Sidebar
Browse Our Articles & Podcasts

Teilhard de Chardin: The Vatican II Architect You Need to Know

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.). Some sought to substitute homoiousios, “of a similar nature,” to find a peaceful solution. However, as the Catholic Church has perennially taught, the truth must be presented whole and complete, without subterfuge or compromise.

In the mid-twentieth century, one may have paraphrased St. Jerome: “the world awoke, without so much as a whimper, to find itself Teilhardian.”

Still troubled by the Galileo affair, the Church bent over backwards in trying to incorporate faith and science into a seamless garment. Following the 1925 Scopes Trial, Darwin’s theory of evolution was more and more presented as dogma by the scientific community, and Fr. Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, S.J. (1881-1955) took it upon himself to reconcile Darwinian evolution and Catholic theology [i].

In fact, Teilhard was originally censured and exiled by his Jesuit superiors in 1923 for questioning the doctrines of original sin and eternal damnation. 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. 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” [ii]. 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.”

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. 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:

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. [iii]

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):

Deus … 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. (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.)

Teilhard’s “God,” the “soul of the world,” is identical with nature and consequently subject to change. As Teilhard explains it in his book Human Energy:

As a direct consequence of the unitive process by which God is revealed to us, he in some way ‘transforms himself’ as he incorporates us. … I see in the World a mysterious product of completion and fulfillment for the Absolute Being himself. [iv]

And, again:

[God] evolves, via “complexification” and “convergence” to his own perfection, immersed in matter. … 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[.] … [I]n a concrete sense there is not matter and spirit, all that exists is matter becoming spirit [God]. [v]

One must note that in Teilhard’s writing there is hardly any mention of purely spiritual beings or entities within the existing cosmos. There is virtually no mention of angels or demons, no Satan, no St. Michael, no guardian angels, nor is there much mention of particular judgment or the existence of Hell.**

Teilhard’s “God” is no more nor less than the “god” of Pantheism as described (and rejected) by St. Pius IX in his allocution Maxima Quidem, June 9, 1862:

There exists no Supreme Being, perfect in His wisdom and in His providence and distinct, all things are God and have the very substance of God. God is thus one and the same thing as the world and consequently spirit is identified with matter, necessity with liberty, truth with falsehood, good with evil and justice with injustice[.]

Teilhard, through his denial of original sin and of the consequent need for redemption, tried to inject Christ into his pantheism by naming him the “Cosmic Christ” or the “Alpha” and “Omega” of revelation. Christ is an emanation of God infused into matter from the beginning, evolving, was born into this world, died, rose from the dead, and ascended – not to heaven, but to the “noosphere,” a spiritual level encircling the earth, where all spirits contained in matter will eventually converge at the “Omega Point,” where Christ awaits us, guiding us on with “unconditional love.” At the “Omega Point,” we, and the entire cosmos, down to the lowliest atom, will be divinized, and “God” will be “all in all” [vi]. The quote was selectively picked from St. Paul’s first letter to the Corinthians 15:28. Whether this “all in all” will be totally spiritual, as in Buddhism and other Eastern religions with which it shares similarities, or whether, as others affirm, humans, alive at the end of time, the “Omega Point,” will become “transhuman,” filled with the transformative knowledge of the “noosphere” (some even citing the internet), is unclear in the writings of Teilhard.

As for Teilhard, the problem of evil is not due to angelic or human malice, but is an inevitable side-effect of the evolutionary process: “In our modern perspective of a Universe in a process of cosmogenesis, the problem of evil no longer exists.” The “Multiple” is “essentially subject to the play of probabilities of chance in its arrangements.” It is “absolutely unable to progress toward unity without engendering [evil] here or there by statistical necessity” [vii]. It appears, then, that there is no room for error or sin, as all is inevitably evolving toward the “Omega Point” drawn on by the infinite love of Christ.

In fact, for Teilhard, the Mystical Body of Christ “forms a cosmic Center for mankind and the whole material universe” [viii]. This insight he claims to have found in St. Paul. The passage – “You … are Christ’s Body[;] … each of you is a different part of it” (I Cor. 12:27) – reveals humanity in its varying functions to be the mystical Body. This is a misreading of St. Paul, who is clearly speaking of the baptized Christian community.

It is just on the part of God and to give relief to you [followers of Christ] who are afflicted and to us as well, when the Lord Jesus will be revealed from heaven with His mighty angels in flaming fire. These [who afflict you now] will be punished with eternal ruin, away from the face of the Lord and the glory of his power[.] (2 Thessalonians 1: 6-8)

It also contradicts the words of Our Lord himself:

I am asking on their behalf; I am not asking on behalf of the world, but on behalf of those whom you gave me, because they are yours. All mine are yours, and yours are mine; and I have been glorified in them. … I have given them your word, and the world has hated them because they do not belong to the world, just as I do not belong to the world. I am not asking you to take them out of the world, but I ask you to protect them from the evil one. They do not belong to the world, just as I do not belong to the world[.] (John 17: 9-16)

For Teilhard, all religions are an attempt to realize this ultimate transformation, led on by the Cosmic Christ, who animates, loves, and awaits all at the Omega Point.

Teilhard does not deny the role of the Church in bringing about his vision of cosmogenesis. In a letter to his friend Auguste Valensin, S.J., he writes:

I believe in the Church, mediatrix between God and the world[.] … The Church, the reflectively christified portion of the world, the Church, the principal focus of interhuman affinities through super-charity, the Church, the central axis of universal convergence and the precise point of contact between the universe and Omega Point. … The Catholic Church, however, must not simply seek to affirm its primacy and authority but quite simply to present the world with the Universal Christ, Christ in human-cosmic dimension, as animator of evolution.

Teilhard, therefore, said:

We must work toward an ecumenism open not only to Christianity, but also to other religions, because all religions of inner necessity converge in the Cosmic Christ and are destined to find their completion in the single Church of Christ.

Having done away with an eternal supernatural order, there is no room for “sanctifying grace” freely bestowed by God, especially through the sacraments (historical Catholic prerequisites to eternal salvation). All that exists is the onward movement of the cosmos toward unity in the Cosmic Christ, who animates and awaits us at the Omega Point.

As to the Eucharist, according to Teilhard, it is by means of the Eucharist that the Church gradually divinizes the world: “Adherence to Christ in the Eucharist must inevitably, ipso facto, incorporate us a little more fully on each occasion in a christogenesis which itself … is none other than the soul of universal cosmogenesis.”

Teilhard de Chardin’s “Mass on the (Altar of the) World“:

Since once again, Lord … I have neither bread, nor wine, nor altar, I will raise myself beyond these symbols, up to the pure majesty of the real itself; I, your priest, will make the whole world my altar and on it will offer you all the labors and sufferings of the world[.] … I will place on my paten, O God, the harvest to be won by this renewal of labor. Into my chalice I shall pour all the sap which is to be pressed out this day from the earth’s fruits[.] … My chalice and my paten are the depths of a soul laid widely open to all the forces which in a moment will rise up from every corner of the earth and converge upon the Spirit. Grant me the remembrance and the mystic presence of all those whom the light is now awakening to a new day[.] … I call before me the whole vast anonymous army of living humanity; those … who, … through their vision of truth or despite their error, truly believe in the progress of earthly reality and who today will again take up their impassioned pursuit of the light[.] … This is the material of my sacrifice, the only material you desire[.] …  Receive, O Lord, this all-embracing host which your whole creation, moved by your magnetism, offers you at this dawn of a new day.

In Teilhard’s “Mass,” there is no mention of Christ’s propitiatory death on the cross for the salvation of souls, nor of Transubstantiation [ix] of the Eucharistic Species into the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ. Rather, this is an offering of all trials and works of humanity to build a future divinized common earthly reality.

Given this brief summary, it should be clear that Teilhard’s “new and better Christianity” is a paean to Darwinian evolution raised to the level of universal theosis and has little or nothing in common with traditional Catholic Christology.

It is therefore not surprising that, at the opening of the Second Vatican Council, the Holy Office, under the pontificate of Pope John XXIII, issued the following “monitum” (warning):

Several works of Fr. Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, some of which were posthumously published, are being edited and are gaining a good deal of success. Prescinding from a judgment about those points that concern the positive sciences, it is sufficiently clear that the above-mentioned works abound in such ambiguities and indeed even serious errors, as to offend Catholic doctrine[.] (Given at Rome, from the palace of the Holy Office, on the thirtieth day of June, 1962. Sebastianus Masala, Notarius.)

It would appear that the case was closed; however, this was not to be. Under the influence of Jesuit periti (counselors), especially Henri de Lubac and Hans Urs von Balthasar, the Teilhardian vision re-emerged [x]. Pope Paul VI tentatively wrote in a 1966 address contained in Insegnimenti di Paulo VI, the official compilation of his thought: “Teilhard de Chardin, who gave an explanation of the universe that, among many fantastic and imprudent things, nonetheless understood how to find the intelligent principle that one should call God inside everything. Science itself, therefore, obliges us to be religious. Whoever is intelligent must kneel and say: ‘God is present here’” [xi].

The real revolution, according to Archbishop Vincenzo Paglia, the present head of the Pontifical Academy for Life, began with Pope John Paul II and his letter to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences on 22 October 1996, when he affirmed:

[S]ome new findings lead us toward the recognition of evolution as more than an hypothesis. In fact it is remarkable that this theory has had progressively greater influence on the spirit of researchers, following a series of discoveries in different scholarly disciplines. The convergence in the results of these independent studies – which was neither planned nor sought – constitutes in itself a significant argument in favor of the theory.

On May 12, 1981, the centenary of Teilhard’s birth, cardinal secretary of state Agostino Casaroli wrote to Cardinal Poupard, rector of the Catholic Institute of Paris, as follows:

The international scientific community and, more broadly, the whole intellectual world, are preparing to celebrate the centenary of the birth of Father Pierre Teilhard de Chardin. … I am happy, Your Excellency, to communicate this message to you on behalf of the Holy Father [Pope John Paul II] for all the participants in the conference over which you preside at the Catholic Institute of Paris as a tribute to Father Teilhard de Chardin, and I assure you of my faithful devotion.

The Vatican Press Office, however, two months later, reaffirmed the monitum, which remains in effect.

Communiqué of the Press Office of the Holy See (printed in L’Osservatore Romano, English ed., July 20, 1981):

The letter sent by the Cardinal Secretary of State to His Excellency Mons. Poupard on the occasion of the centenary of the birth of Fr. Teilhard de Chardin has been interpreted in a certain section of the press as a revision of previous stands taken by the Holy See in regard to this author, and in particular of the Monitum of the Holy Office of 30 June 1962, which pointed out that the work of the author contained ambiguities and grave doctrinal errors. The question has been asked whether such an interpretation is well founded.

