About the desire to proclaim some new “Saints”: observations on the theology of Teilhard de Chardin and his dangerous poetic thought

ABOUT SMANIA OF CERTAIN NEW PROCLAIM "SAINTS": COMMENTS ON THE THEOLOGY OF Teilhard de Chardin AND HIS POETIC DANGEROUS THOUGHT

.

His theology is not driven by a rigorous and lucid speculative commitment based on sound philosophical base, and it is scarce in the same understanding faith, on which prevails a lively poetic imagination. Born then purely subjective visions, emotional and imaginative, to the detriment not only of the correct philosophical reasoning, but, Worse, the same doctrine of the faith. In Teilhard de Chardin is a substantial lack of docility to the Magisterium of the Church, he presumptuously replaced by its imaginative subjective view. This is why some have spoken rightly, about him, of "gnosis".

.

Author
John Cavalcoli, o.p.

.

.

PDF format Print article

.

.

God the Father has made known to us the mystery of his will: the recap plan in Christ all things [If the 1, 3-10]

They distracted by what, because the things seen are fair [Sap 13,7]

.

.

Padre Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, S.J. [1881-1981]

The information agency Vatican Insider refers:

.

"The plenary assembly of the Pontifical Council for Culture has overwhelmingly approved a proposal that must be brought to Pope Francis, It is asking you to contemplate whether it is possible to remove the Warning the Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office on the works of Father Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, S.J. The petition was approved Saturday 18 November during the proceedings of the meeting held on the theme "The future of humanity: new challenges to anthropology ". the proposal, as raised by the online newspaper SIR [Ed. cf. WHO], It is motivated as well: "We believe that such an act not only rehabilitate the genuine effort of the pious Jesuit, in an attempt to reconcile the scientific view of the universe with Christian eschatology, but also it represents a formidable stimulus for all theologians and scientists of good will to collaborate in the construction of a Christian anthropological model, following the directions of the encyclical Laudato si, naturally you place in the wonderful frame of the cosmos' " [See article Vatican Insider, WHO].

.

I must say that I support the initiative, I consider acceptable but with the necessary reservations about his motivation, so I would like to make some clarifications. First, it is not "rehabilitate" Teilhard de Chardin, as if that Warning the judge had erred and had to be corrected. It must be borne in mind that, when the Church condemns a doctrine that endangers the faith, can not err, because it applies to that assistance of the Holy Spirit that Christ promised to Peter as the guardian of the truth of faith. And those who teach what the truth, It is obviously qualified to teach what is the opposite error.

.

But there are in Warning three pastoral-disciplinary aspects, which may be the subject of reserves, and then correction. Now, by order, we will see what:

.

First, care to preserve the seminarians by Teilhard errors it seems like a goal too limited: why worry only of seminarians and not even the teachers? Perhaps the ideas of Teilhard de Chardin did not cause even failures in academic circles?

.

Second, the tone of Warning, of 1962, understandably it reflects what until then had been the style of the Holy Office: limited to condemnation of errors, differently from what is the current procedure of the Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith, which, having taken up the post-conciliar directives, accompanies the condemnation of the errors to the relief of the positive aspects of thought the author censored. But of course, of this fact you can not blame the Holy Office of the 1962, which, Dieting contemporary methods, He had simply done his duty.

.

However, what arouses true wonder - and this is the third observation, the most serious - is the fact that the condemnation of the errors remains on general and not precise what are the errors condemned, as of always instead it is customary in the Church and it is wise and necessary, to give way to precisely faithful to know from what evils you have to watch and, consequently, what are the appropriate care. So we must say frankly that we have a real defect, course of pastoral and not doctrinal, but it requires, already own, that the document is removed. And it was time, after so many contradictory and uncertain threads in these sixty years of which they are or are not the Teilhard de Chardin errors!

.

but be careful, because now there is an opposite danger the one that came from Warning. If this fact favored a harsh attitude towards Teilhard de Chardin without deciding the same time clearly the question, Now the risk is that of yet another subtle maneuver of the usual modernist, maneuver that is not hard to see behind the apparent homage to the Pope, expressed with refined hypocrisy in the petition. Modernists, indeed, under the pretext of respect for Teilhard, They hope the Pope to bite, merely remove the hated Warning accusing them, and everything ends there, for greater ease in continuing better spread their heresies, How do impunity from fifty. Therefore, Needless to say very clearly that there is no question of "rehabilitate" doctrinally Teilhard. If the modernist dream of such a thing, if the take away immediately from the head. It is, instead, to correct pastoral attitude of Teilhard, treating it with greater justice and charity.

.

