S
SemperFidelis
Guest
Very disturbing indeed. Bravo on such a clear-cut and logical post.
- Status
J
JReducation
Guest
Here is one of the articles on the meeting between Kung and the Holy Father. There are others with more details.
** ZE05092605 - 2005-09-26
Permalink: zenit.org/article-14096?l=english
Communiqué on Benedict XVI-Hans Küng Meeting
“Weltethos” and Dialogue
VATICAN CITY, SEPT. 26, 2005 (Zenit.org).- Here is the press statement issued today by Vatican spokesman Joaquín Navarro Valls on last Saturday’s conversation between Benedict XVI and professor Hans Küng.
On Saturday, September 24, a conversation took place between His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI and Professor Hans Küng (Tuebingen). The meeting unfolded in a friendly atmosphere.
Both agreed that it made no sense, in the framework of the meeting, to enter into a dispute on the persistent doctrinal differences between Hans Küng and the magisterium of the Catholic Church.
The conversation was centered, therefore, on two topics which are of particular interest for Hans Küng’s recent work: the question of the world ethic “Weltethos” (world ethic) and the dialogue of the reason of the natural sciences with the reason of the Christian faith.
Professor Küng emphasized that his world ethics project is far from being an abstract intellectual construct; but that it manifests the values on which the great religions of the world converge, despite all the differences, and which can be perceived as valid criteria – given their convincing reasonable character – by secular reason.
The Pope appreciated Professor Küng’s effort to contribute to a renewed recognition of the essential values of humanity through the dialogue of religions and the meeting with secular reason. He underlined that the commitment for a renewed awareness of the fundamental values of human life is also an important objective of his pontificate.
At the same time, the Pope reaffirmed his agreement with Professor Küng’s intention to revive the dialogue between faith and the natural sciences and to assert, in relation with scientific thought, the sensibleness and the necessity of the question on God (“Gottesfrage”).
For his part, Professor Küng applauded the Pope’s efforts to foster the dialogue of religions and also the meeting with different social groups of the modern world.**
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
** ZE05092605 - 2005-09-26
Permalink: zenit.org/article-14096?l=english
Communiqué on Benedict XVI-Hans Küng Meeting
“Weltethos” and Dialogue
VATICAN CITY, SEPT. 26, 2005 (Zenit.org).- Here is the press statement issued today by Vatican spokesman Joaquín Navarro Valls on last Saturday’s conversation between Benedict XVI and professor Hans Küng.
On Saturday, September 24, a conversation took place between His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI and Professor Hans Küng (Tuebingen). The meeting unfolded in a friendly atmosphere.
Both agreed that it made no sense, in the framework of the meeting, to enter into a dispute on the persistent doctrinal differences between Hans Küng and the magisterium of the Catholic Church.
The conversation was centered, therefore, on two topics which are of particular interest for Hans Küng’s recent work: the question of the world ethic “Weltethos” (world ethic) and the dialogue of the reason of the natural sciences with the reason of the Christian faith.
Professor Küng emphasized that his world ethics project is far from being an abstract intellectual construct; but that it manifests the values on which the great religions of the world converge, despite all the differences, and which can be perceived as valid criteria – given their convincing reasonable character – by secular reason.
The Pope appreciated Professor Küng’s effort to contribute to a renewed recognition of the essential values of humanity through the dialogue of religions and the meeting with secular reason. He underlined that the commitment for a renewed awareness of the fundamental values of human life is also an important objective of his pontificate.
At the same time, the Pope reaffirmed his agreement with Professor Küng’s intention to revive the dialogue between faith and the natural sciences and to assert, in relation with scientific thought, the sensibleness and the necessity of the question on God (“Gottesfrage”).
For his part, Professor Küng applauded the Pope’s efforts to foster the dialogue of religions and also the meeting with different social groups of the modern world.**
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
J
JReducation
Guest
The most that is readily available, four years later, are newspaper reports. I posted one and there are others with more details about the meeting.
Benedict XVI, other theologians and I would agree with you that not everything a person writes is heretical. We would diagree that it should not be read. It should not be read by the person who feels that they do not have the theological and philsophical background to sort through it. But every person has to decide for him or her if he has the tools to read these things. We can’t make a blanket statement and say that these writing should not be read. Popes, bishops, priests, deacons, seminarians, religious and theologians read many writings, including non Catholic writings. Truth can be found in many places. The idea is to sort throug the writings to find truth.
It is not as clear as you think. I’m not a canon lawyer and can’t exaplain it well. I had one year of canon law in the seminary and then they changed it. But I was listening to Fr. Mitch Pacwa, who is a Canon Lawyer and Systematic Theologian, he was explaining when you canon law applies and does not apply the label heretic. You may want to write him and get his explanation in full. It was very good. The gist of it was that to be a heretic one must deliberately intend to teach heresy. He defined this as obstinacy. He explained that when someone teaches something that is in conflict with Church teaching, but they do not have the intent of teaching heresy, they are not heretics. If the person, as is the case with Hans Kung, is penalized and obeys, then he is not a heretic. Kung had his license to teach Catholic theology revoked and he has obeyed. Some of de Chardin’s writings were called into question and he tried to explain his meaning as best he could. Nothing else was said about it. They were never forbidden. We had to read protions of them in the seminary in Rome. The Pope reads them and he is not a heretic. He even quotes from them.
This is true. But they are not heretics. Because heretic is a canonical term that only applies to Catholics. Their founders were heretics, because they were Catholic. Those born Protestant are not Catholic, therefore not heretics.
Any person who is serious about studying theology can read and should read all sides of an issue. That’s what theology is about. It is faith seeking understanding. Theology is a science. It is not a prayer. A praye rmust reflect the faith of the Church. Theology is to express the faith of the Church. You cannot clearly express the faith of the Church, unless you can speak to the opposing views. How can one know the opposing views, if one does not read them? I don’t get the sense that everyone is saying that you or anyone else has to read de Chardin.
As to the censure of de Chardin, where is the censure? Parts of his writings were rejected, not the entire collection. If they were censured the Holy Father would not be quoting him and referring to him in positive terms. Do you believe that the Holy Father was wrong?
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
K
Kook
Guest
I’ve already mentioned that.What would happen if the Pope quoted Origen?
Not everything a heretic says is necessary heretical.
He is under censure. And I suggest Prof. Wolfgang Smith’s book Teilhardism and the New Religion for a thorough examination of de Chardin’s science and theology.
Yet nothing about this alleged committee. Something that momentous would have gotten a lot of coverage.
Of course the Church can. The Index retains its moral force, per Paul VI. I also direct you to past papal statements regarding freedom of speech and press.
Pope Benedict has referred to dissident theology as the equivalent of prostitution. Do you really think he is ok with folks reading such works?
And its the Church’s job to do so. We have a magisterium for this reason.
First, I’m pretty sure that Fr. Pacwa has stated several times on EWTN Live that he isn’t a canon lawyer. Second, he’s referring to formal heretics here. Material heretics are still heretics, though, so the distinction is irrelevant for our discussion here.
He did? When? If Kung now acknowledges papal infallibility, that’s news to me. Great news, though. Can you document this?
Interestingly enough, he got worse with age. Read the Heart of Matter if you need proof. Or look carefully at de Lubac’s apology for him. Note how he tries to stick with material from The Divine Milieu, which really isn’t all that bad.
Actually, something else was said about it:
“Serious errors” from which lots of people should be “protected.” Sounds pretty close to forbidden, at least. Close enough that anyone should think twice about reading them.
If done to refute his errors, this is a good idea.
Non-sequitur. I haven’t called the Pope a heretic nor folks reading Teilhard.
No, you are trying to limit it to a canonical definition, which is a legal term of art. Was Tertullian wrong when he called Marcion a heretic? There hadn’t been a specific juridical decision made indicating such? Or just look at the language of any anathema. It’s not just the named parties being called heretics, but everyone who believes in the condemned proposition. It’s absurd to think that the Church would have to name every believer in a heresy for them to be a heretic.
If you are born Protestant and don’t know any better, you are still a heretic. Just as a baptized Catholic raised by ostensibly Catholic parents who raise the child to believe that Mary isn’t ever-virgin would also be a heretic. Material heretics, yes.
K
Kook
Guest
QUOTE]Any person who is serious about studying theology can read and should read all sides of an issue. That’s what theology is about. It is faith seeking understanding. Theology is a science. It is not a prayer. A praye rmust reflect the faith of the Church. Theology is to express the faith of the Church. You cannot clearly express the faith of the Church, unless you can speak to the opposing views. How can one know the opposing views, if one does not read them? I don’t get the sense that everyone is saying that you or anyone else has to read de Chardin.
Perhaps I am misunderstanding you. You earlier said that “we Catholics” needed to catch up on our reading or some such. This was done in the context of encouraging the reading and distribution of certain authors’ nonsense. Frankly, most of these guys’ stuff should be avoided. Heretical writings are the theological equivalent of pornography. The latter harms purity, while the former harms faith.
If you are limiting yourself to talking about formal theological disputation, that’s another matter, but not something that 99.9% of Catholics are called to do.
Almost his entire catalog fell under the monitum. It speaks for itself.
Perhaps I am misunderstanding you. You earlier said that “we Catholics” needed to catch up on our reading or some such. This was done in the context of encouraging the reading and distribution of certain authors’ nonsense. Frankly, most of these guys’ stuff should be avoided. Heretical writings are the theological equivalent of pornography. The latter harms purity, while the former harms faith.
If you are limiting yourself to talking about formal theological disputation, that’s another matter, but not something that 99.9% of Catholics are called to do.
The monitum has been quoted many times.
Read the monitum again. Does this sound like stuff people should be reading? “Abounds” in “serious errors” “as to offend Catholic doctrine.”
Almost his entire catalog fell under the monitum. It speaks for itself.
See the example of Origen, which I have mentioned a couple of times.
No, and I don’t recall making the Pope’s statement the issue. What he said was not problematic. Teilhard, though, is for the most part. He was a heretic. That’s the only point I’ve been making.
J
JReducation
Guest
The bold is miine. You’re saying that the Pope’s statement is not problematic, but de Chardin is.
So it’s OK for the Pope to say (see post 1)
This is also the great vision of Teilhard de Chardin: in the end we shall achieve a true cosmic liturgy,
The Holy Father calls de Chardin’s vision “great” and he uses his language “cosmic liturgy”. Would it be OK for every Catholic to call de Chardin’s vision great and hope for a “true cosmic liturgy”? Keeping in mind that de Chardin is a heretic and writes heresy.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
K
Kook
Guest
I’m beginning to think that you aren’t reading my posts all that much.
Let’s try taking what you say and putting it in another context.
The Holy Father, Leo XIII, called Origen the greatest of the Eastern Fathers. Would it be OK for every Catholic to call Origen the greatest of the Eastern Fathers? Keeping in mind that Origen is a heretic and writes heresy.
The answer is yes, as long as they aren’t doing so because he believed in pre-existence of the soul or apokatastasis or some other heresy. Ditto for Teilhard, although it’s not like he’s the only guy to ever talk about a cosmic liturgy. If the Pope (or whoever) began waxing poetic about “meta-Christianity” or a “new religion” or “matter becoming spirit” then there might be a problem.
Plus, Teilhard despised Augustine, so I’m pretty sure he and Pope Benedict’s views would have a wide divergence pretty early on in any discussion.
You seem to be expending an extraordinary amount of energy trying to show that Teilhard was not a heretic. You are acting like the monitum does not exist. This is also disturbing.
J
JReducation
Guest
Because we cannot start out by broad stroke rejections of everything a person does, when they have done some good. We go back to another case. Origen was called a heretic. However, if you read Pope Benedict’s Christology, he goes an entire chapter building up a case based on one of Origen’s points. He uses Origen as his support and present a very good case. Check out Jesus of Nazareth. Go to the index and look up Origen. He also uses a Christologist who is a Jew over and over again, because the man has a great understanding of the Gospels and can translate the meaning of these Jewish writings. Not everything that a person says can be tossed in the can.
If we are going to say, like Pope Benedict, that faith and reason must go together, we must then plow through this material in search of any truth that we can find and hang on to that and throw out the rest, as Paul says.
It is not good for the spiritual life to deny that there is truth out there that comes from the Church and that we can use, because it helps us better understand our faith and moves us toward a deeper relationship with God, if we embrace it. You don’t have to embrace the nonsense, just admit the parts that are true.
In Jesus of Nazareth the Holy Father goes into Origen’s treatise on Prayer (pg 50). For two pages. Origen expounds that the Kingdom of God is within and must be allowed to radiate. Therefore, sin cannot be given access to the soul, so that God can move about freely. The Holy Father proceeds to say that this is truth. He refers you to Origen’s contribution to Patrologia Gaeica II.
