de Chardin

Did de Chardin believe in God and His Son’s incarnation?

THANKS!!!

Yes. Very much so.

As far as I know, he did. He was never censured for any heresy of that sort. :slight_smile:

I believe that the Church had difficulties with his views on original sin. His Phenomenon of Man is a beautifully written book espousing man’s spiritual evolution to the Omega point of Christ. It has to be read in the light of his scientific work as a paleontologist, and his allegorical language. The inherent poetry of De Chardin’s writings contained enough ambiguity of language to bring it into suspicion at a time of great challenge within the Church from theologians such as Kung and even the great Rahner. However his belief in God and Jesus Christ was never at issue.

:thumbsup:

I believe this is absolutely correct. It was his views on original sin, his allegorical interpretation of Genesis 1-11, and his rather wholehearted endorsement of evolutionary theory that got him into trouble. The first may still be a concern, but the latter two aren’t really seen as a huge issue these days. He remained a priest in good standing, and was never a “dissenter” in the vein of Kung.

Thanks!!!

I think Teilhard de Chardin’s concept of the ‘Cosmic Christ’ moves him away from a literal tradition which sees the historical Jesus as the same as the ‘Cosmic Christ’. The relationship between the historical Jesus and the Cosmic Christ is an intersting area for thought, and may be one of those portals that opens up Christian thought to a dialogue with other traditions. Every religious tradition wants to connect itself to some form of divine incarnation. The CC, as with many others, wants to somehow ‘own’ the incarnation, in this case in the form of the historical Jesus. I find the ‘Cosmic Christ’ concept of universal appeal. And it makes a lot of sense to anyone interested in interfaith dialogue.

I read Chardin way back when.
He idea of creation was bizarre to say the least.

He believed that matter has consciousness. Even individual atoms had consciousness at an elemental level.
As matter organized into more complex molecules and living tissues this consciousness became more sophisticated until it reached man’s self-awareness. It continues to evolve as our consciousnesses combines with each other and we become one world conscious on the planet surface, the “noosphere” :confused::shrug:, finally culminating in the “Omega Point” :confused::shrug:, union with Christ.

This is New Age hogwash and it’s not surprising it’s popular with the New Age dreamers who want to do things there own way and not be dependent on the Church, knowing better than anybody else of course :D.

The human soul is created at conception. There is no evolution of matter/consciousness involved. Christ takes us up to himself in the Mystical Body like the Son of God took up a human nature to himself. This is a deliberate act of God, not any kind of evolution.

Wasn’t he involved in some kind of a fraud over a “prehistoric” skull that was phony? God Bless, Memaw

Panpsychism - the idea that consciousness is a fundamental property of matter - is a legitimate philosophical speculation. We must remember that when we use the word “consciousness” here, we do not mean that a lump of earth thinks and feels; we are talking about a putative fundamental property of this universe that is not entirely reducible to the known laws of physics. True “consciousness”, even in panpsychism, would arise only from extraordinary complex arrangements of the right kind of matter, particularly those which could store and convey information. David Chalmers’ book The Conscious Mind, which outlines a theory of “naturalistic dualism”, is a good introduction to how such an idea might work.

This is New Age hogwash and it’s not surprising it’s popular with the New Age dreamers who want to do things there own way and not be dependent on the Church, knowing better than anybody else of course :D.

It’s been misused by New Agers, but the basic philosophical idea isn’t New Age.

The human soul is created at conception. There is no evolution of matter/consciousness involved. Christ takes us up to himself in the Mystical Body like the Son of God took up a human nature to himself. This is a deliberate act of God, not any kind of evolution.

Agreed fully. :thumbsup:

He was suspected by some (Stephen Jay Gould, inter alia) of having a hand in the Piltdown Man hoax. However, these accusations were never proven. He’s presumed innocent. :slight_smile:

I think you are referring to his work with the Pildown man. He did work on Peking man which was authentic.

Great minds think alike, and almost simultaneously!

:thumbsup:

We must remember that Teilhard wasn’t a dogmatic theologian; he was a brilliant mind and a speculative thinker, and he must be read as such. He wasn’t trying to write a new Catechism; he was exploring the boundaries of science and faith, and that’s a hard task for the best of us.

I see quite a bit of negative attitude to what some term the ‘New Age’ movement or thinking.

I see a great benefit to some of the concepts that are often falsely labelled as ‘New Age’.

