A visualization of Teilhard de Chardin´s cosmological eschatology1 Significantly, de Chardin’s once condemned views are cited approvingly in §83 of Pope Francis’s encyclical Laudato Si’ (SOURCE)
–
“‘There can be nothing more dangerous than those heretics who admit nearly the whole cycle of doctrine, and yet by one word, as with a drop of poison, infect the real and simple faith taught by our Lord and handed down by Apostolic tradition’…. The practice of the Church has always been the same, as is shown by the unanimous teaching of the Fathers, who were wont to hold as outside Catholic communion, and alien to the Church, whoever would recede in the least degree from any point of doctrine proposed by her authoritative Magisterium.”
— Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum §9 (1896)
“We tend to regard this final judgment with a certain trepidation, yet the Church invites us to see it as a source of consolation and joyful hope. … God’s judgment takes place in our lives each day, by the way in which we respond to Christ’s teaching and imitate him in serving our brothers and sisters.”
— Pope Francis (11 December 2013)
“The gift is God’s love, a God who can’t sever himself from us. That is the impotence of God. We say: ‘God is all powerful, He can do everything!’ Except for one thing: Sever Himself from us!”
— Pope Francis (29 October 2015)
+ + +
If only the loveliness words were a measure of their truth. Alas, that naive fiction was freshly debunked by the recent Synodal Language Event.
As for Pope Francis, clearly he is passionate about the eternal depth and vitality of the love of God. In his admirable zeal for proclaiming this truth, however, he tends to err by ignoring the other side of the coin, namely, that the rejection of God’s love–even by one mortal sin–entails an eternity spent suffering in Hell. At the very least, his emphasis on who might end up in Hell is curously selective, focusing, it seems, solely on professional mobsters. Even then, it’s hard to know what “Hell” means in his parlance,2 I was first alerted to this problem by the blog post linked above, but failed to include a link to it when I first published this piece. since he has never personally addressed, retracted, or rectified the report that he believes lost souls will be annihilated instead of enduring eternal suffering, as the Catholic Church teaches. The much maligned bona fides of Mr. Scalfari have been ably assessed and vindicated here by Steve Skojec.
Leaving aside the blinkered conspiracy theories in the Catholic blogosphere that relish throwing a professional journalist and trusted friend of Pope Francis under the bus, let us consider an even more striking locus of Pope Francis’s crypto-Origenist universalism. His latest encyclical, Laudato Si’, concludes with a stunning albeit Jesuitically subtle endorsement of universal salvation. Consider that the encyclical is addressed to “every person living on this planet” (§3), without the customary magisterial qualifier about addressing persons “of good will”. Indeed, he makes this no-holds bar approach explicit by saying, “In my Apostolic Exhortation Evangelii Gaudium, I wrote to all the members of the Church with the aim of encouraging ongoing missionary renewal. In this Encyclical [by contrast], I would like to enter into dialogue with all people about our common home” (my emphasis). Francis, then, is addressing everyone on the planet–even those of ill will, and those obstinately opposed to the Gospel. As universal pastor that is his prerogative, but it is through this indiscriminately universal rhetorical lens that we must read the following concluding passages of his Eco-Encyclical.
Since “the royal We” has fallen curiously out of favor in recent papal teachings, I shall indicate the audience of Francis’s words the communitarian “WE,” “US,” “OUR,” etc. All phrases suggesting universalism shall be underlined.
To wit:
241. Mary, the Mother who cared for Jesus, now cares with maternal affection and pain for this wounded world. Just as her pierced heart mourned the death of Jesus, so now she grieves for the sufferings of the crucified poor [sic] and for the creatures of this world laid waste by human power. Completely transfigured, she now lives with Jesus, and all creatures sing of her fairness [in Heaven?]. …
243. At the end [i.e., at the Final Judgment], WE will find OURSELVES face to face with the infinite beauty of God (cf. 1 Cor 13:12), and be able to read with admiration and happiness the mystery of the universe, which with US will share in unending plenitude.3 It follows by modus ponens that if we and the universe are inseparable, then the assured redemption of the universe in the New Heaven entails the assured eternal redemption of the pope’s audience–every soul on earth. Even now WE are journeying towards the sabbath of eternity, the new Jerusalem, towards OUR common home in heaven.4 As one blogger has noted, however, “our common home” is not the earth, but Heaven. Jesus says: “I make all things new” (Rev 21:5). Eternal life will be a shared experience of awe, in which each creature [Spanish: cada criatura], resplendently transfigured, will take its rightful [sic?] place and have something to give those poor men and women who will have been liberated once and for all.
244. In the meantime, WE come together to take charge of this [common] home which has been entrusted to US, knowing that all the good which exists here will be taken up into the heavenly feast. In union with all creatures [Spanish: con todas las criaturas], WE journey through this [earthly] land seeking God…. Let US sing as WE go. May OUR struggles and OUR concern for this planet never take away the joy of OUR hope.
The audience is every soul on earth; the concern is care for the earth; the hope is eternal bliss in Heaven for all creatures.
This is what is known as universalism.
And it seems to be an official papal teaching.
But that’s none of my business.
If it were my business, though, I would feel obliged to remind you, dear reader, of a dogmatic teaching of the Church concerning universalism, pronounced in 553 at the Second Council of Constantinople (my emphasis added):
“If anyone does not anathematize Arius, Eunomius, Macedonius, Apollinarius Nestorius, Eutyches and Origen, as well as their heretical books, and also all other heretics who have already been condemned and anathematized by the holy, catholic and apostolic church and by the four holy synods which have already been mentioned, and also all those who have thought or now think in the same way as the aforesaid heretics and who persist in their error even to death: let him be anathema.” (cap. 11)
+ + +
It might be reassuring to suppose that Francis’s crypto-Origenist universalism was just an excess of charity towards souls outside the Church. Yet, as a recent sermon of his shows, his obsession with universal inclusion infects even his sense of Christian discipleship and holiness. As they say, a half-truth is a whole lie; or, as Pope Leo XIII warns us, a drop of poison in a glass of seemingly pure water must still be poured out in dread and disgust.
With that in mind, the following is excerpted from this Pope Francis sermon (05/11/2015; my emphasis added):
“Saint Paul exhorts us not to judge and not to despise our brothers, because, the Pope said, this leads to excluding them from ‘our little group,’ to being selective, and this is not Christian. … There are two paths in life: the path exclusion of persons from our community and the path of inclusion. The first can be little but is the root of all wars: all calamities, all wars, begin with an exclusion. … This is the ‘including’ of God, against the exclusion of those who judge, who drive away people, persons: ‘No, no to this, no to that, no to that…’; and a little of circle of friends is created, which is their environment. … Never excluding, we have no right! … If I exclude I will one day stand before the judgment seat of God, I will have to give an account of myself to God. Let us ask the grace of being men and women who always include, always, always! in the measure of healthy prudence, but always. Not closing the doors to anyone….”
Sed contra, the Scriptures teach very plainly that, just as every healthy organism must maintain a membrane that allows for both the absorption of nutrients and the expulsion of toxins and foreign bodies, so it essential to the life of the Body of the Church to expel alien evil from within–or, to cite Pope Leo XIII once more, “to hold as outside Catholic communion, and alien to the Church.” Indeed, the very meaning of holiness is to be separate, set apart, dedicated to God in a way that unholy things are not.
The takeaway is that, if you happen to hear that “Pope Francis told us” not to exclude anyone for any reason, here are some biblical passages (RSV Bible) to know and share in order to charitably set the record straight. My emphasis added:
Matthew 18 –
15 “If your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault, between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have gained your brother. 16 But if he does not listen, take one or two others along with you, that every word may be confirmed by the evidence of two or three witnesses. 17 If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector.
Matthew 255 This passage is especially significant, insofar as it is one of Pope Francis’s favorite biblical teachings, yet he does not seem to be able to bring himself to pronounce the same definitive judgment unto eternal Hell, preferring to reduce an eschatological teaching to a moral injunction. –
41 Then he will say to those at his left hand, ‘Depart from me, you cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels; 42 for I was hungry and you gave me no food, I was thirsty and you gave me no drink, 43 I was a stranger and you did not welcome me, naked and you did not clothe me, sick and in prison and you did not visit me.’ 44 Then they also will answer, ‘Lord, when did we see thee hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or sick or in prison, and did not minister to thee?’ 45 Then he will answer them, ‘Truly, I say to you, as you did it not to one of the least of these, you did it not to me.’ 46 And they will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.
John 15 –
1 “I am the true vine, and my Father is the vinedresser. 2 Every branch of mine that bears no fruit, he takes away, and every branch that does bear fruit he prunes, that it may bear more fruit. 3 You are already made clean by the word which I have spoken to you. … 6 If a man does not abide in me, he is cast forth as a branch and withers; and the branches are gathered, thrown into the fire and burned. 7 If you abide in me, and my words abide in you, ask whatever you will, and it shall be done for you. 8 By this my Father is glorified, that you bear much fruit, and so prove to be my disciples. 9 As the Father has loved me, so have I loved you; abide in my love. 10 If you keep my commandments, you will abide in my love, just as I have kept my Father’s commandments and abide in his love.
Romans 16 –
17 I appeal to you, brethren, to take note of those who create dissensions and difficulties, in opposition to the doctrine which you have been taught; avoid them. 18 For such persons do not serve our Lord Christ, but their own appetites, and by fair and flattering words they deceive the hearts of the simple-minded.
I Corinthians 5 –
It is actually reported that there is immorality among you, and of a kind that is not found even among pagans; for a man is living with his father’s wife. 2 And you are arrogant! Ought you not rather to mourn? Let him who has done this be removed from among you. 3 For though absent in body I am present in spirit, and as if present, I have already pronounced judgment 4 in the name of the Lord Jesus on the man who has done such a thing. When you are assembled, and my spirit is present, with the power of our Lord Jesus, 5 you are to deliver this man to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus. 6 Your boasting is not good. Do you not know that a little leaven leavens the whole lump? 7 Cleanse out the old leaven that you may be a new lump, as you really are unleavened. For Christ, our paschal lamb, has been sacrificed. 8 Let us, therefore, celebrate the festival, not with the old leaven, the leaven of malice and evil, but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth. 9 I wrote to you in my letter not to associate with immoral men; 10 not at all meaning the immoral of this world, or the greedy and robbers, or idolaters, since then you would need to go out of the world. 11 But rather I wrote to you not to associate with any one who bears the name of brother if he is guilty of immorality or greed, or is an idolater, reviler, drunkard, or robber—not even to eat with such a one. 12 For what have I to do with judging outsiders? Is it not those inside the church whom you are to judge? 13 God judges those outside. “Drive out the wicked person from among you.”
2 Corinthians 6 –
14 Do not be mismated with unbelievers. For what partnership have righteousness and iniquity? Or what fellowship has light with darkness? 15 What accord has Christ with Be′lial? Or what has a believer in common with an unbeliever? 16 What agreement has the temple of God with idols? For we are the temple of the living God; as God said,
“I will live in them and move among them,
and I will be their God,
and they shall be my people.
17 Therefore come out from them,
and be separate from them, says the Lord,
and touch nothing unclean;
then I will welcome you,
18 and I will be a father to you,
and you shall be my sons and daughters,
says the Lord Almighty.”
Ephesians 5 –
6 Let no one deceive you with empty words, for it is because of these things that the wrath of God comes upon the sons of disobedience. 7 Therefore do not associate with them, 8 for once you were darkness, but now you are light in the Lord.
Titus 3 –
10 As for a man who is factious, after admonishing him once or twice, have nothing more to do with him, 11 knowing that such a person is perverted and sinful; he is self-condemned.