After having consulted the Cardinal Secretary of State and the Cardinal Prefect of the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, which, by order of the Holy Father, had been duly consulted beforehand, about the letter in question, we are in a position to reply in the negative.

H.H. John Paul II, echoing Teilhard’s “Mass on the Altar of the World,” continued in his praise of Teilhard:

The Eucharist is also celebrated in order to offer “on the altar of the whole earth the world’s work and suffering” in the beautiful words of Teilhard de Chardin. [xii]

The praise was continued by Cardinal Ratzinger, who said in is Principles of Catholic Theology:

The impetus given by Teilhard de Chardin exerted a wide influence [on the Council]. With daring vision it incorporated the historical movements of Christianity into the great cosmic process of evolution from Alpha to Omega. … The Council’s ‘Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the Modern World’ (Gaudium et Spes) took the cue; Teilhard’s slogan “Christianity means more progress, more technology,” became a stimulus in which the Council Fathers from rich and poor countries alike found a concrete hope. [xiii]

And again, from his Spirit of the Liturgy (emphasis added):

Against the background of the modern evolutionary world view, Teilhard depicted the cosmos as a process of ascent, a series of unions. … From here Teilhard went on to give new meaning to Christian worship: the transubstantiated Host is the anticipation of the transformation and divinization of matter in the Christological “fullness.” In his view, the Eucharist provided the movement of the cosmos with its direction; it anticipates its goal and at the same time urges it on. [xiv]

Pope Benedict also reaffirmed his praise of Teilhard on July 24, 2009, during the vespers service in the Cathedral of Aosta in northern Italy, as reported by John Allen (emphasis added):

Toward the end of a reflection upon the Letter to the Romans, in which St. Paul writes that the world itself will one day become a form of living worship, Pope Benedict said: “It’s the great vision that later Teilhard de Chardin also had: At the end we will have a true cosmic liturgy, where the cosmos becomes a living host. Let’s pray to the Lord that he help us be priests in this sense,” the pope said, “to help in the transformation of the world in adoration of God, beginning with ourselves.”

To confirm the shift from traditional Catholic theology to Teilhard’s “new and better Christianity” in July of 2009, Vatican spokesman Fr. Federico Lombardi, S.J. said, “By now, no one would dream of saying that [Teilhard] is a heterodox author who shouldn’t be studied.”

The current holy father, Pope Francis, as a product of Jesuit education, refers to Teilhard’s eschatological contribution in his encyclical Laudato Si in paragraph 83 (footnote 53):

83. The ultimate destiny of the universe is in the fullness of God, which has already been attained by the risen Christ, the measure of the maturity of all things [53]. Here we can add yet another argument for rejecting every tyrannical and irresponsible domination of human beings over other creatures. The ultimate purpose of other creatures is not to be found in us. Rather, all creatures are moving forward with us and through us towards a common point of arrival, which is God, in that transcendent fullness where the risen Christ embraces and illumines all things.

In footnote 53 of the encyclical, the pope makes a clear reference to the statements of previous conciliar popes cited above:

Against this horizon we can set the contribution of Fr Teilhard de Chardin; cf. PAUL VI, Address in a Chemical and Pharmaceutical Plant (24 February 1966): Insegnamenti 4 (1966), 992-993; JOHN PAUL II, Letter to the Reverend George Coyne (1 June 1988): Insegnamenti 11/2 (1988), 1715; BENEDICT XVI, Homily for the Celebration of Vespers in Aosta (24 July 2009): Insegnamenti 5/2 (2009), 60.

We see here Pope Francis’s reliance on Teilhard and his vision of the “Cosmic Christ” drawing all, regardless of religious affiliation, nationality – in fact, all living creatures, and even inert matter, which contains rudimentary “Spirit” – to be Christified at the end of time, or the “Omega Point” of evolution. It explains his fascination with ecology as well as the tearing down of all walls, both political (including the end of nationalism and amalgamation via mass immigration) and religious (via ecumenism): “Proselytism is solemn nonsense.” “Luther’s intention 500 years ago was to renew the Church, not divide her.” As Teilhard expounded in Human Energy, “[t]he age of nations has passed. Now, unless we wish to perish, we must shake off our old prejudices and build the earth” [xv].

The evolutionary theories of Teilhard help explain some of the current holy father’s most puzzling statements. In a March 15, 2015 interview, Eugenio Scalfari, the famed atheist reporter, quotes (from memory) as follows: “What happens to that lost soul? Will it be punished? And how? The response of Francis is distinct and clear: there is no punishment, but the annihilation of that soul. All the others will participate in the beatitude of living in the presence of the Father. The souls that are annihilated will not take part in that banquet; with the death of the body their journey is finished.” This interview was first published on the Vatican website but then removed. When questioned, Vatican spokesman Fr. Thomas Rosica did not deny the conversation, but said, “They were private discussions that took place and were never recorded by the journalist.”

These sentiments were reiterated on October 9 of this year, 2017, in an article published by the Italian newspaper La Repubblica, once again quoting Eugenio Scalfari:

Pope Francis has abolished the places where souls were supposed to go after death: hell, purgatory, heaven. The idea he holds is that souls dominated by evil and unrepentant cease to exist, while those that have been redeemed from evil will be taken up into beatitude, contemplating God. … The universal judgment that is in the tradition of the Church therefore becomes devoid of meaning. It remains a simple pretext that has given rise to splendid paintings in the history of art. Nothing other than this.

To understand, perhaps, some of Pope Francis’s reticence to clarify passages of Amoris Laetitia, one must recall that neither original sin nor traditional mortal sins exist in Teilhard’s worldview – only infinite mutations or variants in the evolutionary process moved by the unconditional love of the “Cosmic Christ.” Some of the pope’s statements include the following, emphasizing that all who live in loving relationships share, to some degree, in the all-encompassing love of Christ:

The unmarried. “I’ve seen a lot of fidelity in these cohabitations, and I am sure that this is a real marriage, they have the grace of a real marriage because of their fidelity[.]”

The sacramentally married. “[A] great majority” of Catholic marriages are “null.”

The so-called “remarried.” Priests could – in some cases – offer the “help of sacraments” to Catholics living in “irregular family situations” as part of a broader effort to support and integrate divorced Catholics in other relationships into the life of the church.

Homosexuals. “Who am I to judge?”

Further evidence of the underlying Teilhardian influence on Amoris Laetitia are found in the words of Cardinal Christoph Schönborn, archbishop of Vienna, Austria, whom Pope Francis named official interpreter of Amoris Laetitia:

Hardly anyone else has tried to bring together the knowl­edge of Christ and the idea of evolution as the scientist (paleontologist) and theologian Fr. Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, S.J., has done. … His fascinating vision has remained controversial, and yet for many it has represented a great hope, the hope that faith in Christ and a scientific approach to the world can be brought together. … These brief references to Teilhard cannot do justice to his efforts. The fascination which Teilhard de Chardin exercised for an entire generation stemmed from his radical manner of looking at science and Christian faith together.

It should be remembered that on October 11, 2016, the weekly bulletin of Cardinal Schönborn’s cathedral in Vienna published, with pictures, a glowing profile of a same-sex couple and their adopted son, titled “we are dads.”

While all the confusion existing in the modern Church cannot be fully laid at his feet [xvi], Fr. Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, S.J. and his Jesuit confrères, with their “new and better Christianity,” have unfortunately deracinated Holy Mother Church, replacing the worship of the eternal God with the worship of man and creation.

Finally, it is worth mentioning: while there is no direct evidence linking Fr. Teilhard to Freemasonry, their goal is the same: the deification of man. In the words of Manly P. Hall in his Lost Keys of Freemasonry:

Man is a God in the making. … The true Mason is not creed-bound. He realizes with the divine illumination of his lodge that as a Mason his religion must be universal: Christ, Buddha or Mohammed, the name means little, for he recognizes only the light and not the bearer. He worships at every shrine, bows before every altar, whether in temple, mosque or cathedral, realizing with his truer understanding the oneness of all spiritual truth. It is relevant that Teilhard’s works are read and quoted in the lodges. [xvii]


*Editor’s note:  after we received this essay for publication, the news broke at Vatican Insider that the “Plenary Assembly of the Pontifical Council for Culture largely approved a proposal to be sent to Pope Francis, asking him to contemplate whether it is possible to remove the Monitum of the Holy Congregation of the Holy Office on the works of Father Pierre Teilhard de Chardin”. The petition, according to Vatican Insider, was approved on Saturday, November 18, 2017, “during the work of the Assembly on ‘The Future of Humanity: New Challenges to Anthropology’.” Further:

The proposal, as raised by the online newspaper Sir , is thus motivated: “We believe that such an act would not only restore the genuine efforts of the pious Jesuit in an attempt to reconcile the scientific vision of the universe with Christian eschatology but would also represent a formidable stimulus for all theologians and scientists of good will to collaborate in the construction of a Christian anthropological model which, following the directions of the encyclical Laudato Siis naturally placed in the wonderful plot of the cosmos. “

Pope Francis is expected to receive the proposal for consideration soon, if not already. As of this writing, no decision has been announced.

NOTES:

[i] It should be mentioned here that a contemporary of Teilhard, Fr. Georges Lemaître, a renowned physicist and the postulator of the “Big Bang” theory, advised Pope Pius XII not to mention his discovery as proof of the doctrine of creation “ex nihilo,” as scientific knowledge, which is refined and always growing and changing and should not be used in defense of the Faith, which is unchanging.

[ii] Henri Cardinal de Lubac, S.J., The Religion of Teilhard de Chardin (New York: Image Books (1967). De Lubac is generally considered the main influence on the Vatican II document The Church in the Modern World (Gaudium et spes). De Lubac, himself first censured by Pope Pius XII, went on to be named a cardinal by Pope John Paul II in 1983.

[iii] Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, Letters to Léontine Zanta, trans. Bernard Wall (New York: Harper & Row, 1965), 114 (letter dated 26 January 1936).

[iv] Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, The Heart of Matter (New York: Harcourt Brace Jahanovich, 1978), p. 54.

[v] Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, Human Energy (New York: Harcourt Brace Jahanovich, 1969), pp. 57, 58, 162.

[vi] “What we call inorganic matter is certainly animate in its own way[.] … Atoms, electrons, elementary particles … must have a spark of spirit” (Science and Christ, written 1920s, published in English in 1968).

[vii] Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, Comment je vois, Par. 29, Tr. p.39, cit. Jacques Maritain, The Peasant of the Garonne (New York: Holt, Reinhart and Winston, 1968), p. 265.

[viii] Le Coeur de la Matière, (1950), p. 30, cit. “The Body of Christ in the writings of Teilhard de Chardin S.J.,” by Cristopher Moody S.J.

[ix] The Fourth Council of the Lateran in 1215 spoke of the bread and wine as “transubstantiated” into the body and blood of Christ: “His body and blood are truly contained in the sacrament of the altar under the forms of bread and wine, the bread and wine having been transubstantiated, by God’s power, into his body and blood.”

[x] David L. Schindler, Heart of the World, Center of the Church (New York: William B. Erdmans, 1996), footnote 34 on p. 22, exposes von Balthasar’s cautious but fundamental dependence on Teilhard.

[xi] Speech to Employers and Workers of a Pharmacy Company, February 24, 1966, in Insegnamenti di Paolo VI, Poliglotta Vaticana, 1966, pp. 992-993.

[xii] Pope John Paul II, Gift and Mystery, (New York: Image, 1996), p. 73.

[xiii] Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, Principles of Catholic Theology (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1987), p. 334.

[xiv] Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, The Spirit of the Liturgy (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 2000), p. 29.

[xv] Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, Human Energy (New York Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1969), p. 37.

[xvi] See Philip Trower, The Church and the Counter Faith (Oxford: Family Publications, 2006) for a résumé of intellectual currents leading up to Vatican II, or here for an essay on the Jesuit formation of Pope Francis.

[xvii] “The Masonic bishop, priest, or layman will forsake his faith in God and in His Son, Jesus Christ. This may occur slowly but it is inevitable. Sooner or later he will be confronted with the dilemma posed by Monsignor Dillon above. If he remains in the Craft, however, he will lose touch completely with the Divine element in the religion he has secretly betrayed and become preoccupied with the human. He may recite the prayer of the Modernist Jesuit, Teilhard de Chardin, with conviction—

“‘May the Lord preserve in me a burning love for the world, and a great gentleness and may he help me persevere to the end, in the fullness of my humanity.'”

This post has been updated.

** Correction: this article originally claimed that “nowhere in Teilhard’s writing is there to be found any mention of purely spiritual beings or entities within the existing cosmos. There is no mention of angels or demons, no Satan, no St. Michael, no guardian angels, nor is there any mention of particular judgment or the existence of Hell”. It has been brought to our attention by a reader that in fact, there is some mention of these things — though very little, and not in a way that expresses with clarity and firmness the Church’s teaching on these matters — specifically, in Le Milieu Divin, under the subheading ‘The outer darkness and the lost souls,’ (p.140-143.). Nevertheless, we have amended the text accordingly in the interest of correctness and fairness to the late Fr. de Chardin. 

135 thoughts on “Teilhard de Chardin: The Vatican II Architect You Need to Know”

  1. Tielhard imposed physical evolution on the revelation of the Word made Flesh. Essentially repudiating that salvation is only thru obedience to Him and acceptance of His Cross. De Chardin’s “Intus” exemplifies the heresy, his notion that there is an inexorable natural impulse in Mankind and the universe to progressively center itself in God. As if the human will and the absolute need to obey the Commandments are secondary, even negligible. It as author Armstrong indicates corresponds with the secular humanism of Cardinal Kasper of a mutable god who accommodates rather than converts. And Pope Francis who constantly underscores conscientious mitigation of sin due to the human condition urging mercy rather than visible repentance. Using this as his rationale to shift focus away from personal morality to social economic ecological matters: open immigration, poverty described as the fault of Western financial dominance, monetary egalitarianism, global warming.

    Reply
  2. Whatever may be true about the assertions regarding Tielhard in this article, the parts in reference to von Balthasar are sloppy. Hans Urs von Balthasar left the Jesuits in 1950 and was never an eager proponent of Tielhard in the 1950s. Please provide citations. Further, he was never a peritus at Vatican II as stated but was rather virtually ignored at the council. Finally, the footnote from Schindler is a distortion. Von Balthasar was cautious of Tielhard. Full stop. Thanks.

    Reply
    • Indeed, if you want to find the best sources for von Balthasar’s “cosmic christology,” then look at Johann Adam Möhler, John Henry Newman, and Karl Adam — and St. Thomas — all of whom provide the best resources for Vatican II’s most legitimate pronouncements and, yes, development. Teilhard was a speculative genius, but Henri de Lubac is too gracious in his interpretation of him vis-a-vis the doctrine of the Church.

      Reply
    • I stand corrected. No, von Balthasar was not a peritus, but had great influence on Fr. Ratzinger who later referred to von Balthasar as “Theologus probatus” I understand that von Balthasar had serious reservations about Teilhard, butThe Shindler foot note and text on pgs.22 & 23 stand as quoted.

      Reply
  3. de Chardin’s theology is essentially a precursor of the “seamless garment” applied to God’s Creation and the Divine nature. It’s the precursor of Bernardin’s mumbo jumbo. Just as Bernardin’s “seamless garment” of the theology of “life”, seeks to amalgamate all life issues into one integrated whole but in so doing, actually devalues life due to its juxtaposition of the morality of abortion, on the one hand, and access to health care and employment on the other hand, so Teilhard’s theology of Creation actually devalues God and the unique presence of Jesus in the Blessed Sacrament due to its proposal of the “cosmic Christ”, who infuses all of creation. This is the “seamless garment” of matter.

    As an aside, if Scalfari is anywhere close to correct in his recollections of his conversations with Francis regarding the nature of hell and eternal damnation, then we have a slam dunk case for the presence of a formal heretic sitting in the Chair of Peter.

    Reply
    • And let’s ALL ask urselves this question:

      Who do we believe based on what we have seen?

      The accounts placed before us by the Communist atheist Scalfari or the neo-Conservative Pope-defenders?

      Indeed, how many of the latter are left willing to boldly proclaim PF’s “rigid” adherence to orthodoxy?

      Reply
    • Excuse me, KIWI, but do you think this is a cause for impeachment. . . . .?????
      The impeachment of the Vicar of Christ because, you, among 1.4 billion christians, think he is a heretic??

      So I might suggest the next time you are in Rome, you confer with the College of Cardinals at Domus Marta and introduce the idea of impeachment of the . . . .heretic.

      Since the cardinals lead a thankless existence in Rome anyway, they will welcome your spot of humor, and send you off with the blessings of their collected pontification.

      Dominus Vobiscum.

      Reply
  4. de Chardin is credited with introducing a new genre of literature, namely, theology fiction. According to Thomas L.McFadden, it was mystical evolutionary poetry and prose that mesmerized many Catholics with a “seductive merging of the spiritual and the secular”. His writings create havoc with Catholic notions about creation, redemption, sanctification, original and actual sin, evil and grace.
    In his book Dangers to the Faith: Recognizing Catholicoism 21st Century Opponents, Al Kresta explained how Jesuit de Cahrdin contributed to evolutionosm becoming religion for cosmic humanists or new agers.
    Fr. de Chardin`s influnce on the Jesuits` theological and philosophical traditions came, in part, from his reputation as a paleontologist. His reputation was greatly enhanced because of his significant role in what was heralded as the greatest paleontological discovery of all time, namely, the Piltdown Man.

    Piltdown Man was proved to be forgery in 1953.

    Reply
  5. Whenever I hear uncatholic utterances from Jorge Bergoglio, I turn to Teilhard de Chardin for an explanation. Though I am not an intellectual, or rather because of this, I have not once been unable to find it.
    When Bergoglio calls on people to not look behind (while Catholics have always done so, to examine their consciences and to remember sacred vows and Holy Tradition) and to “keep moving forward”, I imagine that he sees the the point omega before him. Evil committed by me happened to me randomly as a necessity within the greater dynamic of matter becoming god. No point dwelling on it.
    When I think that Bergoglio doesn’t care about souls’ salvation, when he preaches false doctrines, and affirms souls in their sins, he really does care about them, because to him every sin belongs to all of us, it happens to individuals randomly, as though in a lottery, in our shared journey to point omega.
    When Bergoglio denies the existence of hell, I see point omega again, where everything is god, therefore there can not be any room for what is not. An evil soul (if Bergoglio believes such a thing at all, which I doubt) simply ceases to exist, as there is nowhere it can go.
    When Bergoglio bashes faithful Catholics mercilessly, because they dare to remind sinners of hell, it is because he really identifies the universe with his god, and sees modernity with all its celebration of sin as a step forward in god’s maturing, in its (Bergoglio’s god is probably a hermaphrodite) progress toward omega, its evolution.

    It is New Age stuff. Bergoglio believes that salvation comes from a collective ascension into unconditional love sphere. Like Alice Bailey, who simply wrote down instructions coming from an ascended master, Bergoglio has no time to waste on “negative energies”. In the larger scheme of things, they should be removed into the darkest corner of the universe, as Bailey’s ascended master instructed. No one will come to the new world order, who does not bow before the positive energy, the enlightened one, the one on our side in the process of shedding the evil Demiurge like a snake sheds his old skin. Bergoglio’s light is Lucifer, the one who took humanity’s side and rebelled against this Demiurge.

    Bergoglio’s orders: “Do not look back, keep moving foreward” should be seen in the context of an expanding and evolving universe, where individual souls are but an erroneous concept, because in reality we are an interdependent collective, we are all one. Without us, there is no god. Bergoglio is in a hurry to annihilate the Catholic Church, because he truly desires to hasten our salvation by helping us understand this,

    Reply
    • Of course, Dag Hammarskjöld, of UN fame, was greatly influenced by both de Chardin and Bailey as was Robert Muller, former Assistant Secretary General of the United Nations…

      Reply
      • Wow. I never new such a Godless facility existed in the Vatican. In my ignorance as to what is going on in the Vatican I supplied Pope Francis, the PAS, PASS and the Vatican observatory scientists with all our documentation for the evidence of God’s punishment for the evils that went on before the flood of Noe – C-14 dating of dinosaur bones and other fossils and the fact that we gave presentations in the Singapore AOGS and San Francisco AGU and the footprints of man, mammals and reptile that “missed the boat.” No wonder our efforts were totally ignored. They have an irrevocable agenda it would seem. Perhaps only God’s intervention could stop it but we as Catholics are required to try somehow.

        But never in my nightmares have I ever dreamed of such a Non-Catholic facility would exist in the Vatican. The Vatican has become a man-centered religion and I would not be at all be surprised to hear that Teilhard de Chardin would be called blessed some day; and eventually raised to sainthood as no doubt will Rene Descartes whose book(s) were placed on the Index in the 17th century . God help us find a way to stop this madness. JMJ

        Reply
  6. God’s gift of intelligence has been used by Satan so very well in those who are merely foolish and given to pleasing the world at large.
    Too much foolishness has sat in that Chair for too long…….too long now!
    Sentimentality, emotionalism, ” fuzzy” thinking has too long plagued recent pontificates.

    If I were to read some of this garbage to my 14 year old daughter, she would think it was ” CRAZY” and not even worthy of the new age movement. She would most likely mutter, ” Bizarre”.

    Reply
  7. Most importantly {and most boringly} in the rehabilitation of de Chardin, the Bergoglian Homoheretics are force-feeding us the notion that the decisions and teachings of the Church before Vatican 2 were wrong, and the teachings after Vatican 2 are right.

    But, mind you…”Church teaching hasn’t changed”…

    This whole situation needs a remedy.

    Cardinal Burke?

    Cardinal Burke??

    Bueller???

    Bueller????

    Reply
    • Almighty God, good Lord! Mother of God, Saint Michael, Saint Eliah, all the Archangels, and Angels, and all the Saints !
      Almighty God, good Lord! Mother of God, Saint Michael, Saint Eliah, all the Archangels, and Angels, and all the Saints !

      Reply
  8. Whether this “all in all” will be totally spiritual, as in Buddhism and other Eastern religions with which it shares similarities, or whether, as others affirm, humans, alive at the end of time, the “Omega Point,” will become “transhuman,” filled with the transformative knowledge of the “noosphere” (some even citing the internet), is unclear in the writings of Teilhard.

    Transhumanism seems to be the mode in which this Antichrist is emerging. Call it the Omega Point or the Singularity, the convergence of humanity and technology to produce an artificial life form that obliterates the image of God in man, and substitutes for it a diabolical megalomania, is apparent, and it particularly evident in that vanguard movement of LGBT-Sexual Transhumanism. See a penetrating article on this subject at the link below:

    http://www.crisismagazine.com/2017/sexual-liberation-emergence-transhumanism

    And remember also the robots that are more and more resembling human beings and even “expressing” human desires…

    Holy Family, pray for us! Guardian Angels, be ever at our side.

    Reply
    • Sphinx and satyr, man has always had a fascination with creation, or rather, anti-creation, that is, the playing of God.

      And since God now holds a solid 2nd Place in the doctrine of Bergoglio EG 161}, why should Bergoglians be hindered in their search for knowledge by such notions as “species”?

      Sometimes when I am feeling really charitable I like to think that Bergoglio hasn’t a clue what he is doing and is merely unintentionally “making a mess”.

      Reply
  9. You make Teilhard de Chardin sound like a thorough-going heretic, and imply something similar about both the Society of Jesus and the Second Vatican Ecumenical Council!

    Oh. Hang on…

    Reply
  10. Excellent exposé! Hans Urs von Balthasar, Pope John Paul II, and Pope Benedict XVI! Wow! Guess I knew that Balthasar was OK with some of Teilhard de Chardin, but depended on him? And popes we liked? Shocking! The reflections in the article seem to explain a lot about Pope Francis. Truly, de Chardin seems a type of the Antichrist and we seem to be in the time of the great apostasy and deception…

    Reply
  11. Splendid piece of reporting that clarifies much of what we are aeeing today above all the abolition of the very concept of sin and its recasting as an artefact of cosmogenesis and the consequencial obsolescence of the sacraments. A random act of sodomy is as holy as an act of martyrdom. Probably more.

    Reply
  12. H Reed Armstrong’s article on Fr Pierre Teilhard de Chardin is mistaken when he categorically states: ‘One must note that nowhere in Teilhard’s writing is there to be found any mention of purely spiritual beings or entities within the existing cosmos. There is no mention of angels or demons, no Satan, no St. Michael, no guardian angels, nor is there any mention of particular judgment or the existence of Hell.’ Fr Teilhard de Chardin explicitly writes about judgment, hell and demons in Le Milieu Divin, ‘The outer darkness and the lost souls, p.140-143. If H Reed Armstrong is wrong about this, what else is he wrong about in his critique of Fr Teilhard de Chardin?

    Reply
    • The reference in the Divine Milieu (p146-148 in my copy) to sin and judgment is not all that clear. Those who do not adhere to the evolving spirit of Christ will not reach unity in Christ, but be sidelined but not damned. Teilhard goes on to propose that “We are taught that hell exists, but do not have to believe that anyone is there.

      Reply
      • You made a categorical assertion that Fr Teilhard de Chardin made no mention of hell, demons or judgement. Now you admit he does mention hell. The copy I’m using is the 1957 hardback Collins translation. Page 140 contains the sub-title ‘The outer darkness and the lost souls. He refers to the Gospel account of judgement, ‘But there are also the tares, the goats, the left hand of the Judge, the closed door, the outer darkness.’ (p.140). He also refers to the ‘The powers of evil, in the universe, are not only an attraction, a deviation, a minus sign, an annihilating return to plurality..Evil has become incarnate in them, has been ‘substantialised’ in them. And now I am surrounded by dark presences, by evil being. by malign things…That separated who constitutes a definitive loss, an immortal wastage from the genesis of the world. There is not only nether darkness; there is also outer darkness. That is what the Gospel tells us’. P.141

        Fr Teilhard goes on:

        ‘You have told me, O God, to believe in hell. But You have forbidden me to hold with absolute certainty that any single man has been damned. I shall therefore make no attempt to consider the damned here, nor even to discover — by whatever means — whether there are any. I shall accept the existence of hell on Your word, as a structural element in the universe…p.141

        He couldn’t be more explicit about the existence of hell and demons. Also Fr Teilhard is correct when he writes that the Church has never declared that any single man has been damned. She never has. Just in this single work Fr Teilhard de Chardin refers to hell, demons and the damned. He also refers to the Gospel accounts of judgement. Please correct your misrepresentation that Fr Teilhard on these points.

        Reply
        • “The Church has never declared that any single man has been damned” I’m sure that’s right, if “single” is read as “specific”. (I’m not sure about Judas, but I’m happy to take your word for it.) Has the Church taught definitively about whether some unspecified men have been; that is, that Hell is not empty?

          Reply
          • REV 21:8
            But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, they shall have their portion in the pool burning with fire and brimstone, which is the second death.

            MATT 6:12
            But the children of the kingdom shall be cast out into the exterior darkness: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.

            Douay-Rheims Bible

            Our Lord has told us….

          • The St Michael Prayer……”and all the evil spirits
            who roam throughout the world seeking the ruin of souls.”

            These evil spirits ARE people who are damned and devoid of any love or sympathy. They swarm this world
            as minions of Satan seeking great damage and oppression to souls.
            They are in Hell but are free to fly until the great Judgement.
            They are full of hate and rage and rejected GOD.

          • Good catch!

            What’s the use of a 4 lane highway where there is no traffic?

            The whole modernist self-massaging feel-good rubbish about “the Church has never taught anyone is in hell” is so transparent and so ridiculous.

        • Thanks for exposing the inadequacies of this article, which there are some.

          However, is not part of the problem with de Chardin that his use of tradtional terms cannot always be reconciled with traditional definitions of those terms? That is, so much so that one might even suggest he is actually referring to something else?

          Also, and forgive the quick grab from catholic.com, but the whole “Church never said there is anyone in hell” business might be something that can be technically true, since the Church has never damned anyone, but the existence of hell and the threat thereof is not something that has ever been denied, at least not by those who teach orthodox doctrine.

          Jesus of course has quite a bit to say about hell, and going quite a ways back, say, to Origen, those who had a big problem with the notion of hell found that the Church had a big problem with them.

          Just for those who aren’t aware, here’s a bit to get started on.

          https://www.catholic.com/magazine/online-edition/what-is-hell

          Reply
          • I think the Church’s teaching has always been, only God can assign a soul to hell. The Church doesn’t say there is no one there, which would contradict Our Lord and the revelation of the Blessed Mother at Fatima, but simply we don’t know who is there.

          • Precisely! It is extremely important to say such, and all other important things in a proper way.
            Of course Hell exist, and it is for sure everything but empty!
            We just must never think that we are allowed to know with certainty,- who, which persons are in the Hell?
            But those deceivers, as Chardin, and all others similar to him, all that bunch of the same,- with the new age ‘spiritualism’ indoctrinated stubborn heads, inhaled by poison of false spirit, all of them are always using the very same tactic; vagueness & obscurity!
            When we read this very sentence written by Chardin: “…But You have forbidden me to hold with absolute certainty that any single man has been damned…”
            How can we not see his very clear intention to falsified even the words of God himself?!
            “…that any single man has been damned…”
            is something totally different, diametrical opposite of the truth that our Lord trough the Holy Spirit and his Holy Church taught us for 2 millennia long:
            Namely, we should never take for sure: “that one certain man has been damned” !
            When one puts the term “any single man” in a negative sense in a sentence, then is he actually saying “no single man”.

            Furthermore, Chardin goes with his own ‘statement’: “I shall accept the existence of hell on Your word, as a structural element in the universe…” (p.141), – which reveals his true thought, indoctrinated by the new age-isme. That false, untrue gospel, where the Hell then, is only one part of the universe, which is (he hopes) most probably empty(!), or at least filled only by the daemons.

            But no one must be surprised. Chardin spent too much time among the taoists and buddhists after his exile, in China. We should know that he was there not for the purpose of proselytizing.

            One can take in account many, especially jesuits, who were indoctrinated by the far-east new age-isme, that poison which is the guideline of the false teaching known as “liberation theology”.
            Another sadly similar case is a dutch priest, the jesuit Henri J.M. Nouwen, who was also for a long time inhaled the same false spirit. In one of his ‘wonderfully healing” works and books, he said literally: “I dare to say that I believe that Hell must be an empty space.”

          • Ivan Mi je Ime. . . ..

            “For we know that when the tent we live in on earth is folded up, there is a house built by G-d for us, an everlasting home not made by human hands, in the heavens.” -2 COR. 5:1-2

            I hope that you will remember Jesus descent into Hell after his death on the Cross. In completing that act, he freed the souls of all those faithful believers of the ancient world who
            had sinned but retained their faith in G-d. By that same token, Teilhard De Chardin acknowledges his human frailty by asking, in prayer, that he accepts, BY FAITH, the Lord’s word on the existence of Hell. He has opened up his mind to that possibility that ‘NO SINGLE MAN HAS BEEN DAMNED”

            Jesus himself said, “With God, all things are possible.” And if you are not allowing the fullest breadth of this maxim to sink in, then you have already closed your mind to those aspects which De Chardin remained open to, and continued to explore in their deepest meanings.

            Consider this: when a heavy photon is released from earth’s gravity, it ultimately is attracted to the solar body (the human understanding of HELL) where it may spend the next 150,000 years until it is fused again with hydrogen and helium to become a photon of light -released to bring the spark of life to earth’s species.

            Isn’t that exactly what Jesus did in his ‘descent into Hell??’

          • Leoncefalo, …
            Nice try, but you should know. You must know this:
            “With God, all things are possible.”
            Yes, of course. But all the things which are according His own will, what pleases God, not man or man’s wishes!

            All those who keep trying to ‘explain’ others what God’s will ‘possibly’ should or may be, when they are doing that on their own reasoning which is diametrical contrary to teaching of the Gospel, the Church, and Church fathers through the centuries, may easily and very often rightly be considered as heretics.

            You blame me, that I am not, as you said “allowing the fullest breadth of this maxim to sink in,…” – But I say to you, that’s a day-dreaming. And it is a great danger for the soul, to think that a man with his manly mind can even think, let alone understand, which things and when must be for God possible. Or better to say, which impossible things God will make possible, because one man or few people have their own wishes or ideas about something.

            If there, are still people who think there is no Hell, or it is, but must or should in the future be empty, they should listen to the words from our Lord Himself, the known story which goes about the beggar Lazarus and the rich man (Lucas 16).
            Besides! How all those people who so ardently desire that Hell is, or must be empty, cannot see such great danger in such wrongly thoughts, because then must the God’s teaching, God’s Law and God’s commandments, and even the redemptive sacrifice on the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ,- all of that must be nothing and for nothing!

        • I cannot speak for what you have declared, and perhaps you are correct, there are some mishaps in the article by this gentlemen. However, let us not use a microscope to forget the magnification of this somewhat disturbed and dangerous theologian/ scientist, Fr. Teilhard.

          Teilhard de Chardin: A False Prophet
          From: Trojan Horse in the City of God,
          by Dietrich von Hildebrand
          (Franciscan Herald Press, Chicago, Illinois, 1967.
          Sophia Institute P

          Critique of Fr. Teilhard de Chardin by Dr. Dietrich von …
          http://www.absoluteprimacyofchrist.org/critique-of-fr-teilhard-de..

          Reply
          • Thank you very much for this very clear exposition by Dr. von Hildebrand. de Chardin was a charlatan and the more his writings appear the easier it is to see how crazy he was. That so many so-called learned men (including the past four Popes) were fooled into thinking de Chardin had something wonderful to say, is amazing.

            So this is how Pope Francis got where he is in his muddled thinking.

          • Well, Pope Francis didn’t get to where he is today, without a lot of help.
            So many clerics, as they rise in the hierarchy are so seduced by self importance, adulation and of course, wanting to be seen as intelligent, progressive, and liked by many.

            I have been praying to pray for him…….and I do now. It does require discipline on my part, but I do so willingly.
            Thank you for your ” nudging” to remind me, that as a Catholic, it is also my duty.

        • I stand corrected. There is indeed this one, and perhaps other mentions of Hell in the work of Theilhard. I do not see, however, any mention of spiritual beings in contradiction to his dictum that: “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[.] … [I]n a concrete sense there is not matter and spirit, all that exists is matter becoming spirit [God]. [v] (Human Energy, 1969. I apologize for my lack of scholarship in not finding the reference to Hell. If you find any reference to angelic beings; Satan, Lucifer, Michael, please let me know. I am, however, not the only one to have missed the citation from The Divine Milieu.(See below) . The rest of my affirmations are documented in the end notes, I hope you are satisfied with my admission of guilt.

          https://msgrfoy.com/2014/01/03/teilhard-de-chardin-arch-heretic-by-monsignor-vincent-foy/

          Reply
    • While Mr. Armstrong’s article may explain a great deal, and I thank him for that, I cannot be silent about Popes Benedict, John Paul II, and Paul VI. If I have understood the author’s work correctly, the few references made by these popes, that on the surface at least, seem to be positive toward de Chardin, is that enough to conclude that they had all fallen to de Chardin’s errors as so many fell to Arias? While the citations to de Chardin suggest trouble for the Catholic faithful, in light of so many good works by each of these popes, is it reasonable to assume they were led astray? Even if I do not like the art of a “Van Gough”, or the morality of a great professional athlete, I might still find somewhere in them inspiration for some of my own efforts and yet not be a “disciple” of theirs. Considering the many good works of these popes, could not their references to de Chardin, rather than be adulation, simply be recognition that de Chardin thought some things well? Oh, I am not suggesting to rehabilitate de Chardin based on some good points he may have had, but only to ask: ought we not look more broadly at the lives lived well by these popes who did serve us with all they had before likening them to Arians?

      Reply
  13. Teilhard’s work is basically Spinoza’s Ethics dressed up in language that sounds both more religious and less coherent.

    I hope this article will help people (finally) see that the current Pope’s thinking is *directly* in line with his two predecessors, not a break from them.

    Reply
  14. Furthermore, Fr Teilhard de Chardin writes about the reality of the loss of the damned, and mortal sin in his essay, Cosmic Life, Writings in Time of War, p.69. Henri Cardinal de Lubac writes that Fr Teilhard de Chardin was not afraid to preach hell fire ‘in the plainest and most vigorous terms’. The Religion of Teilhard de Chardin, p.119. As I wrote in a previous post, if Reed Armstrong has misrepresented Fr Teilhard de Chardin about this, what else has he misrepresented?

    Reply
    • By all means, post up what you can regarding the problems with this article.

      In all sincerity, also post up why a man who’s positions were condemned by the Church is now being rehabilitated…or even can be.

      Reply
    • I’m afraid I would not listen to de Lubac about anything or anybody. Why do you quote him in reference to de Chardin? There is a terrific link in the footnotes to a long expose of de Chardin’s nonsense by von Hildebrand that should clear things up.

      It’s not without the realm of possibility that the author of the article has left out some of de Chardin’s contradictory statements, but on the whole he’s done a great service – just making de Chardin’s writings speak for themselves. The man was a fraud as a scientist and a heretic. His dirty fingerprints are all over Bishops, Cardinals and the Pope.

      Reply
    • Yes, Theilard does mention hell as a corollary to heaven in this early essay written when he was a a young stretcher bearer in the First World War. He had not yet developed fully his theory of cosmogenisis. – “There is only matter turning into spirit.” As to what else have I misrepresented, please check the citations in my end notes. if you find any anomalies, please advise me.

      Reply
    • I suspect Steve will weigh in here at some point.

      I agree the Deacon’s questions warrant a response by the author.

      Also, worthy of an entire article might be the process by which the writings of de Chardin could undergo a transformation from condemnation by the Church in the past to praise by some leaders in the Church today.

      I mean, it’s not surprising, but it is certainly an interesting development. Fits in to so much else we see these days.

      Reply
      • It’s all mostly baloney steered in part by an intellect hijacked by demonic whispers
        to “break out” of the crushing reality of our pitiful state as fallen creatures who must carry their CROSS
        and adopt a humble and simple mindset in obedience to the revealed truths of our Catholic Faith.

        Even if we manage by “accident of thought” to pierce through a little more of the Divine Mysteries we have
        no capacity to articulate with common language what it is we “feel” may be truthful with regard to such Mysteries.

        Reply
    • Please check my responses to Deacon Donnelley that brings up two obscure references that I had missed.. The quotes I have given are fully documented in the end notes. It is a known adversarial tactic to point out an insignificant error to impugn an otherwise well documented argument.

      Reply
      • Try my points made below.

        I think you made a pretty sweeping statement and he was right to call you out on it, but in defense of your technically-wrong statement, de Chardin’s “demons”, “hell” and “judgment” are best framed in sneer quotes…

        Reply
      • Agreed. This article goes a long way towards explaining who de Chardin was, and why his convoluted amalgamation of Christian terminology with discredited evolutionary hypotheses is so pernicious–which is all that one article could reasonably be expected to accomplish. The piece is not meant to be a comprehensive overview, nor could it be.

        Additionally, I don’t think we should be too ready to grant that de Chardin, while mentioning Hell, simultaneously acknowledged its existence. What he means by the word, and what God means, could be two very different things. Indeed, couched in the larger context of his thought, the very the concept of eternal damnation disappears. Mein Kampf is strewn with references to “the work of the Lord.” Just because Hitler said this was what he was doing, does that make it so? Theological verbiage (like all verbiage) has to be evaluated in context.

        Perhaps the most instructive aspect of this combox discussion is (as others have already pointed out) that de Chardin’s defenders have little to offer that rises above the level of the harrumphing nitpick. Taken as a whole, the de Chardon corpus is, always has been, and always will be radically incompatible with the Deposit of Faith. Kudos to the author of this article, and to Steve for posting it.

        Reply
        • “Perhaps the most instructive aspect of this combox discussion is (as others have already pointed out) that de Chardin’s defenders have little to offer that rises above the level of the harrumphing nitpick. ”

          I agree 100%.

          Well, maybe not 100%, for tho the defenders of de Chardin have no doctrinal nor historical support for standing with him, they now have what looks like leadership’s increasing attempts to repackage him in freshly laundered and pressed vestments.

          But so what else is new in the Church these days.

          Reply
          • Mr. RodH. . . .I don’t know if you have ever read the “Confessions” of Augustine, If you had, you would have recognized the large echos down the hallways of de Chardin that essentially converse with the Divine presence – that is, they were both intimately involved in the whole existential process, evolution and all, and could not sit up on some high bluff observing it.

            Your doctrinal and historical support is only RELEVANT when doctrinal and historical issues are at stake. De Chardin offered G-d the entire world and its history as his altar of sacrifice. If you have not read any of these eschatological treatises, then Augustine AND de Chardin are beyond your comprehension.

            How can you discourse then on his “defenders” who, newly vested or otherwise, KNOW what they are apologetics foR????

            There is everything NEW in the Church today. . . and.his name is FRANCIS.

          • I think you have missed the point entirely.

            Your personal interpretations of St Augustine, de Chardin or any other theologian are irrelevant. The point is the Church has already ruled on de Chardin. Attempts to resurrect him must thus affirm doctrines that have already been condemned.

        • Deacon Nick Donnelly, however, is a good and orthodox man. His objections aren’t harrumphing nitpicks. Whether you or I agree, the Deacon deserves a respectful reply to his arguments. He is not an enemy of the faith- at all.

          Reply
          • Distinctions, please. According to you, the Deacon is accusing the author of not being a good and orthodox person, by virtue of registering objective disagreement. (I intend no disrespect, as I am sure no one else does, either.)

      • So true.

        Please see my post to Deacon Donnelly: Critique of Fr. Teilhard de Chardin by Dr. Dietrich von …

        absoluteprimacyofchrist.org/critique-of-fr-teilhard-de..

        Reply
  15. One Peter Five, here is a reference – directly from Teilhard’s mouth – which he admits to pantheism and Christianity being “monist” (no distinction between matter and spirit, at least eventually).

    These usually escape everyone’s eyes because people are hyper focused on his earlier work the Divine Milieu. Teilhard was never a static theologian; he evolved and changed just like the principles he espoused. Therefore, his defenders look at his earlier works alone and scoff at anyone who dares criticize their beloved “mystic.”

    He later developed the following proposition:

    “The whole foregoing exposition makes it clear that Christianity is pre-eminently a faith in the progressive unification of the world in God; it is essentially universalist, organic, and ‘monist.’

    There is obviously some special quality in this ‘pan-Christic’ monism. Since, from the Christian point of view, the universe is finally and permanently unified only through personal relations (that is, under the influence of love) the unification of being in God cannot be conceived as being effected by fusion, with God being born form the welding together of the elements of the world, or on the contrary by absorbing them in himself. It must be effected by ‘differentiating’ synthesis, with the elements of the world becoming more themselves, the more they converge on God. For it is the specific effect of love to accentuate the individuality of the beings it associates more closely. Ultimately, God is not alone in the totalized Christian universe (in the pleroma, to use St. Paul’s word); but he is all in all of us (‘en pasi panta theos’): unity in plurality.

    This, we should always remember, is not a restriction or an attenuation: it is a perfection, and an accentuation of the idea of unity. It is only in fact the ‘pantheism’ of love of Christian ‘pantheism’ (that in which each being is super-personalized, super-centered, by union with Christ, the divine super-centre) – it is only that pantheism which correctly interprets and fully satisfies the religious aspirations of man, whose dream is ultimately to lose self consciously in unity. That pantheism alone agrees with experience, which shows us that in every instance union differentiates. And finally, it alone legitimately continues the curve of evolution, on which centration of the universe upon itself advances only through organic complexity.

    Contrary to an over-popular preconception, it is in Christianity (provide it is understood in the fullness of its Catholic realism) that the pantheist mysticism of all times, and more particularly of our own day (when it is so dominated by ‘creative evolutionism’) can reach its highest, most coherent and most dynamic form, the form that is most instinct with worship.
    And that is why, I say once more, Christianity has every chance of being the one true religion of tomorrow.”

    -Teihard de Chardin, Christianity and Evolution, pp. 171-172
    Bonus gems:

    “It is Christ, in very truth, who saves, – but should we not immediately add that at the same time it is Christ who is saved by Evolution?”

    -Heart of the Matter, p. 92

    “…we might say, in a true sense of the words, this third ‘nature’ of Christ (neither human nor divine, but cosmic) – has not noticeably attracted the explicit attention of the faithful or of theologians.”

    Ibid, 93.

    “And then there appears to the dazzled eyes of the believer the eucharistic mystery itself, extended infinitely into a veritable universal transubstantiation, which the words of the Consecration are applied not only to the sacrificial bread and wine but, mark you, to the whole mass of joys and sufferings produced by the Convergence of the World at it progresses. And it is then, took that there follow in consequence the possibilities of a universal Communion.”

    -ibid, 94.

    This man is a completely insane.

    Reply
  16. Such verbose discussions make my head hurt. Just remember, what people today once referred to as “common sense”, is actually “Catholic Sense”. It is about time we start using the term again.

    Reply
  17. Anyone that follows science closely knows that Darwinian evolution is dead. The best scientists knew forty years ago that it was dead in it’s tracks. Yet the church of evolution keeps on stumbling forward; they will not admit defeat until their church house burns completely down.

    Reply
  18. Read Malachi martins Chapter on Teillard in the Jesuits. It’s plain English and brilliant.

    My personal opinion? Teillhard is in his head. Give me the Baltimore catechism any day.

    Reply
  19. Astronomy has made utter nonsense of Chardin.

    Anyone who takes even a brief look at any online article on “the expanding universe” (much less reading a real astronomer) will quickly find out that the universe (and with it, Chardin’s noosphere) will end in a vast, cold, empty nothingness, where even atoms and subatomic particles no longer exist.

    The universe has no future, or at least not one that is going anywhere. It will continue to expand, galaxies and solar systems will continue to move farther apart, eventually the remaining gases will be used up in the formation of the last stars, and when they die, only cold darkness and black holes will remain.

    In time, even the black holes will be exhausted, the temperature of the universe will be perfectly even, and from then on, nothing at all will happen.

    This does not even consider the Big Rip theory, which is nastier.

    However, we do not have to worry about any of this. In a few billion years, our sun will expand, as stars of its type do toward the end of their lives, reaching outward toward the orbit of Mars. The Earth, with its surrounding noosphere, will be fried within the interior of the sun.

    But we don’t have to worry about this, either. Solar activity has been at an extreme low point since the origin of life on land. Prior to that, solar flares and radiation only permitted life to survive while protected by the waters of the seas. In a some millions of years, if not sooner, solar activity will again begin to increase, and that will be that.

    The noosphere will just have to survive underwater.

    The evolution of the universe peaked, in terms of stellar and galactic formation, about the time the solar system came into existence, roughly five billion years ago. From that point on, it is all about devolution.

    If you read even the most basic articles on the history and future of the universe, you will find that astronomy has blown Chardin to pieces.

    Reply
  20. Conclusion: Vatican II should be abrogated in it’s entirety and the damage it has and is inflicting is only accelerating with Pope Francis. If Pierre Teilhard de Chardin had lived at an earlier time he would have been burned at the stake. He was a heretic through and through as are all those who follow him.

    Reply
    • When you have the heresy that bad, it becomes apostasy. What TdC believed has no resemblance to Christianity but rather a species of Buddhism that sprinkles in the Name of the Lord now and again. As far as V2 goes – it’s been 50 years, and our Lord said you can judge the tree by the fruit it puts forth. Consider that the Church in so many places and dimensions has collapsed since 1965, that is all the commentary necessary IMO on that disastrous council.

      Reply
  21. Teilhard de Chardin was a fraud in many ways. He was also involved in the controversy over the Piltdown Man hoax. A missing link hoax involving skull of an a man with the jaw and teeth of an ape. Teilhard was at the excavation with Dawson and Woodward. There is dispute on whether Dawson acted alone or acted together with Teilhard and Woodward, but there is no disputing that Teilhard has been a controversial figure involved in the middle of the whole mess over Piltdown Man and the hoax.

    Reply
  22. Truly a deceptive and destructive influence on the Modern Church. And yet this charlatan ,who is buried at the Culinary Institute of America ,could count among his followers the likes of Absp. Fulton J. Sheen.

    Reply
  23. Teilhard de Chardin is “the architect” for Vatican II. He has all of the mannerisms of Professor Harold Hill of “The Music Man”. He taught his music students “the think method” and they could not play a single note.—Obviously, there are evolutionary characteristics in any organization. The Vatican is not different. The pope is the representative of God’s will on Earth.—-In order for this “new religion” to evolve and take over the world, there would have to be the compromising of the role of the pontiff. According to the writings of Malachi Martin another Jesuit, this is exactly what is happening.

    Reply
  24. Pope Pius XII’s encyclical Humani Generis was a condemnation and rebuttal of Teilhard de Chardin and his theology without naming him.

    Reply
  25. So many accusations. Not just against Francis, but Benedict, John Paul and others. Does this not simply prove that man cannot save himself – that he needs a Savior? While I do not suggest we should ignore error, or even the unfortunate direction we are being led, neither ought we dismiss whole lives lived well because they once sinned or once were in error. Whom would there be left for us to follow? St. John Paul II did not give us Veritatis Splendor to facilitate the thinking in Francis’ pontificate, but to keep us from it and to stem the misrepresentations of Vatican II.
    By all means, speak against error, but does not a paint brush too large eventually cover oneself? Speak, of course, but let’s not throw out the good with the bad. Dear Mother of God, bring us peace.

    Reply
  26. I guess Disqus thinks my long post was spam. I will break it down then:

    Here is a reference – directly from Teilhard’s mouth – which he admits to pantheism and Christianity being “monist” (no distinction between matter and spirit, at least eventually).
    These usually escape everyone’s eyes because people are hyper focused on his earlier work the Divine Milieu. Teilhard was never a static theologian; he evolved and changed just like the principles he espoused. Therefore, his defenders look at his earlier works alone and scoff at anyone who dares criticize their beloved “mystic.”

    He later developed the following proposition:

    “The whole foregoing exposition makes it clear that Christianity is pre-eminently a faith in the progressive unification of the world in God; it is essentially universalist, organic, and ‘monist.’

    There is obviously some special quality in this ‘pan-Christic’ monism. Since, from the Christian point of view, the universe is finally and permanently unified only through personal relations (that is, under the influence of love) the unification of being in God cannot be conceived as being effected by fusion, with God being born form the welding together of the elements of the world, or on the contrary by absorbing them in himself. It must be effected by ‘differentiating’ synthesis, with the elements of the world becoming more themselves, the more they converge on God. For it is the specific effect of love to accentuate the individuality of the beings it associates more closely. Ultimately, God is not alone in the totalized Christian universe (in the pleroma, to use St. Paul’s word); but he is all in all of us (‘en pasi panta theos’): unity in plurality.

    This, we should always remember, is not a restriction or an attenuation: it is a perfection, and an accentuation of the idea of unity. It is only in fact the ‘pantheism’ of love of Christian ‘pantheism’ (that in which each being is super-personalized, super-centered, by union with Christ, the divine super-centre) – it is only that pantheism which correctly interprets and fully satisfies the religious aspirations of man, whose dream is ultimately to lose self consciously in unity. That pantheism alone agrees with experience, which shows us that in every instance union differentiates. And finally, it alone legitimately continues the curve of evolution, on which centration of the universe upon itself advances only through organic complexity.

    Contrary to an over-popular preconception, it is in Christianity (provide it is understood in the fullness of its Catholic realism) that the pantheist mysticism of all times, and more particularly of our own day (when it is so dominated by ‘creative evolutionism’) can reach its highest, most coherent and most dynamic form, the form that is most instinct with worship.

    And that is why, I say once more, Christianity has every chance of being the one true religion of tomorrow.”

    -Teihard de Chardin, Christianity and Evolution, pp. 171-172

    Reply
    • Part II:

      Bonus gems from Teilhard:

      “It is Christ, in very truth, who saves, – but should we not immediately add that at the same time it is Christ who is saved by Evolution?”

