![]() One must note that in Teilhard’s writing there is hardly any mention of purely spiritual beings or entities within the existing cosmos. … One is inseparable from the other one is never without the other … No spirit (not even God within the limits of our experience) exists, nor could structurally exist without an associated multiple, any more than a center can exist without its circle or circumference … n a concrete sense there is not matter and spirit, all that exists is matter becoming spirit. evolves, via “complexification” and “convergence” to his own perfection, immersed in matter. … I see in the World a mysterious product of completion and fulfillment for the Absolute Being himself. As Teilhard explains it in his book Human Energy:Īs a direct consequence of the unitive process by which God is revealed to us, he in some way ‘transforms himself’ as he incorporates us. Teilhard’s “God,” the “soul of the world,” is identical with nature and consequently subject to change. (God … is to be declared as really and essentially distinct from the world, of supreme beatitude in and from Himself, and ineffably exalted above all things which exist, or are conceivable, except Himself.) This proposed synthesis is not a “new and better Christianity,” but rather a negation of the Catholic faith, as presented in the definitive dogmatic constitution of Vatican I, Dei Filius (April 24, 1870):ĭeus … est re et essentia a mundo distinctus, in se et ex se beatissimus, et super omnia quae praeter ipsum sunt et concipi possunt, ineffabiliter excelsus. What increasingly dominates my interests, is the effort to establish within myself and define around me, a new religion (call it a better Christianity, if you like) where the personal God ceases to be the great monolithic proprietor of the past to become the Soul of the World which the stage we have reached religiously and culturally calls for. The problem was that his solution was neither particularly scientific nor particularly Catholic, a fact he admitted privately to his cousin Léontine Zanta in 1936: The reason for Teilhard’s popularity, as stated above, was his apparent resolution of the differences between religious truth as proposed by the Catholic Church and scientific “fact” as proposed by Darwinian evolution. By the time of the opening of the Second Vatican Council in October 1962, the Society of Jesus had all but abandoned the Neo-Scholastic theology of Francisco Suarez in favor of Teilhardian evolutionary “cosmogenesis.” By the mid- to late 1950s, his theories were extolled by many, if not most, Jesuits, including Karl Rahner, Hans Urs von Balthasar, Cardinal Carlo Maria Martini, and especially Henri de Lubac, who wrote glowingly of Teilhard: “We need not concern ourselves with a number of detractors of Teilhard, in whom emotion has blunted intelligence”. In 1947, upon return from banishment in China, he was once again censured by the Holy Office, Pope Pius XII himself having called his work a “cesspool of errors.” However, Teilhard began further insinuating his ideas among his fellow Jesuits at the French theologate La Fourvière in Lyon by means of unsigned mimeographed monographs. In fact, Teilhard was originally censured and exiled by his Jesuit superiors in 1923 for questioning the doctrines of original sin and eternal damnation. (1881-1955) took it upon himself to reconcile Darwinian evolution and Catholic theology. Following the 1925 Scopes Trial, Darwin’s theory of evolution was more and more presented as dogma by the scientific community, and Fr. Still troubled by the Galileo affair, the Church bent over backwards in trying to incorporate faith and science into a seamless garment. Jerome: “the world awoke, without so much as a whimper, to find itself Teilhardian.” In the mid-twentieth century, one may have paraphrased St. However, as the Catholic Church has perennially taught, the truth must be presented whole and complete, without subterfuge or compromise. Some sought to substitute homoiousios, “of a similar nature,” to find a peaceful solution. In the middle of the fourth century, Saint Jerome remarked that the world “awoke with a groan to find itself Arian.” Arianism divided the Church and Empire of the fourth and fifth centuries and beyond by claiming that the Divine Logos, Jesus Christ, was not of the same substance ( homoousios) as the Father and not co-eternal with the Father as defined at the Council of Nicea (325 A.D.). ANNOUNCEMENT: New Trad Fasting Sodality.Martin Luther King and Planned Parenthood. ![]() The One Thread By Which the Council Hangs: a Response to Cavadini, Healy, and Weinandy.Quinquagesima Sunday: A platitude or a way of life?.Please Pray DAILY for a Miracle from Aloysius Ellacuria, CMF!.The Inspiration and Inerrancy of Sacred Scripture.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |