Francis has proved an admirable disciple of his modernist forerunner
Although Teilhard continues to have an organic and popular appeal, his theology is naturally and supernaturally unnatural. When everything is holy, without making reasonable distinctions about what this does or does not mean, then nothing is holy. By amplifying the natural, he mutes the supernatural and, thereby, compromises historically balanced Christology. Your suggestions about the manipulation of language are so true ---- and sinister.
Donald Richmond, DD
Being trained in a Jesuit university, it was hard to not hear about Chardin. What came to my mind was the old saying “birds of a feather flock together “ how much ink continues to be spilled on his ideas in different forms of course. Thanks be to the good Jesuits, who helped in my formation and called a spade a spade.
Masterfully composed critique of Chardin and Pope Francis. When I sojourned at a Trappist monastery as a candidate back in 1968, the daily refectory readings were all about Chardin and his ideology. No doubt the presiding Abbot approved (Fr Thomas Keating, OCSO, founder of Contemplative Outreach),
and that shows in the tolerant permissiveness of the organization's members who can believe and practice whatever they will, so long as they commit to deeper inquiry through regular contemplati.on.
...and BERGSON (https://wherepeteris.com/the-leadership-of-pope-francis/) and BLONDEL (https://cruxnow.com/book-review/2017/11/new-book-looks-intellectual-history-francis-pope-polarity), though both were destroyed by GARRIGOU-LAGRANGE (http://www.christendom-awake.org/pages/thomas-crean/saint-in-heaven.htm; https://www.hprweb.com/2009/04/rehabilitation-of-garrigou-lagrange/). 'He who has ears to hear...'
I was 18 years old when I first encountered Teihard de Chardin in my religion class. He was the “the talk” among us, students. It was presented with great enthusiasm by the teacher. As a student in science oriented course I cannot helped but be taken in by the concept/picture of his ideas. It was attractively captivating and seductive. It engages one’s imagination and makes one feel good of oneself.
It is only now from reading this article the spell of my admiration of Teihard de Chardin is broken.
At that time I already heard the Church condemnation of his writing yet still it did not give a dent of my facination for his ideas. I did not know then lies can be dressed in magnificent finery of words designed to seduce one’s emotions and imagination.
With the clear and concrete parallels of what Pope Francis is doing, the “scales in my eyes” fell off. I have now a clearer and firmer idea on Pope Francis and so also on Teihard de Chardin. I can now finally put away my admiration for both of them.
Thank you for this.
As a new Catholic over a decade ago, I thought it necessary to read the documents of Vatican II. I read them in a naive manner and taking them at face value. Now, eleven years in, I can see the studied ambiguity in those documents. Let you yes be yes and your no no.
A curious biographical note about de Chardin that I read in an article posted about him by Luke Coppen the other day states that his mother was the great-grandniece of Voltaire. Apples don't fall far from trees - especially in France.
I have been trying to figure out what precisely was our Holy Father's motivation for visiting Mongolia of all places, but one of the quotes from his homily that you cited above may provide an answer: "To celebrate Mass in this land brought to my mind the prayer that the Jesuit Father Pierre Teilhard de Chardin offered to God exactly a hundred years ago, in the desert of Ordos, not far from here." Was this a pilgrimage of sorts for him?
Additionally, something that His Holiness said in his homily that was particularly unconscionable - namely when he, the current reigning Roman Pontiff, called a priest the substance of whose work had been specifically condemned by his predecessors 'misunderstood'. Were your predecessors wrong Your Holiness? And if so then you as the current occupant of the See of Peter had better supply some specific reasons why this was so.
All of that said de Chardin's letters reveal that his 'philosophy' much like that of his undistinguished ancestor, God rest both of their souls, was nothing more than a cheap copy of the spiritual elitism of second century Gnosticism that Saint Ireneaus of Lyons, de Chardin's other countryman, could hardly keep himself from laughing at as he described it in his writings so long ago.
Using the term "pantheism" reveals a misunderstanding of Teilhard de Chardin, as even AI recognizes that he was not a pantheist.
It's evident that you haven't delved into Teilhard's original works.
When applying the definition of Modernism as it appears in your article, Teilhard emerges as anything but, as he harmonized ancient Christian dogmas with the insights of evolution, demonstrating their enduring truth.
Teilhard opposed Marxism, a fact that seems at odds with your characterization of him as a Marxist. This discrepancy stems from a lack of familiarity with Teilhard's writings.
Your interpretation of Teilhard's views on the fall of Adam and Eve and Original Sin also suggests a gap in your reading of his articles on the subject, which is a shame because they are not particularly lengthy.
In essence, this article appears to reiterate Verschuuren's perspective on Teilhard and underscores your need for a more informed and nuanced assessment of his ideas.
Seems to me that most, if not all, of Vat II documents were prepared using the very same template and with such wonderful and far reaching 'success'!. Why be surprised if the 'tradition' continues?
Sobering... Thank you.