      -Heart of the Matter, p. 92

      “…we might say, in a true sense of the words, this third ‘nature’ of Christ (neither human nor divine, but cosmic) – has not noticeably attracted the explicit attention of the faithful or of theologians.”

      Ibid, 93.

      “And then there appears to the dazzled eyes of the believer the eucharistic mystery itself, extended infinitely into a veritable universal transubstantiation, which the words of the Consecration are applied not only to the sacrificial bread and wine but, mark you, to the whole mass of joys and sufferings produced by the Convergence of the World at it progresses. And it is then, took that there follow in consequence the possibilities of a universal Communion.”

      -ibid, 94.

      This man is a completely insane.

      Reply
      • Disqus keeps auto-flagging my Tielhard post as spam, I guess his gibberish really is gibberish. Here is Part 1, which I keep trying to post:

        Directly from Teilhard’s mouth – which he admits to pantheism and Christianity being “monist” (no distinction between matter and spirit, at least eventually).
        These usually escape everyone’s eyes because people are hyper focused on his earlier work the Divine Milieu. Teilhard was never a static theologian; he evolved and changed just like the principles he espoused. Therefore, his defenders look at his earlier works alone and scoff at anyone who dares criticize their beloved “mystic.”

        He later developed the following proposition:

        “The whole foregoing exposition makes it clear that Christianity is pre-eminently a faith in the progressive unification of the world in God; it is essentially universalist, organic, and ‘monist.’

        There is obviously some special quality in this ‘pan-Christic’ monism. Since, from the Christian point of view, the universe is finally and permanently unified only through personal relations (that is, under the influence of love) the unification of being in God cannot be conceived as being effected by fusion, with God being born form the welding together of the elements of the world, or on the contrary by absorbing them in himself. It must be effected by ‘differentiating’ synthesis, with the elements of the world becoming more themselves, the more they converge on God. For it is the specific effect of love to accentuate the individuality of the beings it associates more closely. Ultimately, God is not alone in the totalized Christian universe (in the pleroma, to use St. Paul’s word); but he is all in all of us (‘en pasi panta theos’): unity in plurality.

        Part 1.5 below

        Reply
        • This, we should always remember, is not a restriction or an attenuation: it is a perfection, and an accentuation of the idea of unity. It is only in fact the ‘pantheism’ of love of Christian ‘pantheism’ (that in which each being is super-personalized, super-centered, by union with Christ, the divine super-centre) – it is only that pantheism which correctly interprets and fully satisfies the religious aspirations of man, whose dream is ultimately to lose self consciously in unity. That pantheism alone agrees with experience, which shows us that in every instance union differentiates. And finally, it alone legitimately continues the curve of evolution, on which centration of the universe upon itself advances only through organic complexity.
          Contrary to an over-popular preconception, it is in Christianity (provide it is understood in the fullness of its Catholic realism) that the pantheist mysticism of all times, and more particularly of our own day (when it is so dominated by ‘creative evolutionism’) can reach its highest, most coherent and most dynamic form, the form that is most instinct with worship.
          And that is why, I say once more, Christianity has every chance of being the one true religion of tomorrow.”

          -Teihard de Chardin, Christianity and Evolution, pp. 171-172

          Reply
  27. Upon my conversion in 2012, my sponsor gave me a book written by Schonborn. Last year, after having read some of the blatantly heretical things he said, I burned it. I didn’t want to give it to Goodwill and have someone else be infected by this twisted thinking.

    Reply
    • Good call. I still have my copy of the “St Joseph Sunday Missal” with its reference to universalism. I ALMOST burned it but decided to keep it as proof in the event somebody doesn’t believe me when I tell them…

      Reply
  28. We see from this article that the destruction of the Church began not with misinterpretations and misimplementations of Vatican 2, but long before the council with it merely being the framework for the construction of the “church of man”.

    There is sufficient evidence that “evolution” does take place. However, there need be no conflict between the perrenial theology and doctrine of the Church. De Chardin’s nonsense is just that – ,NONSENSE. But the evolution of the physical/natural universe under the intimate control and guidance of a SEPARATE and YRANSCENDENT God may be the method which the One True God chose for His creative work, which is ongoing and continues. Thus, “evolution” may be considered a godly, God-driven, God-controlled process.

    Reply
  29. How about a few facts and evidence from several fields of science that are just coming to light! I call this short critique: Dinosaurs Stomp on Teilhard Chardin’s Imaginative Ramblings .The Evolution hypothesis requires Millions of years to even be considered a hypothesis. It supposedly started with the Big Bang as proposed by a Catholic priest in the late 1920’s, Monseigneur George Lemaître, “a brilliant Belgian who was also an astronomer/physicist.” And now the Big Bang and evolution from a common ancestor is being taught in all our schools including Catholic and other private schools – or why confused Catholics are leaving the faith in droves and LGBT agenda flourishes.

    As further evidence for evolution as taught by academia is that Dinosaurs became extinct 65 million years ago; it is the lynch pin that convinces most students of all ages that evolution is how we got here. But how can these millions of years be valid when in recent decades, many peer-reviewed articles in scientific journals have reported finding collagen and osteocytes, even soft tissue in many dinosaur bones; and, all dinosaur bones and fossil wood give ages ranging from 22,000 to 45,000 years when tested for C-14 with a detection limit of 70,000 years.

    Even the real ages could be much younger based on sound scientific arguments, such as the exponential decay of the Earth’s magnetic field which suggests that little or no C-14 formed in the atmosphere as little as five thousand or more years ago when the environment was postulated to be quite different than now and devoid of C-14 in the atmosphere.

    The lynch pin that holds evolution together disintegrates completely by archaeological discoveries that: [1] There are 100’s of distinct dinosaur depictions world-wide and [2] There are Footprints of man in ancient geological formations in many locations including over 300 dinosaur ones with 80 some human footprints and two hand prints in alleged 110 million year old Glen Rose TX Cretaceous limestone, formerly mud – perhaps the fossil impressions of those animals and men who “missed the boat as a result of the flood of Noe as ignored by all brilliant men but embedded in the traditions of all cultures world-wide including our Holy Bible.

    Reproducible experimental data and repeatable observations trump the guesswork of brilliant minds. Abrupt Appearance of all life is a logical replacement to the myth of evolution. http://www.dinosaurc14ages.com & http://www.sedimentology.fr/ – A critique of Descartes and Teilhard.

    Reply
  30. It is sloppy to speak of Transubstantiation as the changing of the bread and wine into the “body, blood, soul, and divinity” of Jesus Christ.

    The words of the priest change the bread into the body of Christ, and the wine into his blood.

    Because Jesus Christ is alive in Heaven, his blood is present where his body is, and his body is present where his blood is.

    Because his body and soul are both hypostatically united to his divinity (since his conception as man, and even while he was dead), his human soul and his divine Person are present in the Eucharist, but the bread and wine are in no way changed into the soul or divinity of Christ.

    So, while the Eucharist contains and makes present the body, blood, soul, and divinity of Jesus, what is DIRECTLY effected by the priest’s words is the change of the substance of the bread into Christ’s body, and the change of the substance of the wine into the substance of Christ’s blood. This change is called “transubstantiation.”

    The presence of the soul of Christ in the Eucharist is a consequence of the fact that Christ is alive. The presence of his divinity is a consequence of the hypostatic union with the body and blood. Thus, had the Eucharist been celebrated while Jesus was dead, the Sacrament would have contained his body, and his blood (separated), and his divine Person, but not his soul.

    “Transubstantiation” is ONLY the change of the bread and wine into Christ’s body and blood, and only this change is the DIRECT effect of the priest’s words.

    Reply
  31. We received this comment by email from Hugh Owen, Director of the Kolbe Center for the Study of Creation (www.kolbecenter.org). It seemed a very worthwhile addition to this discussion:

    The fundamental difference between Teilhard de Chardin’s theistic evolutionary concept of god and the true Catholic doctrine on the Divine Nature is that the god of theistic evolution is not the perfect, transcendent, unchanging Creator, Redeemer, and Sanctifier of the world. Instead, the god of evolution is identified with the world. Thus, the god of evolution did not create a perfectly harmonious world out of nothing for man in the beginning of time—nor did the character of that world change because of the Original Sin of Adam, requiring the transcendent God to assume a human nature and atone for the sins of the world. On the contrary, the god of theistic evolution intentionally uses demons, death, destruction, mutation, struggle for existence and extinctions to evolve his handiwork, providing the energy and intelligence to accomplish the biological “leaps” that undirected material processes cannot achieve. For an excellent critique of Teilhard’s anti-Christian theology, see the article on the website of the Kolbe Center for the Study of Creation: “Teilhard de Chardin: False Prophet of a New Christianity”

    You can read the article here: http://kolbecenter.org/teilhard-de-chardin-false-prophet-of-a-new-christianity/

    Reply
    • Actually, though, Teilhard didn’t hold the “theistic evolution” view at all. More from A Living Host: Liturgy, and Cosmic Evolution in the Thought of Benedict XVI and Teilhard de Chardin (note that Ratzinger and Teilhard hold the same evolutionary view):

      We tend, for instance, to think of all so-called Christian evolutionists
      as coming from that camp of “Theistic Evolutionists” who believe that
      at a certain stage of physical evolution, God infused a soul into a
      being who was hitherto-fore an animal. Joseph Ratzinger absolutely
      rejects such a view. His evolutionary view is very different, and as we
      shall see, much more destructive to the Catholic Faith.

      Reply
  32. “Still troubled by the Galileo affair…” Was Galileo right and the Catholic Church wrong? Or was the Catholic Church right all along? Did this revolution start a paradigm shift that is being continued even today….a continuing revolution or turning of the screw that continues our downward spiral?

    “What were we doing when we unchained this earth from its sun? Whither is it moving now? Whither are we moving? Away from all suns? Are we not plunging continually? Backward, sideward, forward, in all directions? Is there any up or down left? Are we not straying as if through an infinite nothing? Do we not feel the breath of empty space?”
    — Nietzsche, Thus Spoke Zarathustra

    “You who have so derided any notion of human nature and external authority, do you now have the courage to face the world for whose birth you yourselves were the midwives? You who have “unchained the sun from this earth,” can you now live with the consequences of your own actions—where all things, even chronological age, must surely give way before the will to power?”

    Reply
    • Mr. Epic Michael. . . . .If I did not think you had done your research on “the Galileo affair” I would assume immediately from your tone and syntax you were being sarcastic – as if this were some trite squabble between a cardinal and an altar boy.

      The Roman church’s encounter with Galileo Galilei was a watershed event, to the eternal embarrassment of the Church. And were it not for the actual facts of the scientific revolution it generated, the Church would have delayed another century with its Ptolemaic view of the solar system, and the universe. G-d helps those who help themselves, but in this case, the Church shot itself in the chest and expected everyone to feel sympathy for their pretense of pain.

      Stop all your poetic references, especially to the nihilist Frederich Nietsche who, because he managed a few good studies in human nature, had to go down in flames because he denied the grace of G-d, was the Grand Fool who expected everyone to believe his tales of cosmic shock, and denied his Savior, like Peter, because his ‘intellect’ overruled his heart.

      Reply
        • If Galileo was wrong, so was Copernicus. . . .but scientific fact tells us otherwise.
          Even if Galileo was wrong,(evidence???) the cat was already out of the bag with Copernicus. It got worse when Giordano Bruno was burned at the stake. HOW much worse could it get???

          There is something inertial in the mechanics of the Church, like all LARGE things, that prevents movement, discernment, careful investigation – at least outside of the doctrinal council chambers where no discussions are allowed.

          Yes, we Christians, NOT we catholics, understand why and how the Roman Church has and must dig its heels in on doctrinal issues. However when you are researching the structure of the universe, it is the EVIDENCE that puts the quietus on ALL opposition.

          Jesus said, “Man does not live by bread alone (that which is fed to you) but by every
          word that proceeds from the mouth of G-d.(that love you feed to others)

          Reply
          • The Copernican principle states that the Earth is not the center of the universe, and that, as observers, we don’t occupy a special place. First stated by Copernicus in the 16th century, today the idea is wholly accepted by scientists, and is an assumed concept in many astronomical theories. However, as physicists Robert Caldwell of Dartmouth College in Hanover, New Hampshire, and Albert Stebbins of Fermilab in Batavia, Illinois, point out, the Copernican principle has never been confirmed as a whole. It is also a necessary consequence of the stronger assumption of the Cosmological Principle: namely, that not only do we not live in a special part of the universe, but there are no special parts of the universe – everything is the same everywhere (up to statistical variation).
            But that is NOT true.
            The Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) Radiation contains small temperature fluctuations. When these temperature fluctuations are analyzed using image processing techniques (specifically spherical harmonics), they indicate a special direction in space, or, in a sense, an axis through the universe. This axis is correlated back to us, and causes many difficulties for the current big bang and standard cosmology theories. What has been discovered is shocking.
            Two scientists, Kate Land and João Magueijo, in a paper in 2005 describing the axis, dubbed it the “Axis of Evil”. The “Axis of Evil” correlates to the earth’s ecliptic and equinoxes, and this represents a very unusual and unexpected special direction in space.
            Why is it called the Axis of Evil?

      • Was Galileo the recipient of the corrective not because of the theory of
        heliocentricism (Copernicus had proposed that as well with no comeuppance), but
        because he stated it 1) as fact before it could be definitively proven; 2)
        against the advice to propose it as theory in line with the protocol of the
        scientific method;, 3) brazenly, in a personal and contrarian mode against the
        person of the pope; and 4) implying theological consequences outside his
        competency to speculate. The corrective he received was not against
        heliocentricism, but his method of proposing it, and of proposing a theory as a
        fact before it could be definitively proven.
        In essence the Church was upholding the scientific method while Galileo was fast tracking a theory that had yet to be proven as fact.
        The corrective was justified, though the administration of it was cast in a poor light by those who hate the Church.
        In the context of his time he was actually treated rather kindly.

        Reply
        • James, many thanks for the enlightening details.

          Yes, with the exception of treating his daughter, who cared for him during his house arrest, Cardinal Bellarmine was instrumental in giving Galileo the longest string, and time, to work out the proofs that he needed. Bellarmine believed in Galileo from the beginning but, protocol is protocol, and they(the Pope and the other cardinals) would not bend until the proofs were forthcoming.

          There will always be those who hate the church- for moral, political, social, economic reasons.
          Hutchens, Harris, Dawkins, and other atheists and anti-clericals have all chimed in on the bandwagon concerning the Inquisition, and other cosmic mistakes the Church has made. Because the Roman Church is unique in the world, and exerts a large influence over national policies, it is understandable that the leader of the Church, the reigning Pope, who is a virtual absolute monarch, would generate hostility in more democratic quarters.

          The sense of time also, is crucial, in dealing with the Church. It does not consider immediate things as more relevant than long term, centuries long traditions. This type of longevity thinking is very common to older religions and bodies of belief. The test of time is usually measured in centuries, for all practical purposes.

          Reply
        • James, thank you for the exposition on Galileo.

          Whether or not the Copernican theory itself was not banned by the church, and
          repeated by Galileo, for lack of scientific proof, should be well documented.

          Were it not for Cardinal Bellarmine, (Galileo had already offended the reigning Pope
          with his theories) Galileo might have met the same fate as Giordano Bruno. But even in that context, he was not speculating theologically, but premature in his presentation of significant evidence. Yes his house arrest for the remainder of his life was comfortable and very lenient,
          and he did manage to smuggle out copies of the ‘Two Dialogues” which were carried to France and the Netherlands to be printed.

          All in all, the Church was correct in upholding the scientific method. It is always those against the Church who will find whatever chink there is the armor to inflict an embarrassing wound.

          Reply
          • Galileo was advancing a theory as a proven fact. His personal friend, who was the Pope, was made the object of Galileo’s disrespect and quite deliberately and pointedly so. Galileo did delve into theological speculation emanating from the theory he advanced as fact against those who advised him to prudence.
            All that said, Teilhard was no Galileo. While both were subject to the vice of hubris (aren’t we all) Teilhard’s addiction to his own notions was on steroids. He was a fraud. He remains so, and mournfully it appears a good number of the clerical class follow him into erroneous zone of their own private revelations.
            Galileo ended up being proven correct. If he had only exercised authentic humility he would not only be regarded as a genius, but prudent and virtuous as well. Anyway, good for him.
            Teilhard, not so much.

  33. One comes to an ever greater appreciation of the spirituality of the Cross as one goes through
    this exposition of a man possessed by the spirit of personal consolation and self-gratification. Romanticism, confection and maudlin sentimentality are no substitute for the unflinching realism of the Gospel.
    The genius of Catholicism can only be ignored by those obsessed by the umbilicus.
    “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)…”
    Unable to shut up, they trip over their own tongues.
    Am I mistaken, or was not this Jesuit complicit in the perpetration of some fraudulent
    anthropological fraud in the 1920’s? Doubtlessly such enterprise is at work in his whimsy. It appears Jesuit James Martin has a mentor in caprice.
    Where is the self-awareness?
    Doubtlessly Bergoglio will find a way to fast track this charlatan to an altar of his own making.
    A valuable analysis and much appreciated.

    Reply
  34. A heretic and apostate by any other name that gave “intellectual” cover to the nonsense of his associates that hijacked the Church at Vatican 2. The results of the self-destruction are fully evident and predictable. To date a massive victory for the Partisans of Satan. Pope Francis is the natural progression of an accelerating degeneration.
    The time to choose between Truth and Apostasy is approaching rapidly. PF is forcing the issue. We must give him credit for clarifying the true state of the Church. There is no place to hide. Truth or Apostasy….Neo Catholics? Contradiction in Terms. There is only one true faith. One is either Catholic (Traditional) or Non-Catholic. Truth can’t change anymore than the dogma’s and Worship (TLM) of Christ in His Church can change. In or Out? Undecided you say? We won’t be after the upcoming Synods under the “inspired” Dictatorship of Pope Francis the Terrible. In effect we are Protestants by practice if not declaration…

    Reply
  35. This article is very interesting. I am working on a paper that has turned out to be substantially larger than I’d anticipated. It works its way through the Church’s fight against “modernism” which I argue at its core concerns the subordination of faith to the (Hegelian) dialectic in its multiple iterations. With the Magisterium being the “thesis”, Pastoralism functions as the anti-thesis to Magisterial thesis that operates to systematically undermine the Church through an ongoing series of “negation”. In this, Pope Francis’s accusations of pharisaic legalism to those defending magisterial teachings is yet another turn of Hegelian negation. Vatican II de facto ruptured, Pope Francis seeking to make it de jure. In the research, quite unexpectedly, I was stopped at Balthasar and then even more so with Teilhard. I’ve gone through a considerable amount of his writings. The idea that his ideas were even Christian is insincere, the ideal that he was not aware of what he was trying to to is laughable. When you read of Pope Benedict speaking favorably of the Noosphere – a completely pantheist concept – and all post Vatican II Popes signaling him in some favorable way, you really have to wonder whether we have to collectively take the “Red Pill” and do a de novo review of the past 55 years. Was Ratzinger the “Rottweiler of Christ” preserving orthodox faith of was he and his Communio simply the Menshevik wing of the “New Theology” (which was really just repackaged Modernism). As a person who was held to an oath, I strike me that all the New Theology pertiti who flipped the Church took the 1910 “Oath against Heresy” including a man who became Pope. Why does this not bother anyone?

    Reply
  36. “While all the confusion existing in the modern Church cannot be fully laid at his feet [xvi], Fr. Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, S.J. and his Jesuit confrères, with their “new and better Christianity,” have unfortunately deracinated Holy Mother Church, replacing the worship of the eternal God with the worship of man and creation.”

    The worship of G-d has NOT been replaced with the worship of man and creation. In any process of integration, old beliefs and traditions run headlong into the ‘new and better’ ones. Naturally,since it is the traditionalists who are taking the measure, their view will be colored with the bias of ‘polluting the worship’ of the eternal G-d. Incidentally, the church is well practiced in confronting apostasy, heresies, blasphemies and all other challenges to its primacy. It does not need 21st century ‘new age’ thinking to coach its understanding of the cosmic changes taking place.

    That is a polemic commonly resorted to when traditionalists have a hard time ‘wrapping their brains around new concepts and new events.” Their rhetoric naturally fits their discontent and refuting of the changing mode of the Church which, try as it may, cannot remain the same forever, EXCEPT for its immovable position as the repository of the teachings of Jesus, and the pontiff as the Vicar of Christ on earth.
    it must always be ready to examine, ever more exquisitely, what constitutes ‘G-d worship: and Man-worship’ And if, after 2,000 years it does not have a handle on what the difference is, then it has truly lost Jesus commands in the New Testament. de Chardin has challenged the powers that be, and his ‘shocking’ the sensibilities of the Vatican with evolution, the Omega Point and other transformative events, should provide the new lens through which the Church will adjust, and right itself – firmly and squarely as the harsh waves rock the Ship of the Church.

    “Heaven and earth will pass away. . .. but My Word will not pass away”

    Reply

Leave a Comment

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Popular on OnePeterFive

Share to...