2 John –
6 And this is love, that we follow his commandments; this is the commandment, as you have heard from the beginning, that you follow love. 7 For many deceivers have gone out into the world, men who will not acknowledge the coming of Jesus Christ in the flesh; such a one is the deceiver and the antichrist. 8 Look to yourselves, that you may not lose what you have worked for, but may win a full reward. 9 Any one who goes ahead and does not abide in the doctrine of Christ does not have God; he who abides in the doctrine has both the Father and the Son. 10 If any one comes to you and does not bring this doctrine, do not receive him into the house or give him any greeting; 11 for he who greets him shares his wicked work.
Footnotes
| ↑1 | Significantly, de Chardin’s once condemned views are cited approvingly in §83 of Pope Francis’s encyclical Laudato Si’ |
|---|---|
| ↑2 | I was first alerted to this problem by the blog post linked above, but failed to include a link to it when I first published this piece. |
| ↑3 | It follows by modus ponens that if we and the universe are inseparable, then the assured redemption of the universe in the New Heaven entails the assured eternal redemption of the pope’s audience–every soul on earth. |
| ↑4 | As one blogger has noted, however, “our common home” is not the earth, but Heaven. |
| ↑5 | This passage is especially significant, insofar as it is one of Pope Francis’s favorite biblical teachings, yet he does not seem to be able to bring himself to pronounce the same definitive judgment unto eternal Hell, preferring to reduce an eschatological teaching to a moral injunction. |
How many universal councils has God directed the Church into – and when was the last one? Of course we know. Am I bound to give my 100% all to anything beyond ? Or, at least, to that which is not anchored to or unfolded from them?
Is any pope?
Jesus asked us to keep in mind the days of Noah. Yes, in the days of Noah those who had walked in the spirit of God began to associate intimately with the worldly citizens and consequently all – except the righteous Noah and family – were corrupted and, sadly, sliding towards destruction.
Perhaps, it is time to check our ‘boats’!
Thanks Elliot. How clear are the teaching of the Church and how misguided are those of Pope Francis. Pope Francis endorses a form of spiritual welfare-ism whereby folks are not required to follow the teachings of Christ or even desire to follow them. Logically none of this makes any sense as if you agree with Pope Francis then the answer to what he says is to shrug your shoulders and move on. In others words, Pope Francis “doctrine” is simply pointless as everyone gets a reward regardless what they do.
TEILHARD DE CHARDIN is a man who has waivered from the teachings of the Catholic Church, as I recall when I investigated him in the 1980’s when I joined the Church. I did not investigate his closeness to the Church today Nov 7, 2015,,,,so things may not be the same.
Teilhard de Chardin: Arch-Heretic
By Msgr. Vincent Foy
Pope Pius XII called the writings of Pierre Teilhard de Chardin “a
cesspool of errors.” The Church’s condemnation of his writings remains
in force.”
The CAT (Catholic Anarcho Tyranny) without the Hat (Triregnum) in Rome.
We Catholics now experience the concept introduced by the paleoconservative, Sam Francis, to describe the penchant of the American Government not to punish the lawless [the Anarchy] but to criminalise the innocent [The Tyranny].
The Anarcho-Tyranny within the One True Holy Roman Catholic and Apostolic Church has descended upon us with great force and with grave consequences; that which we have always condemned – sodomy and heresy – is now either ignored, or, far worse, succored [The Anarchy] and that which we have always succored – The Real Mass, Tradition, Traditional Praxis, refusal to distribute Holy Communion to Adulterers etc – has been criminalised and forbidden [ The Tyranny].
The Catholic Church as liberal America….YAY!!!
Our Pope and Our Cross is concerned with Collectivism vs Christ. Of course one desires what God desires, the Salvation and Sanctification of all men, but one is constrained to follow Christ and as it is the Truth that He is the Truth, it has always been known, it has always been experienced, that following Him, following the Truth, results in division.
One might have noticed that there are the Catholics and there are the Messias-Deniers (who are also Holocaust Deniers) and never the twain shall meet, on earth or in Heaven, for one does not attain unto Salvation and Sanctification if one is a Messias-Denier.
If Our Pope and Our Cross sets his sights on a collectivism rather than on Preaching Christ and Conversion – and the consequences of not accepting Christ – then he may as well write that message, put it in a bottle, and smash it on the bow of a garbage scow
If our Pope and Our Cross thinks division is a failure rather than a consequence of following Jesus Christ and His Commandments – as He ordered us to do – then he is doomed to disappointment and he will blame men like me for failing his collectivism.
In many of the more popular bibles, one can read Matt 25 or,more chilling, Luke 19:27 and understand the collectivism demanded by Our Pope and Our Cross is irrational – and not a good irrationality.
And is it even necessary (yes it is) to cite a few passages still existing in many of the more popular bibles teaching us to identify those who create division and to EXCLUDE them
Deut 18:20
Titus 3:10
Matt 7:15
Rom 16:17
2 john 10:11
Phil 3:2
If Malachi Martin were still around, we could perhaps expect a novel next year concerning this papacy. Possible title? Jorge the Obscure.
Or, Humble House…
Fr. Malachi has already spoken. He predicted this papacy. It’s part of the Third Secret.
There are some who’ve gathered enough evidence to demonstrate that Malachi Martin was an agent of the modern day pharisees.
Conspiracies, conspiracies, conspiracies! So damned many of them, and so little time to choose!,
This is Francis’ assessment of the unmitigated disaster known as Vatican Council II. For those who are familiar with H.J.A. Sire’s much longer and more detailed description of that event, this address offers insight into Pope Francis’ ability to analyze reality accurately. To put it charitably, the Church has imploded in the 50 years since the close of that council; by every conceivable measure, she is poorer, less-respected, less healthy, less capable, and more bedeviled by outright heresy than in 1963. Yet this is how Francis sees the matter:
The Second Vatican Council Was an Extraordinary Time of Reflection, Dialogue and Prayer
by Pope Francis
Pope Francis General Audience Address October 28, 2015
October 28, 2015 general audience was held on the 50th anniversary of the Vatican Council II Declaration “Nostra Aetate” on the relations between the Catholic Church and non-Christian religions. It was attended by representatives of various religions and participants in the International Congress organised to commemorate the event by the Pontifical Council for Interreligious Dialogue in collaboration with the Commission for Religious Relationships with Jews, the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity and the Pontifical Gregorian University.
Vatican, October 28, 2015
Dear Brothers and Sisters, Good morning!
At the General Audiences there are often people or groups who belong to other religions; but today this presence is of particular importance, because we can remember together the 50th anniversary of the Declaration of the Second Vatican Council Nostra Aetate on the Relation of the Catholic Church to Non-Christian Religions. This subject was dear to the heart of Bl. Pope Paul VI, who on the Feast of Pentecost the year before the close of the Council, had established the Secretariat for non-Christians, today called the Pontifical Council for Interreligious Dialogue. For this reason I express my gratitude and my warm welcome to the people and groups of various religions, who today have wished to attend, especially to those who have come from afar.
The Second Vatican Council was an extraordinary time of reflection, dialogue and prayer which aimed to renew the gaze of the Catholic Church on herself and on the world. A reading of the signs of the times in view of an update oriented by a twofold faithfulness: faithfulness to the ecclesial tradition and faithfulness to the history of the men and women of our time. In fact God, who revealed himself in creation and in history, who spoke through the prophets and comprehensively through his Son made man (cf. Heb 1:1), speaks to the heart and to the spirit of every human being who seeks the truth and how to practice it.
The message of the Declaration Nostra Aetate is always timely. Let us briefly recall a few of its points:
— the growing interdependence of peoples (cf. n. 1);
— the human search for the meaning of life, of suffering, of death, questions which always accompany our journey (cf. n. 1);
— the common origin and the common destiny of humanity (cf. n. 1);
— the uniqueness of the human family (cf. n. 1.);
— religions as the search for God or of the Absolute, within our various ethnicities and cultures (cf. n. 1);
— the benevolent and attentive gaze of the Church on religions: she rejects nothing that is beautiful and true in them (cf. n. 2);
— the Church regards with esteem the believers of all religions, appreciating their spiritual and moral commitment (cf. n. 3);
— the Church, open to dialogue with all, is at the same time faithful to the truths in which she believes, beginning with the truth that the salvation offered to everyone has its origin in Jesus, the One Saviour, and that the Holy Spirit is at work, as a font of peace and love.
There have been so many events, initiatives, institutional or personal relationships with the non-Christian religions in these last 50 years, that it is difficult to recall them all. A particularly meaningful event was the meeting in Assisi on 27 October 1986. It was willed and sponsored by St John Paul II, who the year before, thus 30 years ago, addressing the Muslim youth in Casablanca, hoped that all believers in God would favour friendship and unity between men and peoples (19 August 1985). The flame, lit in Assisi, has spread throughout the world and is a permanent sign of hope. Deserving of special gratitude to God is the veritable transformation of Christian-Jewish relations in these 50 years. Indifference and opposition have changed into cooperation and benevolence. From enemies and strangers we have become friends and brothers. The Council, with the Declaration Nostra Aetate, has indicated the way: “yes” to rediscovering Christianity’s Jewish roots; “no” to every form of anti-Semitism and blame for every wrong, discrimination and persecution deriving from it. Knowledge, respect and esteem for one another are the way. Indeed, if this applies in a particular way to relations with Jews, it likewise applies to relationships with other religions as well. I am thinking in particular of Muslims, who — as the Council recalls — “worship God, who is one, living and subsistent, merciful and almighty, the Creator of heaven and earth, who has also spoken to men” (Nostra Aetate, n. 3). They acknowledge Abraham’s paternity, venerate Jesus as a prophet, honour his virgin Mother, Mary, await the day of judgment, and practice prayer, almsgiving and fasting (cf. ibid.).
…….
© Libreria Editrice Vaticana 2015
Mr. Sire’s book is excellent! In one dense volume he covers a brief Church history, and then Vatican II, quite thoroughly. His memory must be encyclopedic, and I am enjoying this book immensely. (Phoenix From the Ashes; the Making, Unmaking, and Restoration of Catholic Tradition). I’ve been a fairly well-read Trad for many years, but this book ties up a lot of loose ends and connects the dots so well. I’m sure I’ll refer to it repeatedly.
The Teilhardian Church – by Fr. Albers Ph. B.
http://www.catholicapologetics.info/modernproblems/vatican2/teilhard.pdf
“If the Western World needed evolution in order to hang on to its weath and enjoy it without a thought for God and conscience, then this evolution must somehow take on the mystique of a religion, A RELIGION ALLOWING THE EMBRACE OF THE WORLD. But that is precisely what Teilhard de Chardin and his innumerable ‘theologians’ and ‘catechists’ and other disciples have done: they provided the illusion that this evolutionary system DOES EXIST, runs inevitable into god-omega, has us all in its mighty sweep, AND IS THE NEW CATHOLICISM AND THE TRUE INTERPRETATION OF VATICAN II.”
The doctrine of annihilitationism, which the Pope apparently affirmed, is shared by the Jehovah’s Witnesses, and I wonder what other groups. At what council was this taken up?
A leading Vaticanista, Sandro Magister, wrote the following, which appeared in article just out:
“For Pope Francis, Fr. Spadaro is everything. Advisor, interpreter,
confidant, scribe. There is no counting the things that he incessantly
writes about the pope: books, articles, tweets. Not to mention the papal
discourses that show the mark of his hand.”
http://chiesa.espresso.repubblica.it/articolo/1351172?eng=y
Check out the Jesuit Spadaro’s twitter feed to see where’s he coming from, ideologically.
More should be known publicly about Spadaro’s role behind the scenes these days. I have mentioned it various times, but will mention it again: there were supposedly four funding sources for the symposium held at his magazine on the synod’s eve. Marco Tosatti hypothesized that this was a working group to draft documents. Find those funding sources, and you have a story. Two of the attendees at that symposium have names identical to those who signed the Ross Douthat attack letter.
All the op-ed commentary that is now rife on the web is well and good. But personally I’d like to see a lot more investigative journalism about who write’s the Pope’s stuff and promotes it in social media. Spadaro describes himself, btw, as a “cybertheologian”. It’s not surprising at all that the Pope would have selected someone like this to frame his message. Given that the Kasperites know full well the power of the socially conservative critiques of the synod in the blogosphere. They want to counter like with like.
There was a loose network during the last synod of Spadaro, Father James Martin of America magazine, Father Rosica and the like minded. They seem to be quite the buddies.
Using words like “ideology” with regards to Spadaro is a bit generous. He comes from the nothing-need-logically-follow school of “thought.” An ideology applies some degree of adherence to principles… Some sort of consistency. He just blows in the wind.
True.
His comments, and those of the Pope, have to be viewed in the context of the chaos that has (largely) befallen the Jesuit order in the post-conciliar period, with all due respect to the few who still understand what St. Ignatius was up to.
And all this has to be understood in the context of theology training once having been joined to study of Thomistic or scholastic philosophy generally, and that link now broken entirely. No logical structure anymore for theological claims. And to think that logical thought was once the pride and joy of the Jesuits.
As a result: any attempt at affirming received doctrine, or anything expressible in propositional form and not as mere poetic rhetoric, is regarded as mummified, or ossified, or pharisaical, or the realm of the ‘Doctors of the Law’, whatever that is supposed to reference.
In short, just about anything goes, as long as passes the arbitrary test of our want-to-be new gatekeepers of a new orthodoxy.
The only thing reassuring about this monstrous heretic of a Pope is that he has apparently been placed there with a Divine purpose, namely, as a catalyst for the Passion of the Church. May that Passion be completed soon, and along with it, the Consecration of Russia.
You fomenter of coprophagia!
Hmm; I didn’t get away with using that word here (in the context of saying that Bergoglio had used it) just a few short weeks ago.
“Little holy card!”
Benedict XVI’s homily-Celebration of Vespers with the Faithful of Acosta, July 24, 2009:
“The role of the priesthood is to consecreate the world so that it may become a living host, a liturgy: so that the liturgy may not be something alongside the reality of the world, but that the world itself shall become a living host, a liturgy. This is also THE GREAT VISION OF TEILHARD DE CHARDIN: in the end we shall achieve a true COSMIC liturgy, where the COSMOS BECOMES A LIVING HOST.”
Hmmm, it was Pope Benedict XVI who while Pope, publicly praised this vision of Chardin – the cosmos as a living host.
And so what if that ideological insanity elevates everything -Moon, Mars, Man, Mountains – to equivalency with the Catholic Host (victim) as Jesus Christ, Soul and Divinity while, simultaneously, eviscerating and evaporating the exclusive reality of the Catholic Host; so what?
It is the Illative sense that matters – ask Newman – it is what our experiences/intellect makes of these eternal truths that matters and, as it is the case that everything grows and changes, we too are growing and changing the very definitions of Divine Revelation because evolution by a revolution within form means that the words of the Early Church Fathers are the same words used today – having been emptied of objective truth and meaning.
That which was believed objectively of Divine Revelation by, say, Saint Justin Martyr, can not be believed in today by Justin Tuck (Oakland Raiders Defensive End) because science and evolution has taught us truths to which Divine Revelation must be malleable/changeable if we are to embrace both science and faith.
The proof or personalism is in the just so results of progressive evolution that is bringing everything to the omega point (what? you didn’t know evolution had intent and purpose, you thought it random?) where the entirety of existence becomes Christ – or that all Catholics become like Charlton Heston in Omega Man.
The author states that Francis is teaching universalism but he is simply making it plain this is the teaching of the Second Vatican Council with its adoption of false ecumenism.
Bullhockey. You are punching way beyond your weight.
Dear Mr. Ortiz. There can be no doubt that when it comes to the intellectual, theological, and spiritual knowledge and acumen of Benedict XVI – and especially personal holiness- that , in comparison to him, IANS is a flint strike and Benedict XVI is the sun, but what has been written in response to what he has written is not an attempted comparison or insane leap to equivalency for iANS knows his own limitations too damn well.
However, you do not appear to have even a cursory knowledge of the many material heresies he has written/professed.
It was over twenty years ago that our Traditional Study group in Maine read and discussed In the Beginning a book based on his public lectures having to do with Genesis.
Any Catholic worth his salt can not read that and avoid concluding that what he said/wrote is material heresy, especially as regards Original Sin.
Now, that book can be read for free online and so can War Against Being by James Larson who quotes, in context, and at length, the material heresies of Ratzinger/Benedict XVI and IANS will write the following as clearly as he can…
He does not appear to have the Faith once delivered nor does he have the same Faith as does IANS and this is especially true when it comes to the Holy Eucharist and that material heresy is owing to his acceptance of macro-evolution and the putative teachings of science.
He clearly denies transubstantiation as it is understood in Tradition(he uses the word but has emptied it of its meaning- a mini-revolution within a form that is a microcosm of the revolution within the form of Catholicism that we are, currently flummoxed by) and he talks of it in a way reminiscent of Martin Luther.
You prolly will not take the time to read the material collected by Mr. Larson for it is much easier to avert one’s eyes and, rightly citing his impressive intellect, dismiss all critics as unequal to his natural attributes.
C’est la vie.
But even in his popular trilogy, he flat out accused an Evangelist of error (so much for scriptural inerrancy) and he claimed we ought not try and convert the Jews even though Holy Writ teaches that such inaction is a moral sin.
So, you are on rock solid ground when it comes to what you have to write about this writer but seeing as how IANS does not have and has never had any authority/influence you are punching way below your weight and you are clearly too craven to try and step-up in class.
No, it is much safer to play the rhetorical game the way you have chosen to play it, bit IANS is done with that game as far as playing it with you.
Ok. Well, I was trying to be provocative, not insulting, and I was both. I apologize for that.
I will check out the material you cited.
Thanks, Mr. Ortiz, but an apology was not necessary
Read the whole address. He merely notes that De Chardin’s statement sort of fits in with the overall view of things that the church has. Not everything that De Chardin said was heresy. He might have had a thought that was congruent with Catholicsim, and Benedict is graciously pointing this out. Perhaps a bit esoteric of Benedict, but one sentence referring to De Chardin is not that big of a deal.
Benedict XVI was a prolific writer. In all of this books, homilies, addresses, and encyclicals, one thing is clear. He was not completely orthodox. This was simply one example posted because the author of the article mention the name of Chardin.
I agree. Others, sadly, don’t need to read the whole document, they already have all the answers.
Actually, I don’t agree. I mistakenly replied to you.
Footnote 1: “significantly, de Chardin’s once condemned views are cited approvingly in paragraph 83 of Pope Francis’s encyclical “Laudato Si”.
Pope Benedict XVI wrote approvingly of de Chardin and adopted the very omega-god concept the author exposed beautifully in his chart.
In a homily, Celebration of Vespers with the Faithful of Aosta, on July 24, 2009, he stated:
“The role of the priesthood is to consecreate the world so that it may become a living host, a liturgy: so that the liturgy may not be something alongside the reality of the world, but that the world itself shall become a living host, a liturgy. This is is also the great vision of Teilhard de Chardin: in the end we shall achieve a true cosmic liturgy, where the cosmos becomes a living host.”
Two interesting articles about de Chardin and Benedict’s expression and approval of his views can be found here:
http://www.christianorder.com/features/features_2011/features_dec11.html
http://www.christianorder.com/features/features_2012/features_jan12.html
I think Benedict is here referencing a largely Eastern Orthodox type of mysticism. Benedict is the type of thinker who can reference a single point that is true from an otherwise unstable mess. Aquinas cites Cicero et. al. without endorsing their errors.
Countless Catholic poets and mystics–and the psalms–speak of the glory of God proclaimed by skies, seas, clouds, etc.
Some of you guys need to read around a little more!
Dear Mr Ortiz. Presented with a direct quote from Pope Benedict XVI, you try and recast that as content referring to eastern orthodox mysticism.
It is understandable why you may be motivated to do such a thing – He can’t really have meant what he said so he prolly meant… but, sorry, no you can’t do that for Chardin, although a heretic, was not one of the Eastern Schismatic type nor can you simply gainsay a direct quote.
If this quote bothers you do not ever read “War Against Being” by Mr. James Larson (available for free online) for the previous Pope comes off worse, much worse, in there where he has been quoted accurately, in context.
Well, I realize the article is about Chardin, but I was referring to the general gist of B16’s statement, ie, the glory of God found in the created, and in the end, redeemed, world.
The so-called “general gist” of B16’s statements, are the tools of Modernist’s which cleaverly try to conceal their own heresies. He wasn’t simply a disciple of Chardin but of other heretics such as Hans Kung, Henri de Lubac and Hans Urs Von Batlharasar.
I understand the claim that he is nodding to the Maximian idea of the created logoi, but 1) he does not make that allusion explicit and therefore leaves his words to be parsed ‘as such’, and 2) he is nodding to a passage in de Chardin in which that Jesuit explicitly asks to use a number of natural elements as the very MATTER of the consecrated species. This is sheer heresy. The ONLY proper matter of the Eucharist is bread and wine, and once consecrated they become the semiotic ‘barge’ for latria–worship due only to God. By conflating the proper MATTER of the Eucharist qua bread and wine with CREATION as such, it follows that CREATION AS SUCH becomes worthy of latria. This is utterly blasphemous.
Look, it’s one thing for St. Paul or St. Aquinas to draw upon pagan philosophers WITHOUT endorsing their specific errors, but something quite else for a pope to endorse a specific blasphemy of a formerly condemned Jesuit theologian.
Normalcy bias is a hell of a drug, I know, but we need to drop the charade on this.
I understand the claim that he is nodding to the Maximian idea of the created logoi, but 1) he does not make that allusion explicit and therefore leaves his words to be parsed ‘as such’, and 2) he is nodding to a passage in de Chardin in which that Jesuit explicitly asks to use a number of natural elements as the very MATTER of the consecrated species. This is sheer heresy. The ONLY proper matter of the Eucharist is bread and wine, and once consecrated they become the semiotic ‘barge’ for latria–worship due only to God. By conflating the proper MATTER of the Eucharist qua bread and wine with CREATION as such, it follows that CREATION AS SUCH becomes worthy of latria. This is utterly blasphemous.
Look, it’s one thing for St. Paul or St. Aquinas to draw upon pagan philosophers WITHOUT endorsing their specific errors, but something quite else for a pope to endorse a specific blasphemy of a formerly condemned Jesuit theologian.
Normalcy bias is a hell of a drug, I know, but we need to drop the charade on this.
I have read a fair amount of Benedict XVI’s writing, both when he was Pope and before. He is/was clearly never, in any way, a pantheist. Full stop.
I love the TLM,
I consider myself a traditional Catholic.
But when I see comments like these I just shake my head, and wonder.
Additionally, while I am not a theologian, I do realize that when a writer takes one reference, and then the reader attributes the WHOLE of the work of that person referred to to the author doing the referring, is both unjust and, frankly, ridiculous.
To follow that logic, is to make Aquinas a stoic, because he quotes Seneca.
Traditionalist such as these do no honor to Traditional Catholicism. Indeed, they do just the opposite.
First, stop trying to paint me in a corner with your claims about citing pagan authors. Of course it’s legitimate to draw upon pagan authors; the Church has always done so (the treasures of Egypt, test all things, etc.). It is, however, not legitimate to draw upon them without explaining what must be rejected in them. Aquinas affirmed the truths he found in the Stoics, not their errors. That’s why he’s not a Stoic.
Second, my claim is not that Benedict is or was a pantheist. Please. My claim is that, by publicly endorsing de Chardin, he also foolishly endorsed a heretical notion about the Eucharist that was espoused by de Chardin in “The Mass of the World” (p. 11). In the passage cited, Benedict endorses “the great vision of Teilhard de Chardin,” much as Francis more recently praised Kasper’s work as “serene theology.” By endorsing this “great vision” of a condemned thinker, Benedict fails to parse how the Maximian notion of cosmic mystagogy differs from De Chardin’s heretical notion of consecrating the world itself AS the Eucharist.* More to the point, he gives unqualified approval to de Chardin’s “great vision”, which, as I noted in my first point in this comment, is not how the Church operates when appropriating elements of pagan or faulty authors. Distinguo! Distinguo! Distinguo!
Lastly, please spare me your snooty disdain for “Traditionalist[s] such as these”. If you want to rebut the claims being made, please do so. Otherwise, stop poisoning the well.
* (Indeed, his reference to “cosmic liturgy” in the 2009 message is more of an affirmation of Balthasar in tandem with de Chardin than anything else [cf. his 2008 message about St. Maximus where he explicitly refers to Balthasar in that context].)
I apologize if my tone offended, which it seems to have done. If you don’t see the implications of your statements re Benedict I am not sure what to say.
The popes in the past who, when they became aware of some grave issue that was detrimental to the faith, whether it was some unlawful practice within a certain diocese or region or the writings of a new heretic, they addressed the issue, sometimes very forcefully and vehemently, particularly in the case of probable heresies.
Here is just one example:
On Instruction In the Faith – “In Dominico Agro” – Encyclical of Pope Clement XIII promulgated on June 14, 1761 –
2. “It oftens happens that certain unworthy ideas come forth in the Church of God which, although they directly contradict each other, plot together to undermine the purity of the Catholic faith in some way. It is very difficult to cautiously balance our speech between both enemies in such a way that We seem to turn Our backs on none of them, but to shun and condemn both enemies of Christ equal . Meanwhile the matter is such that diabolical error, when it has artfully colored its lies, easily clothes itself in the likeness of truth while very brief additions or changes corrupt the meaning of expressions; and confession, which usually works salvation, sometimes, with a slight change, inches towards death.”
3.
“The faithful-especially those who are simply or uncultivated-should be kept away from dangerous and narrow paths upon which they can hardly set foot without faltering. The sheep should not be led to pasture through trackless plaes. Nor should peculiar ideas-even those of Catholic scholars-be proposed to them. Rather, only those ideas should be communicated which are definitely marked as Catholic truth by their universality, antiquity, and harmony. Besides, since the crowd cannot go up to the mountain (Ex. 19:12) upon which the glory of the Lord came down, and if whoever crosses the boundaries to see will die, the teachers of the people should establish boundaries around them so that no word strays beyond that which is necessary or useful for salvation.”
4.
“The popes clearly understood this. They devoted all their efforts not only to cut short with the sword of anathema the poisonous buds of growing error, but also to cut away certain developing ideas which either could prevent the Christian people unnecessarily from bearing a greater fruit of faith or could harm the minds of the faithful by their proximity to error. So the Council of Trent condemned those heresies which tried at that time to dim the light of the Church and which led Catholic truth into a clearer light as if the cloud of errors had been dispersed.”
Since the Second Vatican Council, the once declared heretics or a declaration of some of their writings were to be destroyed as they could have led the faithful, particularly the less educated, into confusion about the true faith, have become the princes of the Church and their writings cited within the writings of the popes with admiration rather than condemnation.
Popes Gregory XVI, Pius X, Pius XII, and Leo XIII in the 19th and 20th centuries warned us about the looming new theologies and philosophies of the enemies of Christ gaining favor and import in the world and in the Church. It was not all for naught that Pope Pius X exposed what he came to call Modernism, the synthesis of heresies, because as he noted in “Pascendi Dominici Gregis” #2-“That We should act without delay in this matter is made imperative especially by the fact that the partisans of error are to be sought not only among the Church’s open enemies; but, what is to be most dreaded and deplored, in her very bosom, and are the more mischievous the less they keep in the open.”
He goes on in #3 to state: “Nor indeed would We be wrong in regarding them as the most pernicious of all the adversaries of the Church.”
If you research the tactics the Modernist heretics use, you find that their most beneficial method to introduce heresy (beyond ambiguity an paradox, which is the hallmark of their writings) is to include it within the body of their writings which also include orthodoxy, or like Benedict, add it in writing without condemning it.
What about the Catholic who hasn’t the time, the money, or the inclination to “read around a little more” and simply depends upon what he/she reads or hears from the current Pope, or his/parish priest believing (as should be the case) that what he/she reads and hears is the true faith when in actuality, it is a distortion, a heresy, or filled with ambiguity and confusion? Are they to be left on their own to pick and choose what they read or hear that they like and discard that which “offends” them or that they can make no sense of? How can a Catholic be obedient to the Authority of the Roman Pontiff and the Magisterium when at one time the teaching is thus and so but in a different time, that teaching is either made confusing, contradicted, or one never hears a word of it?
Michael, speaking of “reading around a little more”, would you read any or all of the following articles and tell me what you make of them?
The Masonic Infiltration of Mainstream Catholicism by Hamilton Reed Armstrong
http://www.christianorder.com/features/features_2015/features_may15.html
and: “The Makings of Modern Society – Marx, Mammon, Molech, and Masonry” by Peter Grace
http://www.christianorder.com/features/features_2003/features_apr03.html
and: “The Heart of Betrayal” by James Larson
http://www.christianorder.com/features/features_2003/features_nov03_bonus.html
yes! I will!
Sorry. Have been dealing with a family emergency the last few days.
Simply happy to hear you will take some time reading the articles I suggested.
In fact, James Larson at Christian Order has written many articles on the heresies-yes that is correct-of Ratzinger/Benedict. Excellent reading to be sure.
I think it is fair to say of the very fair Benedict that he found one thought in De Chardin that Benedict thought had some merit, and bore repeating, in a certain context. It goes way too far to say that Benedict endorsed the ideas of De Chardin in general.
http://tinyurl.com/qxxwup8
I disagree. Read the extensive critique of the numerous writings of Ratzinger/Benedict XVI written by James Larson at Christian Order, particularly his articles entitled “A Living Host” (two parts). Notably, in the second part, it is evident that Ratzinger/Benedict XVI adopts the “cosmological and evolutionary” terminology of De Chardin.
Ratzinger/Benedict XVI was a true disciple of De Chardin.
Read the other articles by author James Larson on the same website for a more comprehensive analysis and proof that this is so.
Francis is also a De Chardinian disciple. And a true son of Modernism. The only difference between Francis and Benedict was Francis is not ambiguous about his heretical beliefs. Benedict tried (successfully) to cover his up.
could someone please ask him if Jesus Christ is come in the flesh?
Seriously. .someone ask him.
no mercy for you!
” Holy water balloons, Batman,… They’ve run out of holy water.”
.
Welcome to Teilhardee’s, where you can now get the piled-high Heresiarch Sick Burger! May I take your order?
This is no catholic pope.
Wasn’t that “there is no Catholic God”?
And that is consistent. A not catholic pope who states there is no Catholic God … whatever that means.
For the Traditionalist autodidact (you must learn these things on your own for there is not one many in the Prelature who will tell you just how bad it is) interested in the connection twixt Benedict Xvi and Chardin re “Cosmic Liturgy” here is the link
It is an especially useful link for those who find – you are too dumb to get him – irksome.
http://tinyurl.com/q4gkpjb
Catholics who possess the Faith once delivered can detect heresy whether it is remote or proximate
“Francis, then, is addressing everyone on the planet–even those of ill will, and those obstinately opposed to the Gospel.”
Alas, in true Rahnerian fashion (and Rahner, above all, is the Jesuit’s Jesuit) Francis most likely doesn’t believe that people of ill will exist at all. All possess the supernatural existential — and in a perversion of Augustinian theology, no one is capable of desiring evil since it is merely a privation. Ergo, we’re all swell! Shiny, happy people . . .
Except for the mafioso whom he stated are excommunicated and the Catholic faithful he always rails against.
eggzackly
That’s why his infamous motto, “Who am I to judge?” is so confused. In common parlance, “gay” refers to an actively homosexual person. Anyone actively committed to any moral or spiritual disorder is BY DEFINITION NOT OF GOOD WILL. Recall that he uttered that ineradicable self-exposure when asked about a cleric who had been caught in some scandal. In that context, “seeking the Lord” meant not getting into a similar scandal, while leaving untouched the implicit affirmation of the man’s being “gay”.
Pope Francis’ Gospel seems to be that only those who judge or exclude others will be excluded in the end. The dictatorship of relativism has taken over the papacy. And yet, ironically, Pope Francis is the most severely condemnatory and judgmental man to occupy the See of Peter in living memory. I guess it’s okay because he’s only judging the “Pharisees”?
I am so sick of the thesis that the 1st person plural has “curiously out of favor in recent papal teachings”. The truth is that it has fallen into disfavor in vernacular languages, but NOT in the Latin texts. EVERY Latin text still uses it. For instance, Laudato Si still uses it, as is evident here the Latin Text available here: http://w2.vatican.va/content/francesco/la/encyclicals/documents/papa-francesco_20150524_enciclica-laudato-si.html
You will find that the first person verbs end in -mus, oftentimes with a capitalized Nos (which distinguishes it from the communal nos, such as here from paragraph 3: Nunc coram universali vastatione orbis terrarum, singulis personis terram incolentibus dirigere Nos volumus. Nostra in Adhortatione apostolica Evangelii gaudium Ecclesiae participibus scripsimus, ut processus concitetur missionalis adhuc complendae reformationis. Litteras per has encyclicas potissimum cum omnibus de nostra communi domo dialogum instituere cupimus.
My translation: “Now, faced with the ravishing of the whole orb of lands, We wish to direct Ourself to every single person living on the earth. In Our Apostolic Exhortation Evangelii Gaudium We wrote to participants in the Church to spur on the process of ongoing missionary renewal. Through these letters especially, We wish to institute a dialog with all people concerning our common home.
You are correct that the ‘nos’ in 243 is indicated to be a communal ‘nos’ but its lack of capitalization:
” Denique nos conveniemus facie ad faciem infinitam Dei pulchritudinem”
Thank you for pointing that out, Joseph, but it only underscores the point: even despite the Latin originals, there is a conscious and systematic choice to suppress the papal “We” in the languages in which the teachings are actually received by the faithful! By analogy, while the papacy has not renounced (because it cannot renounce) the authority symbolized by the triple tiara, it has, AS A PHENOMENOLOGICAL REALITY, consciously suppressed the expression of that authority in the eyes of the world.
It’s well and good that erudite theologians can comfort themselves with the Latin, but my point is that the voice of the Church AS HEARD BY 99% OF THE SHEEP consciously and systematically omits the papal We. To wit, I was writing about the audience of Francis’s universalism, not about the grammar that the Latin translation may take.
Didn’t de Chardin write in his autobiography that he got all his best ideas from a demon?