are relatively few things that are sinful to even look at. That is not to say that it is not arrogant to ignore Rome’s warnings totally, just that it is not sinful, per se, to come to know what a thoughts a heretic has written. It is being willing to abandon the truth and replace it with error that is the sin.

 

[JReducation]

In addition, we can’t call heretics, those whom the Church has never called heretic. We can say that a statement is heretical. That’s fine, as long as we can show that it contradicts dogma or doctrine.

We can’t even call Protestants heretics, because they are not heretics. Their founders were heretics, but those born into the Reformation communities are not call heretics. The Church cannot apply a canonical term to someone over whom the Church has no jurisdiction. A Protestant is not a Catholic. Therefore, the canon on heresy does not apply to him/her. This is not the way that canon law works. Canon Law is written for Catholics, not non Catholics. Thus, a non Catholic is not a heretic.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF