Pope praises Teilhard de Chardin

[JReducation]

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?

Pantheism has been a topic of philosophical and theological discussion in the Church for centuries. It was always proven to be anhilistic, because it does ot point man to transcend beyond the created world. But there is nothing wrong with discussing it and studying it. Every seminarian and religious who goes through formation has to complete a set of required philosophy courses. Somewhere in those courses you dicuss all of this. It’s important to understand the weakness of pantheism and how it is not found in Divine Revelation, that’s the theological side of the coin.

We have to be open to the world of academics where scholars are going to throw topics on a table to help students think and arrive at truth. There are two ways that are commonly used in formation programs. 1) The historical approach: where you give the learner the information and the background to the conclusions. 2) The hands-on approach: where you give the learner the question and guide him to find the answer. Once the answer is found the learner now has the same exerience as those early scholars who grappled with these questions and has the same answers. The secret is to have educators who know how to teach well so that their students don’t end up in a rabbit hole.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[Layman]

I think works which detail actual encounters with Jesus, Mary, the saints, angels and devils are more useful in making sense of our purpose on Earth. It’s a way to save time, too.

Is the writer merely theorising or have they got a real message from Heaven? Stories from the lives of saints, mystical experiences, that sort of thing. I think we in the West take a too-academic approach to our religion.

Starve yourself for 40 days in a desert, praying through the nights, then come back and tell us what happened.

 

[Marsha_Adams]

saint-mike.org/apologetics/qa/Answers/Church_History/h0204270015.html

 

[JReducation]

I think works which detail actual encounters with Jesus, Mary, the saints, angels and devils are more useful in making sense of our purpose on Earth. It’s a way to save time, too.

Is the writer merely theorising or have they got a real message from Heaven? Stories from the lives of saints, mystical experiences, that sort of thing. I think we in the West take a too-academic approach to our religion.

Starve yourself for 40 days in a desert, praying through the nights, then come back and tell us what happened.

I believe the question was whether one should study these different philosophies. That’s the way that I understood it. In keeping with the tradition of the Church, no one enters into any serious program of theological studies without a strong pre-program of philosophical studies, both Christian and non Christian philosophy. This has been this way since the first seminaries were established.

The reading that you’re suggesing is good for the soul. The Church certainly encourages it. I have often directed people to read from the lives of the saints, because it’s helpful to them. If they want to know how these things work or how they happen, then I refer them to philosophy and theology.

Actually, the first great schools of Christian theology were not from the West. They were in the East: Chalcedon, Alexandria, Syria, Constantinople and so forth. The great councils that dealt with matters of faith were driven by Eastern theologians before the schism between the Churches.

The focus is different. The Western Church adopted Thomism, which is heavily scholastic and logical. The Eastern Church adopted the great mystics, which is much more transcendent. But both are equally heavy in academia. The question is, does the average lay person need to read all of this? The obvious answer is, no. Is it enriching? The obvioius answer is, yes as long as these writings are read using reason enlightened by faith.

From my own experience I can say that my stuides in Mystical Theology were very exciting. I found that much of what systematic theology has to say is just an academic explanation of what happens in the transcendent. Just to share an example, I am currently teaching a course on the Old Testament. Not being a scripture scholar, just having had the minimum seminary requirements in scripture, I can’t give answers to all of the historical questions. However, I can teach the mysticism of the scripture writers and how God moved the soul of the writer and the people for whom he writes. I have found that people, young and old, are very moved by this approach to the Old Testament. Many people don’t realize that scripture is a mystical writing. They want to use it strictly as historical or strictly apologetic. These uses have their place in convincing the intellect, but they do not always move the soul as much as the study of grace found in the scriptures.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[carinapir]

I believe the question was whether one should study these different philosophies. That’s the way that I understood it. In keeping with the tradition of the Church, no one enters into any serious program of theological studies without a strong pre-program of philosophical studies, both Christian and non Christian philosophy. This has been this way since the first seminaries were established.

Thank you, yes, I was asking whether study of Teilhard was appropriate and not heretical. It is obvious that the current Pope has read Teilhard and sees value in some of what he wrote. I have also read bits and pieces of The Phenomenon of Man and, while much of it is over my head, some of the ideas make a lot of sense.

In reading this thread, I was again struck by how some people seem to feel the need to finger point and label other’s philosophical views as one thing or the other (pantheist, deist, etc.). To me it seems that in philosophy one’s views would constantly be changing and developing through further study and discussion. It seems unfair to label Teilhard as a pantheist, even if he had called himself that at one time, as clearly he was a highly thoughtful man who was attempting to unravel the great mysteries of existence. How many others have gone astray and come back when considering such complex matters?

By some accounts Teilhard was disappointed but obedient to the Churches order that he not teach or publish. By others he was defiant in secret. But since he died before his work was published, we never had the opportunity to question him.

 

[JReducation]

Thank you, yes, I was asking whether study of Teilhard was appropriate and not heretical. It is obvious that the current Pope has read Teilhard and sees value in some of what he wrote. I have also read bits and pieces of The Phenomenon of Man and, while much of it is over my head, some of the ideas make a lot of sense.

In reading this thread, I was again struck by how some people seem to feel the need to finger point and label other’s philosophical views as one thing or the other (pantheist, deist, etc.). To me it seems that in philosophy one’s views would constantly be changing and developing through further study and discussion. It seems unfair to label Teilhard as a pantheist, even if he had called himself that at one time, as clearly he was a highly thoughtful man who was attempting to unravel the great mysteries of existence. How many others have gone astray and come back when considering such complex matters?

By some accounts Teilhard was disappointed but obedient to the Churches order that he not teach or publish. By others he was defiant in secret. But since he died before his work was published, we never had the opportunity to question him.

If one really wants to engage in a scholarly study of philosophy and theology, one has to put the personalities aside. One of the best modern books that I have read was Crossing the Threshhold of Hope by John Paul II. He takes you all over the place, from Buddhism to Christian mysticism. He does not go into the personalities or character flaws of the proponents of different thoughts. He goes right into the thoughts themselves. He proceeds very cautiously to point out the Catholic truths that are found in these thoughts and the weaknesses of these thoughts. In the end, the goal of any scholarly study of the faith is to sort out truth from error and embrace truth.

Often, we tend to get stuck on the personalities and lose sighth of the point on the table. The point on the table may be in complete error; but it must be discussed. One has to know where the error is or one runs the risk of alling into it. As a young theology student I read McBrien, de Chardin, Curran, Kung and many other dissenters. They were important readings, because these men were debating with the Church. You can’t mount a counter debate by an appeal to authority, not in the world of academia. It does not fly. This is why our Holy Father came intot his pontificate with such a strong emphasis on faith and reason working together. You must use faith to guide reason and you must use reason to discover error. For those who are interested in this level of understanding the faith, this can be a very exciting opportunity. Just because I have read everything that Fr. Curran said on birth control does ot mean that I subscribe to it. On the contrary, my training afforded me the opportunity to identify the black holes in his logic. This has helped me in my pastoral care of people who are seeking abortions, which is what I do for a ministry. I can refute many of the arguments that an organization like Planned Parenthood uses. Why can I refute it? Because I read the arguments and know the weaknesses in them. I also read the counter arguments and know their strengths. I can place the two on the table and show others where the truth is and where there is error.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[Hesychios]

If one really wants to engage in a scholarly study of philosophy and theology, one has to put the personalities aside. One of the best modern books that I have read was Crossing the Threshhold of Hope by John Paul II. He takes you all over the place, from Buddhism to Christian mysticism. He does not go into the personalities or character flaws of the proponents of different thoughts. He goes right into the thoughts themselves. He proceeds very cautiously to point out the Catholic truths that are found in these thoughts and the weaknesses of these thoughts. In the end, the goal of any scholarly study of the faith is to sort out truth from error and embrace truth.

Often, we tend to get stuck on the personalities and lose sighth of the point on the table. The point on the table may be in complete error; but it must be discussed. One has to know where the error is or one runs the risk of alling into it. As a young theology student I read McBrien, de Chardin, Curran, Kung and many other dissenters. They were important readings, because these men were debating with the Church. You can’t mount a counter debate by an appeal to authority, not in the world of academia. It does not fly. This is why our Holy Father came intot his pontificate with such a strong emphasis on faith and reason working together. You must use faith to guide reason and you must use reason to discover error. For those who are interested in this level of understanding the faith, this can be a very exciting opportunity. Just because I have read everything that Fr. Curran said on birth control does ot mean that I subscribe to it. On the contrary, my training afforded me the opportunity to identify the black holes in his logic. This has helped me in my pastoral care of people who are seeking abortions, which is what I do for a ministry. I can refute many of the arguments that an organization like Planned Parenthood uses. Why can I refute it? Because I read the arguments and know the weaknesses in them. I also read the counter arguments and know their strengths. I can place the two on the table and show others where the truth is and where there is error.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

Good post!

 

[Harri_Laaksonen]

Br. JR.

Thanks for the good posts. I have not followed the discussion as I should have. Considering my signature quote, I have read some Teilhard de Chardin and he makes me think.

It seems that much of the objection to him parallels the Protestant difficulties with Paul Tillich. As one systematics prof. said, “Don’t get stuck on the “God Language” used, get to the bottom the thought.” It took some time to begin to understand Tillich’s ideas, but in the end he was completely orthodox (for a Lutheran), but tried to re frame the language in terms that a modern theologian-philosopher could understand. He succeeded, but failed to communicate with the “average Christian”.

While Teilhard may seem remote to the average Catholic in the pew, he does not deny Christ or His Church while expanding the bounds of thought. Understanding Teilhard is not necessary for salvation but enriches the experience of faith for those who are up to the challenge.

 

[KEVIN_WILCOX]

Pope Benedict advocating the study of the work of people such as Teilhard de Chardin is not dissimilar to the recommendation of St Paul.

In reading fundamentals of dogmatic theology one often encounters Church Father’s contradictory views.
Augustinian theology is about our will, Thomistic theology is about our intellect.

The works of Teilhard de Chardin were condemned. This does not mean everything he said was heretical.

For example in music, the work of Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart is used in Church. He was a mason, master of a lodge.
J. S. Bach was a Lutheran.
Schubert wrote of the “healing power of nature”, a Pantheist. One of his works alters/edits Holy Mass yet how many times have we enjoyed his version of Ave Maria?

 

[peary]

I thought Chardin went out with the 1960s. Strange that he should be brought up again, especially by the pope. Hmmm…

 

[JReducation]

I thought Chardin went out with the 1960s. Strange that he should be brought up again, especially by the pope. Hmmm…

Pope Benedict seems to know a lot about him and appreciates some of Fr. de Chardin’s finer points. You find them scattered in his books. He uses the language very well too.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[KEVIN_WILCOX]

I’m beginning to hear the rumblings of a conspiracy theory

Post-Vatican 2

Teilhard de Chardin - some of his teachings questionable (he was a Jesuit, no offence intended, but he was) now widely dispersed amongst the writings of Pope Benedict, who praises him in public

Teilhard de Chardin a Jesuit priest, and the Jesuits having been ‘disbanded’ more than once

New Age - evolution theory, Teilhard de Chardin and his Omega Point

SSPX

 

[Harri_Laaksonen]

Let’s not forget that Fr. de Chardin was a paleontologist and took part in several significant scientific expeditions. When one deals with fossils in the desert one gets a lot of time to think about things eternal. I can relate personally as a “hard-rock Geologist” when dealing with dates of rocks in the billions of years the uncertainty factor in dates easily equals the whole time since the beginning of the dinosaur age. It got me thinking about eternal things and eventually got me on the road to spirituality.

Fr. de Chardin’s use of words seems to be the point that upsets many readers of his works. If they understood his thoughts they would see that he is quite orthodox. The “omega point” or the “source of being” refer to the creator, God the Father, Almighty. If de Chardin had used those words no-one would complain, but his thought process would not be as clear.

 

[KEVIN_WILCOX]

Teilhard de Chardin’s ‘Omega Point’:

‘The synthesis of the Christian ‘God’ on high and the Marxist ‘God’ of the future is the only God we can henceforth adore in spirit and in truth’

Fr. Teilhard saw an evolving integrating wholeness:
Implication: Satan was God only under a different form.
Implication: Might as well go to the devil, it will take you to the same place.

(A side note: The exorcist in the film ‘The Exorcist’ was based on Fr. Teilhard de Chardin.)

 

[anon5216]

Teilhard de Chardin’s ‘Omega Point’:

‘The synthesis of the Christian ‘God’ on high and the Marxist ‘God’ of the future is the only God we can henceforth adore in spirit and in truth’

Fr. Teilhard saw an evolving integrating wholeness:
Implication: Satan was God only under a different form.
Implication: Might as well go to the devil, it will take you to the same place.

(A side note: The exorcist in the film ‘The Exorcist’ was based on Fr. Teilhard de Chardin.)

I would appear that Pope Benedict XVI concluded a quite different set of implications from Teilhard de Chardin’s writings during his very extensive studies over many, many years.

 

[KEVIN_WILCOX]

I would appear that Pope Benedict XVI concluded a quite different set of implications from Teilhard de Chardin’s writings during his very extensive studies over many, many years.

I would need to have more information on the subject.
What was Pope Benedict’s understanding?
At one time I found Teilhard’s thoughts attractive. When he was silenced I stopped reading his books, and donated them to charity.
As a private theologian Pope Benedict is entitled to his own private thoughts.
I’m not in the same league as the Pope. One reason I became a Catholic, my recognition of my weakness.

 

[JReducation]

I would need to have more information on the subject.
What was Pope Benedict’s understanding?
At one time I found Teilhard’s thoughts attractive. When he was silenced I stopped reading his books, and donated them to charity.
As a private theologian Pope Benedict is entitled to his own private thoughts.
I’m not in the same league as the Pope. One reason I became a Catholic, my recognition of my weakness.

The whole complaint of the OP is that Pope Benedict did not cite Fr. de Chardin as a independent theologian, but he included him in a papal statement. It is in a papl statement that the Holy Father refers to Fr. de Chardin as “the great”. He holds him up for all Catholicism. But it is important to understand that the part of Fr. de Chardin’s writings that the Holy Father is using is not one of the pieces that was called into question. He is referring to Fr. de Chardin’s writings on Cosmic Liturgy.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[KEVIN_WILCOX]

The whole complaint of the OP is that Pope Benedict did not cite Fr. de Chardin as a independent theologian, but he included him in a papal statement. It is in a papl statement that the Holy Father refers to Fr. de Chardin as “the great”. He holds him up for all Catholicism. But it is important to understand that the part of Fr. de Chardin’s writings that the Holy Father is using is not one of the pieces that was called into question. He is referring to Fr. de Chardin’s writings on Cosmic Liturgy.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

Not all papal statements are infallible declarations of Faith, ex cathedra.
Brother, I encourage you to re-read OP: Fr de Chardin is not referred to as “the great” it his vision (“the great vision of Teilhard de Chardin”)
In this, Fr. de Chardin is not “held up for all Catholicism,” but rather one of ‘his’ opinions.
In the same way as some of Origen’s visions are splendid - not all of them.

I recall St Augustine saying “A Christian is Christ.”
Although Fr de Chardin’s definition may be different, ‘Cosmic Liturgy’ seems to reverberate the sentiments of St Francis of Assisi’s “Brother Sun, Sister Moon.”

 

[JReducation]

Not all papal statements are infallible declarations of Faith, ex cathedra.

No they are not. But that is not a license for Catholics to brush it aside. There is something called authority.

Brother, I encourage you to re-read OP: Fr de Chardin is not referred to as “the great” it his vision (“the great vision of Teilhard de Chardin”)

My fault, I moved the words around. But my idea is the same. The Holy Father has admiration for some of Fr. de Chardin’s work.

In this, Fr. de Chardin is not “held up for all Catholicism,” but rather one of ‘his’ opinions.
In the same way as some of Origen’s visions are splendid - not all of them.

I said this before.

I recall St Augustine saying “A Christian is Christ.”
Although Fr de Chardin’s definition may be different, ‘Cosmic Liturgy’ seems to reverberate the sentiments of St Francis of Assisi’s “Brother Sun, Sister Moon.”

Actually no. The Canticle of the Creatures is theological writing about Genesis, not liturgy. It has many layers. It was written in three parts. The first part comes from the canticle in Daniel. It is a canticle of praise of the Creator. The second part, written later, is a statement about the dignity of man. The third part, written shortly before our holy Father’s death, is a piece of moral theology on the sacraments. The three parts were later united by Brother Leo, who was the scribe who wrote down everything that Francis had dictated to him. Brother Leo edited the Canticle for the sake of unity and to make it flow seamlessly. He did an excellent job, becaues he takes us from creation, to incarnation, to final judgment. That was Francis intent in three movements.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[KEVIN_WILCOX]

Pope Benedict is entitled to speak as a private theologian without losing authority.
One of the menaces of heresy is it sometimes holds a little truth.
I trust the Pope has the gift of discernment, able to sift chaff from wheat.

Liturgy has many layers:
It is praise of the Creator; a statement of the dignity of man and the Liturgical Year takes us from creation, to incarnation, to final judgement.

Searching through websites I have been unable to uncover the text of Pope Benedict’s sermon. What I have found is commentary, and journalistic interpretation.