The Supreme Pontiff, in granting the removal of Warning, could and should, in my view, not to be mocked by the modernists, to test their sincerity, entrusting the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith to publish a challenging doctrinal instruction knew Teilhard de Chardin, in which the praises for his merits are accompanied with a detailed list of the errors, What we are waiting unnecessarily from 1962. Then you will see if the drafters of the petition are animated by a sincere love for sound doctrine and the Church, and then by a true respect for Teilhard de Chardin, or they want to use him to continue to get away with it, although we do not know for how long.

.

I proceed now by presenting a list of possible theological errors of Teilhard de Chardin, on which you can not, nor should defer all, but rather bring greater clarity to.

.

  1. In Teilhard de Chardin it lacks the notion analog entity, which it allows to recognize the primacy and transcendence of spirit over matter.
  1. He therefore does not know how to conceive a pure spirit free from material. For this, for him God is so high spirit, but jointly is the maximum vertex of matter. It is a God material. The Scriptures speak of idolatry.
  1. For him, "God is the soul of the world": proposition pantheistic flavor. It confuses the relationship God-world with the soul-body relationship.
  1. His theology is the imaginary covering a substantial deification of the world.
  1. He wants to replace metaphysics, which is overcoming the physical to grasp the spiritual, with a "iperfisicahis coinage ", which it is nothing but a fantastic increase of physics raised ("Evolved") the absolute.
  1. Based on these assumptions, Void is clear that the distinction between the natural order and the supernatural, being the grace, participation in divine life, pure spirit without matter.
  1. Based on these assumptions, the Holy Spirit should lead to an essential material component. That is evident heresy.
  1. It should be said against Teilhard de Chardin that the unity of God is not the union or synthesis of a multiplicity, but it is absolutely simple unity without composition. God divides and reassembles, but it is indivisible and reassembles what is divided.
  1. The Holy Trinity is not a "trinitization"God as an effect of its own internal movement of multiplication and reunification, but it is the same divine essence triune, unchangeable, no multiple and unmultipliable.
  1. God creates the world not in the sense of unifying assumed an infinite multiplicity of material coexisting with Him from eternity, but in the sense of creating the same multiplicity of nothing. God is not only the authorizing officer of the world, but because of its existence. When God created the world, He had nothing beside Him and independently of Him, but it created everything, creature of the single unit and the multiplicity of entities and from nothing.
  1. Nothingness is not something possible or practicable, that tends to being or needs to be, but it is a simple non-being. Designing for nothing in this direction is arbitrary imagination and does not correspond to the biblical concept of nowhere, from which God draws the be.
  1. It has not existed or may have existed from eternity, next to God and independently of Him, a pure infinite multiplicity as pure numerical quantities without the multiplicity of the respective entities, because the amount of the substance is accident and does not exist alone without its substance.
  1. So a pure multiplicity no corresponding subject can not be real, but it is a purely abstract entity and imaginary. The truth is that God, creating the world, does not simply an abstract unified preexisting multiplicity, but it created a real multiplicity of nowhere, which, however, it was not previously eternity a pure multiplicity no real subjects, because otherwise it could not even be real, but it was and is created as a real and concrete multiplicity of individual institutions, because the multiplicity of real accident and substances.
  1. God is not essentially and necessarily connected to the world, but it is completely independent. It does not need the world to complete its essence. His creative act in the world is entirely free and he could very well exist alone without the world, because He is infinite Perfection, absolutely self-existent and self-sufficient.
  1. For this, Also the Incarnation of the Word and the Redemption by Christ were free and gratuitous acts of merciful love of the Father for the salvation of sinful man.
  1. If God is the summit of the world, the divine nature of Christ is the apex of human nature and it falls into heresy.
  1. Teilhard de Chardin admits in Christ "a third nature, it would be neither human nor divine, but cosmic "[1]. That is clearly a heretic.
  1. God, creating the world, It has not only created bodies that would evolve until the spirit level, but together with the bodies (visible), also created pure spirits, ie the angels (invisible).
  1. Teilhard de Chardin recognizes that the spirit is superior to matter, and it is right in saying that the matter evolves out in preparation for the creation of the spirit. However, He does not say clearly that the matter can only be a condition of existence of the spirit (the man), but it can not become spirit nor can cause the existence.
  1. Teilhard de Chardin overlooks the fact that the spirit can exist without material subject: God, the angel and the human soul separate from the body after death, while the matter can not exist or exist alone or by itself without its substantial form, that gives shape, so as to constitute in conjunction with her the material substance, composed of matter and form. He seems so confusing the matter with the material substance, which it is composed of matter and form.
  1. Teilhard de Chardin denies the human soul creation directly from God, stating mediation of matter: "The soul is created by means of materiality"[2].
  1. It is true that the material substance, ie the body, changes over time, It evolves and turns naturally tending to elevate its nature with bringing it closer to the spirit. But the body can not become spirit, because becoming physical or processing or bodily evolution involve the fact that a material changes shape, but remains matter with a form. Why become spirit, ie pure form subsisting without matter, It should disappear as a subject: which in fact it does not happen.
  1. Teilhard de Chardin is right to claim that matter and body are actually true and what good, date, innocent, useful, charity, not contrary to the spirit and not the enemy. God is the one and the other creator. But it errs in assuming that matter can become spirit (see previous issue.): would overstate the matter to the detriment of the loftiness of spirit over matter and fall into materialism, ie in the deification of matter.
  1. The deep, immutable and inescapable ontological difference and essential (visible and invisible) between matter and spirit is not a sign of division or conflict between them, but it is the effect of divine wisdom creator, without separating distinguishes and unites without confusing.
  1. Teilhard de Chardin seems to have taken account of the fact that among the material things and spiritual things is so different, but also similarity and analogy, in their common membership to reality, so that the human reason, starting from the experience of visible things, It can rise by analogy to the knowledge of spiritual things, and even of God (Sap 13,5; RM 1, 19-20). However, he realized that the experimental science leads to theology.
  1. It is not clear in Teilhard de Chardin, the distinction between living and nonliving. It should be said that the evolution from non-living to living was made possible thanks to the omnipotence of the Divine Creator, then not in the sense that the inanimate bodies contained originally already by itself and in itself life in a latent state, because this is pure imagination and does not correspond to the experience.
  1. Teilhard de Chardin is right in saying, come Darwin, that the species of living beings in the course of evolution were transient and were not fixed, but they have changed into one another, to higher and higher species, until it reaches the threshold of the human species, but without crossing, except perhaps thanks to the divine creative power.
  1. It is not documented by science that an animal can generate a man, although it is not metaphysically impossible. So it is not documented with certainty that man is descended from monkeys, if anything, they can have common genes. It should also be noted against Teilhard de Chardin that what we know by divine revelation on this topic, It is that all mankind originated, thanks to an act divine creator, a single pair in paradise place on earth.
  1. It is not impossible, but it is extremely unlikely and totally undesirable that the primitive couple Edenic, equipped with, according to the biblical revelation, of very high spiritual perfection, It was generated by a pair of monkeys in paradise.
  1. From science we know that the earth had originated long before humans, and that this appearance was preceded by monkey. But to this day it has never been shown that at some point the monkey has begun to generate men. And it is impossible, however, the existence of an intermediate living between man and monkey, because the human soul is not the result of an evolution, but, It is a simple spiritual form, or there is all or not there.
  1. Teilhard de Chardin neglects the fact that the species or human nature or essence of man is fixed and immutable, because it, while allowing a certain "cristogenesi”, It is not a transient stage of evolution, one stage of the cosmic become exceeded and surmountable, After becoming a precedent and start to become a more, but it is "fixed end of eternal counsel", because it is created in the image and likeness of God, it did not become and will not become.
  1. With everything, Teilhard de Chardin is right to claim that man must progress towards Christ and that Christ ("Christ Omega") drew has sé. But the human and Christian progress is not change in the nature or essence, and therefore the moral law which guides, but it is progress, increase, development, strengthening and growth of the powers of a subject that keeps the same nature, always in obedience to the same law.
  1. The moral law, therefore, It is not subject to evolution, but it can and should be getting better known and applied. The preservation of perennial values ​​is therefore the condition of real progress.
  1. Teilhard de Chardin is right in saying that God moves and intentionally finalistically the universe according to an upward trend from matter to spirit, whose purpose and supreme and unsurpassable summit is Jesus Christ. He recognizes that the efficient cause is moved from the final cause. However, It overlooks the fact that Christ is not simply the top and end of man and the world ("Cosmic Christ" as "Point Omega"), but, because God, infinitely it transcends and has created out of nothing.
  1. According to the data of faith, the history of man does not consist in the fact that God unifies evolutionarily and gradually over time the manifold, so that at the end of all mankind is in communion with God (“pleromizzazione”), but it shows the mercy of God, that exalts the humble, and his righteousness, that breaks down the proud.
  1. It is contrary to the faith to believe that every man will let attract by God, so that everyone is saved. On the contrary, by virtue of free will and the choices of each, there is who receives the divine mercy and is saved and there is one who refuses and is damned.
  1. According to the data of faith, the primitive couple were created in a state of high physical perfection, moral and spiritual, top, for some aspects, that achieved today by the human species, though wounded by original sin. It therefore seems highly unlikely, although not impossible, God has given birth to the Edenic pair of parents monkeys.
  1. What is quite likely however that appears, in punishment for sin, the primitive couple, expulsion from Paradise on this miserable earth, I have taken an ape-like appearance. That is confirmed by the findings paleoanthropological, studied by Teilhard de Chardin, which testify with clarity upward evolution of the human form simian progressed to that of today's man. In this field of knowledge he undoubtedly has its merits.
  1. Sin has not simply originated from our wickedness, but it has a historical much deeper, that is the original sin committed by our first parents, whose fault, transmitted for generation, infected all humanity and is taken away by Baptism expiation thanks to the sacrifice of Christ.
  1. The sin is not a simple inevitable and negligible accident of evolution path towards the best, almost malriuscito or waste product in the production chain to a thriving industry, however,, but evil act of disobedience to God, subsequent to original sin, that makes the man fall into a misery that, from which it only raises the cross of Christ, which therefore radically it frees us from sin delivering us from its consequences, that the loss of grace, the pains of this life and the tendency to sin.
  1. polygenism is incompatible with the Christian faith, saying that mankind originated from a single pair, and that the original offense, committed by this pair, It has been transmitted from generation to this pair to all mankind. Only the Blessed Virgin Mary was preserved from this guilt.
  1. The previous history of the earth to man's creation and the Garden of Eden, as it is apparent from paleontology, It presents an unsuitable environment for human life, and therefore seems to be to relate, both with the sin of the angels, although both foreshadowed, with the consequences of original sin. In fact, the Edenic universe was perfectly under the dominion of man.
  1. The laws of nature on earth, object of science, given that regulate a hostile nature, harmful and dangerous for us, Although laws laid down by the Creator, beside beneficial laws, clearly represent, eyes of faith, a fallen nature from Edenic condition, as a punishment for sin (There 3, 17-19). Teilhard de Chardin seems to disregard this fact testified by the Bible.
  1. The sufferings of this life and the hostility of nature to us are not necessary moments in the evolution proceeds, are not just opportunities to take it forward, but are the consequences of original sin and also of our sins, that serve to join the redemptive cross of Christ.
  1. For Teilhard de Chardin Christ does not suffer to atone for our sins, but only to strengthen us and guide us in the suffering necessary for our ultimate fulfillment.
  1. The opposition and enmity between the "flesh" and "spirit", which speaks St. Paul the Apostle, They were not originally desired by God, but are a consequence of original sin and the Christian ethics leads to their reconciliation. For this, Christian asceticism order, in certain circumstances, know how to give up the pleasure of the body, not to lose the joys of the spirit.
  1. The excessive and indiscreet concern of Teilhard de Chardin to consider flesh and spirit as one, It raises fears of lax ethics and hedonistic, caused by the fact that, under the pretext of unity between spirit and flesh, the human subject, Prone in this life, following the original sin, to be dominated by passions, neglect the moral effort for the spirit over the flesh domain.
  1. "We declare," - says Teilhard de Chardin [3] - "to construct a conceivable future of the human species towards which could both stretch the communism that rationalism and Christianity". This statement smacks of duplicity and is irreconcilable with the Christian's duty to testify publicly his faith.
  1. The Church is not the apex of humanity evolving, but it is the community of God's children living in grace.
  1. The fact that the Church constantly progresses towards the Parousia does not mean that all members of the Church may progress equally. Some progress and some people downgrades or stops.
  1. The life of grace and divine sonship are not simply the evolution of man summits, but a divine life than the simple human life.
  1. The matter of the sacrament of the Eucharist is not the world ("Mass on the World"), but the bread and wine specially prepared for the Eucharistic Sacrifice of the Mass.
  1. Teilhard de Chardin argues that the Eucharistic transubstantiation does not matter only the bread, but it is completed in "transubstantiation of the world" [4]. In this way it falls into a clear idolatric falsification of the Eucharist.
  1. The Eucharistic transubstantiation of the Mass does not take place in the course of cosmic evolution, come crede Teilhard de Chardin, but when the celebrant pronounces the words of consecration of the bread and wine.
  1. Christ is not only the world's top evolving ("Cosmic Christ"), but first and foremost is the Son of God the Creator and Savior of the world.
  1. The Eucharistic Communion is not communion with the "cosmic Christ", but with the body and blood of the Lord under the Eucharistic species.
  1. It is true that in the Mass the celebrant consecrates himself to God with the Church. But we must not confuse this consecration cultuale, which it is a simple act of the virtue of religion, consequent to the consecration Eucharistic Bread and Wine, and its effect and purpose, with the same consecration of bread and wine, which act by which the priest, in persona Christi, the transubstantiation, which is the principle, reason and because of the cultic consecration.
  1. Christ at the end of the world is not welcome in the glory of the whole of humanity reached the apex of evolution (“pleromizzazione”), why not all men want, but "will separate the sheep from the goats" (cf. Mt 25,32), ie welcome the right, while the reprobates will turn away from Him.

.

Overall Guest

.

the omega point did finally match by Teilhard de Chardin with the Risen Christ

It Padre Pierre Teilhard de Chardin It seems animated by a strong religious and mystical fervor, Christological, with the laudable intention of harmonizing apologetic experimental science with the science and technology. His christocentrism, but, it appears immanentistic, while exaggerated is the exaltation of matter, the world and evolution, with prejudice to spiritual transcendence and God himself.

.

His theology is not driven by a rigorous and lucid speculative effort based on solid philosophical base, and it is scarce in the same understanding faith, on which prevails a lively poetic imagination. Born then purely subjective visions, emotional and imaginative, to the detriment not only of the correct philosophical reasoning, but, Worse, the same doctrine of the faith.

.

the omega point to the new ortogenesis

In Teilhard of Chardin there is a substantial lack of docility to the Magisterium of the Church, he presumptuously replaced by its imaginative subjective view. This is why some have spoken rightly, about him, of "gnosis".

.

It also has the impression of a kind of substitution of poetry to theology. But it is a dangerous poetry, this his, because it does not simply express the Word of God with poetic images - something quite legitimate and useful -, but replaces personal with fantastic creations. Rightly, Jacques Maritain speaks of theology-fiction [5] or what has been called fantateologia. It's no wonder that Teilhard de Chardin confuse intellect with imagination, because he himself theorizes: "The thought is feeling transformed ' [6].

.

Remove the This orientation, without clarifying this "dangerous thought", or if you want ... "dangerously poetic", may create more dangers, especially then in a quite delicate moment like the one we are experiencing today in the Church and ecclesiastical level.

.

Varazze, 7 December 2017

.

.

The fantateologia Teilhard de Chardin in the film version

.

.

____________________

NOTE

[1] CIT. in G.Frénaud- L.Jugnet -Th.Calmel, The Teilhard de Chardin errors, tree Publishing, Turin,1963, p.38.

[2] A.Drexel-L.Villa, Analysis of an ideology. Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, Editions Civilization, Brescia 1970, p.129.

[3] CIT. in A.Drexel-L.Villa, op.cit., p.124.

[4] A.Drexel-L.Villa, op.cit., p.131.

[5] The peasant of the Garonne, Desclée Brewer, Paris 1966, p.177.

[6] CIT. in A.Drexel-L.Villa, Analysis of an ideology. Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, Editions Civilization, Brescia 1970, p114.

.

.

.

«You will know the truth and the truth will set you free» [GV 8,32],
but bring, spread and defend the truth not only of
risks but also the costs. Help us supporting this Island
with your offers through the secure Paypal system:



or you can use the bank account:
They were IT 08 (J) 02008 32974 001436620930
in this case, send us an email warning, because the bank
It does not provide your email and we could not send you a
thanksgiving [ isoladipatmos@gmail.com ]

.

.

.

.

.

About isoladipatmos

16 thoughts on "About the desire to proclaim some new “Saints”: observations on the theology of Teilhard de Chardin and his dangerous poetic thought

  1. Thank you Father John for His scholarly exposition, that could well be a solid basis - according to his right proposal – for a work Commission of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith on Teilhard de Chardin, in the circumstance of its questioning of the Pope by the Pontifical Council for Culture.

    A pair of things:

    1. E 'emblematic, but not surprised, view of the air that pulls, a Pontifical Council wants to "rehabilitate" a figure like the one in question, characterized by macroscopic thinking errors, if not genuine moments of heresy, such as those highlighted by you on time.

    2. It is the subject, as it is logical, It should be entrusted by the Pope, asked what, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, We hope it does not end up like Don Lorenzo Milani, which once, in a case very similar to this, He was incomprehensibly "duty paid" by the same Congregation, thus giving the floodgates to that unfortunate process of "rehabilitation practice" which also The island of Patmos It gave account [see WHO]

    with serious damage to the people, He saw the "bad teacher" that was recorded as an example. I'm still wondering how he could S.It is. Cardinal. Gerhard Ludwig Müller, Prefect of the Congregation at the time of customs clearance milaniano, sign the relevant resolution.

  2. The DNA of all living beings is composed of adenine, citos, e guanine thymine.
    Solo 1,5% DNA contains sequences encoding the living according to their species.
    It turned out that the remaining 98,5% the human genome, called junk, trash, nonsense, dumb ..., It is active for at least 80% and contains a switching system able to control how and when to activate the genes that control and determine cell development.
    It 's so absurd to suggest then that, the work of the Creator Spirit, any switch in the present 98,5% of junk DNA of a monkey has done so that the remaining 1,5% Transforming human DNA became the monkey in a simple incubator for the first man?

    1. Dear Orenzo,

      Come ho detto, l’ipotesi che Dio abbia creato il supplemento di DNA sufficiente alla creazione dell’uomo, ossia alla creazione di un’anima umana in un corpo di scimmia traspare anche dall’enciclica di Pio XII Humani Generis, laddove il Papa parla di una “humani corporis origo ex iam exsistente ac vivente materia” (Denz.3896).

      Senonché, but, as I said, given that, secondo la divina Rivelazione, la coppia edenica fu creata in uno stato di nobilissima costituzione fisica e di altissima perfezione morale e spirituale, appare estremamente sconveniente che Dio abbia un coppia di genitori scimmie a nostri progenitori, piuttosto li abbia creati anima e corpo Egli stesso direttamente nell’Eden, come del resto lascia insinuare il testo biblico. Il ”fango” dal quale Dio avrebbe formato la coppia potrebbe essere anche semplice materia inanimata.

      Ciò si potrebbe comporre bene con l’esistenza di scimmie su questa terra, esistenza dimostrata dalla scienza prima della comparsa dell’uomo. But then, as I said, questo fatto vorrebbe dire che, trattandosi già di questa terra inabitabile ed ostile all’uomo, tale situazione della terra costituirebbe un effetto retroattivo del castigo del peccato originale.

      Mentre infatti la scienza non può indagare sulle condizioni dell’Eden, che era uno stato preternaturale della terra (“paradiso terrestre”), da noi noto solo per Rivelazione, la scienza può indagare e di fatto ha indagato sulla storia della terra precedente e conseguente all’Eden, una natura decaduta dall’originario stato sublime di perfezione edenica, che fu una condizione preternaturale temporanea, dalla quale i progenitori sono stati scacciati in castigo del peccato (There 3, 23-24).

      1. Ipotesi per ipotesi e tenendo presente che la Genesi non tratta di “as” è stato creato il mondo ma da Chi e perché, è piùsconvenienteaver avuto una scimmia comeincubatriceo essere stati tratti dalfango”?
        Ipotizzo inoltre che la comparsa dell’uomo decaduto su questa terra sia soggetta alle leggi di natura mentre la sua creazione dell’Eden, nella sua preternaturalità, è questione di fede.

  3. Dear Fathers,

    I appreciate this document with particular attention, clear and concise, which allows me to settle the score with the theology of De Chardin. Why Is That “close accounts”? For one reason, which then leads to a question to you: the relations between the thought of theologian and John Paul II and Benedict XVI. I read comments (positive) De Chardin and I concluded: this is crazy, or a non-fiction writer (I see that I was close to the judgment of Mauritain). But then I read I decided praise from the two popes named… and I concluded that it was I who did not understand it. Now I have to conclude that the two popes, knew Chardin, they are explained very badly … you know better than I what I mean, Steps are many; p.es. certain references to “cosmic liturgies” and to “cosmo living host”. Perhaps it would be helpful to clarify.

    PS Which brings me also to another account: some are right to want to take the positive things that still exist in buggy theological systems… but if you are no longer in that perfect clarify, these days it's very dangerous thing for the health of the faithful.

    1. Dear Fabrizio,

      San Giovanni Paolo II e Benedetto XVI hanno espresso un parere positivo su Teilhard come scienziato e per la sua istanza, in sé giusta, di origine paolina, alla quale pure io ho accennato, di vedere nel Cristo parusaico l’Alfa e l’Omega di tutta l’evoluzione del modo, man, della Chiesa e della storia.

      Come già accennò il Padre Ariel S. levi di Gualdo in un suo articolo apparso su questo sito nel 15 February 2015, The Christus Totus Sant'Agostino: dal prologo alla Lettera agli Efesini alla storia della teologia dogmatica, la visione teilhardiana può essere assimilata quella agostiniana del “Christus Totus”, abbracciante Cristo come Capo della Chiesa suo Corpo mistico e dell’umanità e Signore dell’universo. Senonché però S.Agostino distingue chiaramente Cristo dal mondo e si guarda bene dal farne il vertice dell’evoluzione del mondo.

      Similarly,as I said, non può essere approvata la visione teilhardiana della Messa e dell’Eucaristia, che risponde ad un’istanza in sé gusta, quella di mostrare come la celebrazione della Messa e la consacrazione del pane e del vino nella Messa operata dal celebrante causano nel mondo un irraggiamento di grazia ed un’energia elevante e salvifica che si espandono e vanno a stimolare l’evoluzione e il progresso del mondo fisico e spirituale verso il Cristo Omega.

      Quello che è sbagliato in questa visione è un’allargamento o transfinalizzazione indebiti, arbitrary, fantastici, spropositati e illegittimi dell’azione liturgica, che hanno un sapore di magia o di manipolazione dissacrante, quasi nell’idea che l’atto liturgico acquisti un maggior potere, al di là o contro le funzioni proprie ed ufficiali e al di là dell’ambito della celebrazione liturgica e della confezione del sacramento eucaristico, al di là dei loro limiti essenziali voluti da Cristo e dalla Chiesa, come se la liturgia non fosse un “fare e un dire quello che Cristo ha fatto e detto”, ma un prender spunto o input da cui partire per aggiungere dell’altro di conio personale, una libera creazione con la quale si crede o ci si immagina di raggiungere un’unione con l’universo e con Dio migliore della puntuale, faithful, diligent, coscienziosa, precisa ripetizione ed esecuzione di quanto Cristo ha fatto e detto e del rito da Lui stabilito.

  4. “dangerous thoughts” that of Teilhard de Chardin? a Jesuit priest “heretic”

    Ii Warning del EppureDopo 1962, theologians and Popes have stressed the importance of his work, especially from an apologetic point of view and for the inspiration he has been able to bring the questions of so many men of science. An example is that of Theodosius Dobzhansky, one of the fathers of the theory of biological evolution has responded to theses of the Jesuit paleontologist devoting the last chapter of his book of philosophical reflections on life The Biology of Ultimate Concern.Non appreciations are missed by the Church's side. Just before the Monitum was published the volume of the theologian Henri de Lubac, The religious thought of Father Teilhard de Chardin, where they have the keys to a hermeneutic attention to the author's thought. Pope Paul VI, a few years after Monitum, in a speech on the relationship between science and faith 1966, He spoke of Teilhard as a scientist who had known, scrutinizing the matter, find the spirit, and that he had given an explanation of the universe can reveal in it the presence of God, the trace of a Standard Intelligent and Creator…

    1. Dear Beppe,

      Teilhard trova lo spirito nella materia, ma non va oltre. Questa infatti è la spiritualità umana; ma trova sempre la materia nello spirito; non sa concepire una pura spiritualità, esente dalla materia, da sè sussistente senza la materia. Sarebbe questa la spiritualità dell’anima separata, dell’angelo e di Dio, la pura spiritualità della grazia, della vita eterna e dello Spirito Santo.

      Per questo non riesce neanche a concepire una pura intellegiblità, un puro pensiero, un puro essere, una pura essenza, una pura sostanza. Non riesce a trascendere l’immaginazione.

      Per questo gli ripugna la metafisica e vorrebbe sostituirla con un “iperfisica”, che non è altro che la fisica gonfiata all’infinito.

      Da qui la fatica anche a concepire l’universale, l’astratto, l’immutabile, l’eterno, il sovraspaziale e il sovratemporale.

      Viceversa nello stesso ragionare scientifico fa intervenire arbitrariamente fattori vitalistici e spiritualistici che non risultano affatto da un serio metodo scientifico, con la pretesa di ammettere uno spirito e una vita latenti nelle realtà inanimate.

      1. Aggiungerei che la (relativa e quasi sempre indiretta) popolarità, a volte anche fra persone in buona fede, dei Teilhard, o delle sgangherate “filosofie” New Age, the, on the other hand, delle prediche dei vari Bianchi, Ronchi, Maggi, which – per estendere il suo concetto – sostituiscono la metafisica con un “iper-umano” inteso come sublimazione totalizzante dell’umano, tutte suggestioni immanentistico-panteiste che sottendono un rifiuto della paternità di Dio e un rifiuto ad entrare infine nel suo “riposo”, cioè a trovare pienezza di vita nella sua casa celeste, questa popolarità, I said, deriva dal fatto che l’orizzonte metafisico viene oggi percepito come freddo, arido, intellectual, cervellotico, straniero. E qui è mancata un’adeguata opera pedagogica da parte della Chiesa, che non ha saputo comunicare come quell’orizzonte metafisico adombri una realtà necessariamente più famigliare, in anima e corpo, alla nostra vera essenza.

  5. We should explain these things to an American Jesuit named Robert Faricy, which for decades it has secured with the rehabilitation of Teilhard de Chardin and presents him as the victim of unjust persecution. The same p. Faricy is founder of a charismatic community in Rome which repeats its positive judgments about Teilhard. sorry, because the charismatic inspiration is genuine and has nothing to do with rationalism paraprogressista now dominant in the church world (among other things, certain Jesuits, p. is. the famous historian Martina father but also younger then Bergoglio, They teased the charismatic).
    The other part, now given the current climate of respect for everything about today's Jesuits (those of today, not those antisinistra than once!), it is easy to predict that the rehabilitation of Teilhard goes through, as, in other respects, that of non-Jesuits characters like Don Milani.
    Small recorded a bit’ off topic: the famous Gentiloni who is at Palazzo Chigi is not a descendant of one of the Gentiloni Pact but Gentiloni grandson of a former Jesuit spretatosi to marry his youngest pupil and then finished writing the “Manifesto” ..

  6. Caro Father,

    the Gregorian, in the early 80s, in what was supposed to be my doctoral thesis, motivated strong criticism of Teilhard de Chardin.
    I was first invited to rephrase my criticisms in … “more scientifically”, and when I said that the lack of scientific criterion was not sought in me but in Teilhard de Chardin, they put me in a position not to go ahead.
    Large Democrats, Jesuits 70s / ’80 !

    Before becoming a religious and a priest in adulthood, I had graduated in astrophysics and I had done a PhD in Theoretical Astrophysics. From the little I had learned in the course of graduation and later in studies for a Ph.D., I assumed that you have learned to distinguish a scientist from a science fiction author.

    I never received his doctorate at the Gregorian and today, now exceeded eighty, I am happy not to have “threw the brain into storage”, like good Guareschi said, just to please the children of this father of science fiction, who with their fantascienze is come up to Peter's slippers …

    I made a vow to pray for the Church and for the Pope for all the years of life that God gives me to live within my monastery.

    forward, dear brothers of Patmos Island, I'm with you, I pray for you and follow you with pleasure !

    father Bernardo

  7. Dear Fathers, grazie per questo articolo di cui sentivo il bisogno per chiarirmi alcune idee, io mi sono avvicinato al cristianesimo da relativamente poco tempo lasciandomi dietro meditazione ed esoterismochicGuenoniano, e de Chardin lo ricordo come citato praticamente solo da religiosi stile De Mello che sembravano ansiosi di tenere lontane persone come me buttando l’unicità cristiana nel grande calderone deltutte le fedi parlano della stessa esperienza cosmico/irrazionale”. Un lettore sopra si stupisce del fatto che siano viste come idee pericolose ma posso garantirgli che il Dio immanente alla materia di Chardin e il Cristo/Cosmico che non lascia scampo, o te salvi o te salvi, non mi avrebbero smosso di un millimetro dalle mie posizioni precedenti, per cui grazie condanna del Sant’Offizio.
    Se permettete una domanda , ricordo un’argomentazione di creazionisti americani riguardo l’impossibilità dell’evoluzione della vita sino alla soglia dell’umano, in quanto sia la morte che la natura ostile necessaria per il processo di selezione sono conseguenze dell’ambiente cosmico post Caduta e non erano possibili prima di questa. In cosa questa argomentazione è fantateologica?

  8. Altre menzioni positive su Teilhard de Chardin si riscontrano nel 1981, in occasione del centenario della sua nascita, in due lettere: una di Padre Arrupe, Superiore Generale della Compagnia di Gesù e un’altra dell’allora Segretario di Stato Agostino Casaroli, scritta a nome di Giovanni Paolo II e indirizzata all’allora Rettore dell’Institute Catholique di Parigi mons. Paul Poupard. At last, nella enciclica Laudato si’ (2015), Papa Francesco cita Teilhard de Chardin alla nota n. 53 , nel n. 83 del documento, a proposito dell’idea, certamente presente nel pensiero del gesuita francese, che «il traguardo del cammino dell’universo è nella pienezza di Dio, che è stata già raggiunta da Cristo risorto, fulcro della maturazione universale».

    1. Passaggio tipico del modo di esprimersi poco chiaro di questo pontificato. “Maturazione universale” infatti fa pensare ad un processo tutto interno al Divenire di questo mondo, cioè ad un’attuazione di ciò che vi è di potenziale in questo mondo, nella quale il fine è stato perfettamente raggiunto, per parlare in “aristotelese”. Ma subito dopo, sempre al n. 83, if he says, rimettendo le cose a posto: “Invece tutte [le creature] avanzano, insieme a noi e attraverso di noi, verso la meta comune, who is God, in una pienezza trascendente dove Cristo risorto abbraccia e illumina tutto.” Ecco qua: “pienezza trascendente”, il che significa che la “maturazione universale” prepara solo la “pienezza dei tempi”, cioè il momento della fine del mondo, del giudizio, e quindi di una nuova terra e un nuovo cielo nella casa celeste.

  9. Certo che l’eccessivo (e quarantennale) entusiasmo dimostrato da Teilhard de Chardin per la strana scoperta Uomo di Piltdown, the”anello mancante” (la più grande truffa scientifica della storia moderna), i dubbi su un suo indiretto coinvolgimento nella truffa e la sua riluttanza a affrontare l’episodio dopo il ’53, non possono che lasciare interdetti quanti si sono fidati della sua serietà (non dico onestà) scientifica e si sono lasciati affascinare dalla sua speculazione teologica.

Leave a Reply