We need to take the good example of the Holy Father and see good and truth where is may be found. Sometimes, as Peter said, “What good can come from Nazareth.” He was quite suprised. Had he hung on that that attitude that you can discard everything, because there is error, you may miss the pearls that hide under the errors. That’s all I’m trying to encourage. Don’t blow thinkers off, until you have read them and examined their content. If you’re not in the line of peopel who like to read this stuff, that’s fine too. Let others do it and let them write and comment on it.
This whole thread is about some people being shocked that the Holy Father expressed admiration for something that de Chardin said and refers to him as “great”. We all know that Benedict is not a man who lavishes praises too easily. He’s certaiinly no lightweight in theology. We should take his words as credible.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
K
Kook
Guest
Thank you for confirming that you have not been reading my posts.
Who are you arguing with here? Nobody. It’s significant that you write so much and address none of the concerns I’ve expressed in this attempted discussion.
Who is this “we”? I note that you again refuse to provide a clear response to this very important issue.
Except that large swaths of it aren’t true. It’s not good for the spiritual life to indulge in sick theology.
More irrelevance.
You’re encouraging people to read stuff that can harm them. Do you also suggest they read pornographic magazines for the “pearls” that might be in the articles?
By the way, Peter didn’t say that.
You have a habit of distorting what is actually said. He didn’t call Teilhard great. He said he had a great vision. There’s a galaxy’s worth of difference.
You also seem to mislabel the contents of this thread. This thread has mostly been about whether or not Teilhard was a heretic, not shock over the Holy Father’s comments. My own posts certainly contain no negative comments re: Pope Benedict. The lengths to which you’ve gone to deny de Chardin’s heresy are extraordinary and very disconcerting.
That being said, given your decision to ignore my posts, I am done with this thread. Feel free to have the last word.
J
John92
Guest
asdf
C
Coleski
Guest
Churchmen like JR Education always seem to speak only as bureaucrats. For example, they never speak of the essence of why de Chardin was indeed a heretic. JR Education always declares so and so was never officially condemned as a heretic, ipso facto, he was not a heretic. As if reality only comes from the official decisions or nondecisions of human bureaucracies. Even the exalted Church, at some level, is a mere human bureaucracy; prone to the errors and limitations of human politics experienced on the large scale.
Teilhard de Chardin was a Panenthiest. He taught of an evolving God who indeed was not the Creator; because he was being created along with everything else in a blind evolutionary process as does human history in Hegelian dialectics. Type Teilhard de Chardin into any search engine and almost nothing orthodox comes up. What comes up is a whole slew of new age sites extolling the Cosmic Christ. Matthew Fox likes de Chardin for example. I wonder what JR Education thinks of Matthew Fox, Bishop Spong, Rudolf Bultman, or Paul Tillich? If you believe as these men do you are not a Christian even if you say you are one.
It is true our current Pope is a scholar, he is said to have an IQ of 180 with vast knowledge about theology and philosophy. One thing the Pope as an academic might miss is that his interesting discussion about Panenthiesm might damage the Church’s efforts to capture souls. For the true faith is under constant attack from within and without. Getting people to question and doubt is a key tactic of our enemy. What heresy does is to lead people astray. It is nice to converse with fellow scholars about some of the finer points of de Chardin and his theories. But what you will get if such talk comes from the Pope is a whole bunch of new age pantheists and evolutionary atheists declaring the Pope is in largely in agreement with them. Then we must fight all the harder to undo the damage done. There is a divine politics and academics more often than not make poor politicians. A women participator on this site quotes the Pope as a supporter of evolution; she also declares she is Catholic and supports gay marriage and I’ll bet abortion and contraception. See where these quotes lead? Evil uses any mistake, even those from good intentions, to a bad end. That is why California is filling up with hundreds of Marijuana dispensing storefronts; on some blocks in Los Angeles every other store is a Marijuana outlet dispensing dope to kids with phony prescriptions.
The question becomes; is our Pope a theist who believes the Creator as first and last or is he a Panenthiest who believes that that god is just one aspect of a purposeless evolution who will evolve into an a Omega Point; a last but not a first. Johns Gospel declares God to be the Alpha and the Omega. That is what really matters. It seems to JR Education all that matters is what the Church bureaucracy did or did not do. What a small way of looking at things. Father Education Let me assure you, Church Bureaucracy is not all that matters. Hersey is a mortal sin for good reason for it leads many astray when a talented thinker indulges in it and becomes famous for his revolutionary thought. Such a person causes much more damage to the ultimate fate of our immortal souls than a person who pursues a solitary vice.
Teilhard de Chardin was a Panenthiest. He taught of an evolving God who indeed was not the Creator; because he was being created along with everything else in a blind evolutionary process as does human history in Hegelian dialectics. Type Teilhard de Chardin into any search engine and almost nothing orthodox comes up. What comes up is a whole slew of new age sites extolling the Cosmic Christ. Matthew Fox likes de Chardin for example. I wonder what JR Education thinks of Matthew Fox, Bishop Spong, Rudolf Bultman, or Paul Tillich? If you believe as these men do you are not a Christian even if you say you are one.
It is true our current Pope is a scholar, he is said to have an IQ of 180 with vast knowledge about theology and philosophy. One thing the Pope as an academic might miss is that his interesting discussion about Panenthiesm might damage the Church’s efforts to capture souls. For the true faith is under constant attack from within and without. Getting people to question and doubt is a key tactic of our enemy. What heresy does is to lead people astray. It is nice to converse with fellow scholars about some of the finer points of de Chardin and his theories. But what you will get if such talk comes from the Pope is a whole bunch of new age pantheists and evolutionary atheists declaring the Pope is in largely in agreement with them. Then we must fight all the harder to undo the damage done. There is a divine politics and academics more often than not make poor politicians. A women participator on this site quotes the Pope as a supporter of evolution; she also declares she is Catholic and supports gay marriage and I’ll bet abortion and contraception. See where these quotes lead? Evil uses any mistake, even those from good intentions, to a bad end. That is why California is filling up with hundreds of Marijuana dispensing storefronts; on some blocks in Los Angeles every other store is a Marijuana outlet dispensing dope to kids with phony prescriptions.
The question becomes; is our Pope a theist who believes the Creator as first and last or is he a Panenthiest who believes that that god is just one aspect of a purposeless evolution who will evolve into an a Omega Point; a last but not a first. Johns Gospel declares God to be the Alpha and the Omega. That is what really matters. It seems to JR Education all that matters is what the Church bureaucracy did or did not do. What a small way of looking at things. Father Education Let me assure you, Church Bureaucracy is not all that matters. Hersey is a mortal sin for good reason for it leads many astray when a talented thinker indulges in it and becomes famous for his revolutionary thought. Such a person causes much more damage to the ultimate fate of our immortal souls than a person who pursues a solitary vice.
J
JReducation
Guest
No one is saying that heretical statements are good, not I nor the Holy Father. What is being said is that even people who make heretical statements can also make some deeply truthful statements and they are good teaching tools. When the Holy Father refers to de Chardin’s cosmic liturgy, he is not referring to a heretical statement. He is referring to an eschatalogical statement made by de Chardin.
When he uses Jewish New Testament Scholar in his book on Jesus of Nazareth, what he quotes from him is very consistent with Catholic exegesis and Judeo-Christian biblical history.
At the same time, he also picks up other writers who have presented nothing worth redeeeming and has torn them apart. This is called critical reading and critical writing. I understand that not every one is called to do that or interested. But many of us do this for the Church. It’s our ministry. In that us, I include the Holy Father. We have always known that Joseph Ratzinger enjoys doing theology much more than he enjoys being a pastor. He accepted this post out of obedience. But at the same time, he has done a great deal of good for the Church in many different pastoral areas. However, we have to give him the room to be the person he is. He is a scholar and he will publish and say things that are new to the ears of the average man in the pews, but not new to many of us who have spend many years in the theology classroom and understand what he’s talking about.
It’s only fair to give everyone one a chance and give everyone an opportunity to look at different points and different writers from different levels. The idea of a forum is not just for the average man in the pew. It should also have room for those of us who are interested in reading what the Church is saying in theological, philosophical and canonical circles and why.
Let’s be fair and share the time and space with each other. We can all learn and teach at the tsame time, as long as we don’t attack and walk around suspecting that the other person is a heretic or less of a Catholic or some such thing. Those thoughts don’t unite the Church and do very little to bring silence to our soul, where there should always be a peaceful space for the divine.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
When he uses Jewish New Testament Scholar in his book on Jesus of Nazareth, what he quotes from him is very consistent with Catholic exegesis and Judeo-Christian biblical history.
At the same time, he also picks up other writers who have presented nothing worth redeeeming and has torn them apart. This is called critical reading and critical writing. I understand that not every one is called to do that or interested. But many of us do this for the Church. It’s our ministry. In that us, I include the Holy Father. We have always known that Joseph Ratzinger enjoys doing theology much more than he enjoys being a pastor. He accepted this post out of obedience. But at the same time, he has done a great deal of good for the Church in many different pastoral areas. However, we have to give him the room to be the person he is. He is a scholar and he will publish and say things that are new to the ears of the average man in the pews, but not new to many of us who have spend many years in the theology classroom and understand what he’s talking about.
It’s only fair to give everyone one a chance and give everyone an opportunity to look at different points and different writers from different levels. The idea of a forum is not just for the average man in the pew. It should also have room for those of us who are interested in reading what the Church is saying in theological, philosophical and canonical circles and why.
Let’s be fair and share the time and space with each other. We can all learn and teach at the tsame time, as long as we don’t attack and walk around suspecting that the other person is a heretic or less of a Catholic or some such thing. Those thoughts don’t unite the Church and do very little to bring silence to our soul, where there should always be a peaceful space for the divine.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
C
Coleski
Guest
To JR Education; what I don’t like about your posts is that you frequently hide behind the administrative actions of the Church on questions of faith and heresy. Teilhard de Chardin was a heretic; and even if he was a brilliant man, his work is primarily used by the enemies of the Church to foster the gravely evil doctrines of process theology and panentheism. What’s wrong with these viewpoints? They postit a non divine beginning with God, usually confused with man, emerging like a body developing a brain. Thus there never was a Divine law giver at the beginning; and thus, all is open to question. This is popular with those who advocate moral license and even Pagan sexual debauchery as legitmate religious expression. Matthew Fox for example advocates gay sex orgies as playful celebrations of spirit. It is well known that Satanists use sexual stimulation to go into trances the demonic is so obvious present, remember the serpent is doomed to slide upon the Earth. Fox thinks highly of de Chardin by the way. In this view of reality, everything is developing you see, and there is no law giver because the law giver is emerging in a dialectical evolutionary process. The past is mistrusted and mocked while the future is worshipped. You betray this mindset when you speak of academics mining the works of past thinkers in a developing reality where the human philosopher is the ultimate being. This is what Hegel thought of himself. Hegel saw himself as the ultimate. You here the same arrogance in bush league thinkers like John Shelby Spong. This is a clever trap for the academic and intellectual, who pathetically often ends up using their minds to justify their lusts as Tillich did. Tillich liked to go to Harlem sex shows and was an unrepentant adulterer. He certainly didn’t believe it was God speaking at the Sermon on the Mount when marital fidelity was declared sacred.
Saint John was commanded to declare of Jesus, “I am the Alpha and the Omega.” This is a Divine statement that is not to be challenged as de Chardin did by declaring matter the orgin of all things. No matter what else this man wrote, the path he leads us on is false and therefore; reading and believing in de Chardin will lead one to ruin, just a a blind man who pretends to see will lead you over the edge of the cliff. Most thinkers have one or a few ideas in mind that they pound away at and as I’ve read so many of them, it turns out to be all about God in either His denial or his praise. With so many great thinkers, true to the faith, to quote from, why quote a man who helped justify the likes of Mathew Fox and others who worship the creature over the Creator?
Saint John was commanded to declare of Jesus, “I am the Alpha and the Omega.” This is a Divine statement that is not to be challenged as de Chardin did by declaring matter the orgin of all things. No matter what else this man wrote, the path he leads us on is false and therefore; reading and believing in de Chardin will lead one to ruin, just a a blind man who pretends to see will lead you over the edge of the cliff. Most thinkers have one or a few ideas in mind that they pound away at and as I’ve read so many of them, it turns out to be all about God in either His denial or his praise. With so many great thinkers, true to the faith, to quote from, why quote a man who helped justify the likes of Mathew Fox and others who worship the creature over the Creator?
J
JReducation
Guest
Thanks for your post. First, I don’t hide behind the administrative actions of the Church. I simply call things by what they are. A heretical statement and a heretic are not the same thing. That’s canon law.
Second, I’m not saying that one has to accept every fleeting fancy that passes by. All I did from the beginning of this thread was defend the Holy Father’s right to speak favorably about something de Chardin wrote, because from the beginning people jumped on de Chardin, but few people had the courage to either defend the Holy Father or come out and say what they really thought, that the Holy Father was in error.
Finally, I’m not a heretic. I’m a very orthodox theologian and friar. Right now I have more important things to think about than de Chardin. As I’m writing this, I’m back in the hospital for the fourth time this year, because I’m fighting cancer and probably losing it. For me, the most important part of my life is preparing to meet the Lord whenever that happens to be. But I will hold to calling things as they are. If the Holy Father praises something, because he’s a theologian and thinks in those realms, even when he speaks to the laity, we have to give him that space to do so. We can’t change the man or who he is, because he’s the pope. It’s not going to happen. He’s been a scholar longer than he has been pope. Sometimes we have to move toward the same space where the other person is in order to understand them, rather than back off because they said something that sounds like a naughty word (heresy). That’s not fair. We have to be fair, including to popes.
Please pray for me as I will pray for you.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
L
Layman
Guest
Don’t know if this has been said already, but our Pope is a professor, isn’t he? Academics play with words and concepts as part of their job. As he is also Pope, however, uneducated Catholics will be following his utterances carefully. They might read de Chardin’s works based on his seeming approval. I’m not too au-fait with them, but based on what I’ve read about them and what their effect has been, I’d never promote or mention him or them to any Catholic. There’s too much else which is worth knowing, especially in these days of bad catechesis.
What I think people need now are simple, blunt statements about what being a good Catholic implies; the Baltimore Cathecism in every Catholic home would be a good start. I’ve heard it’s a good 'un!
What I think people need now are simple, blunt statements about what being a good Catholic implies; the Baltimore Cathecism in every Catholic home would be a good start. I’ve heard it’s a good 'un!
E
Elizabeth502
Guest
Late to this thread.
Post 8 is an excellent summary.
Teilhard was a brilliant and visionary thinker who is very much in line with the classic theology of the Mystical Body of Christ. He saw all of creation as Christocentric.
There’s no need for overreaction and condemnation by some of the posters on this thread. The post I referred to was written by someone in religious training.
I do not find Benedict’s words “disturbing,” but comforting. Like Teilhard, this Pope is also an intellectual who knows his classic Catholic theology and metaphysics. I love this Pope’s intellectual orientation; it’s so refreshing.
Post 8 is an excellent summary.
Teilhard was a brilliant and visionary thinker who is very much in line with the classic theology of the Mystical Body of Christ. He saw all of creation as Christocentric.
There’s no need for overreaction and condemnation by some of the posters on this thread. The post I referred to was written by someone in religious training.
I do not find Benedict’s words “disturbing,” but comforting. Like Teilhard, this Pope is also an intellectual who knows his classic Catholic theology and metaphysics. I love this Pope’s intellectual orientation; it’s so refreshing.
E
Elizabeth502
Guest
Or here’s a radical thought: Catholics who are not educated could become educated. Fr. Wade Menezes and Fr. John Corapi encourage this all the time.Don’t know if this has been said already, but our Pope is a professor, isn’t he? Academics play with words and concepts as part of their job. As he is also Pope, however, uneducated Catholics will be following his utterances carefully.
What I think people need now are simple, blunt statements about what being a good Catholic implies; the Baltimore Cathecism in every Catholic home would be a good start. I’ve heard it’s a good 'un!
J
JReducation
Guest
I agree with you. You don’t read de Chardin to learn dogma, doctrine or morality. De Chardin is someone whom you read if you’re interested in cosmology, as is the Holy Father, or are interested in reading what other theologians are saying about the faith in light of these disciplines. If you’re just interested in the conclusions (the doctrines or dogmas, then you read the CCC. There is a newer version of the Baltimore Catechism that’s pretty good too. It cross references the CCC, the Council writings, scripture and early Fathers. But for some people to get upset or worried because the pope reads de Chardin and quotes him in a positive light is over the top.Don’t know if this has been said already, but our Pope is a professor, isn’t he? Academics play with words and concepts as part of their job. As he is also Pope, however, uneducated Catholics will be following his utterances carefully. They might read de Chardin’s works based on his seeming approval. I’m not too au-fait with them, but based on what I’ve read about them and what their effect has been, I’d never promote or mention him or them to any Catholic. There’s too much else which is worth knowing, especially in these days of bad catechesis.
What I think people need now are simple, blunt statements about what being a good Catholic implies; the Baltimore Cathecism in every Catholic home would be a good start. I’ve heard it’s a good 'un!
Pope Benedict is a scholar. This is right up his alley. Even though we didn’t elect him pope, the College did, I am never surprised when he comes up with some scholarly response to a problem, whether it is SP, this statement, the statement that he made at the university about the Muslims, or the statements that he makes in his book, Jesus of Nazareth. If you want to see non Catholics and modern day theologians quoted all over the place, read that book. The Holy Father builds most of his Christological conclusions on modern day Christologists and not all of them are Catholic. His favorite reference is a Jewish biblical commentator whose New Testament Comments are very good and highly respected and he parallels them with the writings of St. Bernard of Cleirveaux, Francis of Assisi, and Therese of Liseux to balance the historical and the applied.
That’s my whole point. Let the pope be a scholar. Let him write. If you’re not so sure about what he’s saying and you want to take the time to figure it out, go to his sources or go to someone who is familiar with his sources. Don’t just take your opinion of his sources. There are many ways to look at an intersection. I just happened to know what the Holy Father was speaking about because we had to read de Chardin when we were seminarians in Rome. At the time, Ratzinger was the Prefect of the Congregation for the Faith and he was a big promoter of de Chardin and Rahner. So when I read the OP, I never thought of heresy. My first reaction was, “I remember this and I went and pulled to book off of my shelf to refresh my memory.” You always compare what you remember with what others remember or know. It’s a way of doing a cross check.
I don’t know if this helps anyone who may be interested in reading this stuff in greater depth. If not, certainly do what Layman says, get the revised Baltimore Catechism or the revised CCC. You’ll get just the facts, but that’s good enough for everyday reference. Just remember, that behind those conclusions, there are theological theses and hypotheses. This stuff did not drop out of a tree. It was thought about and discussed before put on paper on what they hoped would be the most clear and faithful manner to the discussions that preceded.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
J
JReducation
Guest
I believe that a problem that many people have, regardless of age, is that unless you’re into theology and religious studies for love of academics, you really don’t do it that way. You spend more time reading theology for the sake of apologetics or defending the faith. Which is a good thing. The problem is that we have had two successive popes whore have been much more interested in other areas. This does not mean that they have not protected the faith. But their hearts have been in another area.
John Paul II was much more into ecumenism and youth ministry. Benedict XVI is much more into ecumenism and Augustinian and Franciscan theology. He’s not really an Aquinas man. He enjoys spending his time writing. Not long ago, there were some bishops and monsignores in the Vatican Curia who expressed concern because the Holy Father spends only four hours a day on papal duties and the rest of the day researching theology and writing. I can’t verify if that’s true or not. However, as Fathers Wade and John say, maybe it’s time for Catholics to pick up some philosophy books and then some theology books. If the pope at his age and with all that he already knows is reading contemporary writers and trying to get the faith out in using scholarly and modern language, we’re going to need to understand him, not only today, but future generations as well. We should welcome the change in tone from the Vatican. I agree with what Elizabeth posted.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
C
carinapir
Guest
This is kind of off topic and I will probably just get yelled at but I had to ask.
What’s so bad about pantheism, or panentheism for that matter? Some posters seem to equate these with Satanism, however I think that most thoughtful people, who weren’t already fully aware of the Churches feelings about them, could come up with these ideas on their own and toy with them their minds for a while. While I realize that when taken to the extremes by the wrong people these ideas can be used to support some bizarre things, but the ideas themselves are simply fascinating. Don’t you think that the Church philosophers and theologian discussed them for a while too and rightly determined that they did not work?
Is someone who even considers these ideas a heretic?
What’s so bad about pantheism, or panentheism for that matter? Some posters seem to equate these with Satanism, however I think that most thoughtful people, who weren’t already fully aware of the Churches feelings about them, could come up with these ideas on their own and toy with them their minds for a while. While I realize that when taken to the extremes by the wrong people these ideas can be used to support some bizarre things, but the ideas themselves are simply fascinating. Don’t you think that the Church philosophers and theologian discussed them for a while too and rightly determined that they did not work?
Is someone who even considers these ideas a heretic?
- Status