Do people here consider the ‘Cosmic Christ’ concept to be ‘New Age’?

OH, is that what it was? Seems we’ve had quite a few of those in the past 50 years or so. Maybe thats why we have so many confused Catholics today. God Bless, Memaw

I always had to read Chardin as a poet rather than as a scientist or a theologian.

As such, he left a lot to be desired. Now and then you could feel he was onto something, then it would slip away. I no longer take him seriously and would not bother to read him again. Too much like reading the novels of William Faulkner. His vocabulary is baffling.

Charlemagne III
I understand what you are saying. Extracting the meaning from Teilhard’s words is a daunting task. I have read each of his seminal books, **The Phenomenon of Man **and The Divine Milieu, three times and still haven’t grasped it all. However, those ideas that I have grasped, I find to be both poetic and spiritually magnificent.

For example:
Is there a more literate way to express the need to reconcile science and religion?

"There is no concept more familiar to us than that of spiritual energy, yet there is none more opaque scientifically. On the one hand the objective reality of psychical effort and work is so well established that the whole of ethics rests on it and, on the other hand, the nature of this inner power is so intangible that the whole description of the universe in mechanical terms has had no need to take account of it, but has been successfully completed in deliberate disregard of its reality.
The difficulties we still encounter in trying to hold together spirit and matter in a reasonable perspective are nowhere more harshly revealed. Nowhere either is the need more urgent of building a bridge between the two banks of our existencethe physical and the moralif we wish the material and spiritual sides of our activities to be mutually enlivened.
To connect the two energies, of body and the soul, in a coherent manner: science has provisionally decided to ignore the question, and it would be very convenient for us to do the same. Unfortunately, or fortunately, caught up as we are here in the logic of a system where the within of things has just as much or even more value than their **without, **we collide with the difficulties head on. It is impossible to avoid the clash. We must advance”. - **The Phenomenon of Man **pg.62

Is there a more literate way to express the hylomorphic blending of the material and the spiritual?

. “It is impossible to deny that, deep within ourselves, an ‘interior’ appears at the heart of beings, as it were seen through a rent. This is enough to ensure that, in one degree or another, this ‘interior’ should obtrude itself as existing everywhere in nature from all time. Since, the stuff of the universe has an inner aspect at one point of itself, there is necessarily a double aspect to its structure, that is to say in every region of space and time–in the same way, for instance, as it is granular: **co-extensive with their Without, there is a Within to things” **- *The Phenomenon of Man *pg56

Is there a more literate way to face the inevitable?

“…You are the irresistible and vivifying force, O Lord, and because yours is the energy, because, of the two of us, you are infinitely the stronger, it is on you that falls the part of consuming me in the union that should weld us together. Vouchsafe, therefore, something more precious still than the grace for which all the faithful pray. It is not enough that I should die while communicating. Teach me to treat my death as an act of communion.” – *The Divine Mileau *pg90

Is there a more literate way to express our place and purpose in the world?

The general ordering of salvation (which is to say the divinisation) of what we do can be expressed briefly in the following syllogism:

  • At the heart of our universe, each soul exists for God, in our Lord.
  • But all reality, even material reality, around each of us, exists for our souls.
  • Hence, all sensible reality, around each one of us, exists, through our souls, for God in our Lord. - *The Divine Milieu *- pg. 56

I found his books difficult, but worth the effort.
Yppop

Post 18

[quote]Quote:
“…You are the irresistible and vivifying force, O Lord, and because yours is the energy, because, of the two of us, you are infinitely the stronger, it is on you that falls the part of consuming me in the union that should weld us together. Vouchsafe, therefore, something more precious still than the grace for which all the faithful pray. It is not enough that I should die while communicating. Teach me to treat my death as an act of communion.” – The Divine Mileau pg90

Is there a more literate way to express our place and purpose in the world?
[/quote]

Hmmm! :hmmm:

How about this? :smiley:

… “I understand your fears. What human being can bear the responsibilities demanded of this woman? It hardly seems possible. We’ve seen many strong men broken from lesser challenges, men trained thirty or forty years for their tasks.
… “What shall we do if a child leads us? And make no mistake, Theresa is younger than many of the children and grandchildren of the members of this House. Who are we dealing with? Will she change?
… “I say, Theresa’s interests and endeavors may change, but not her heart. It is too well-considered. It is written ‘worse than death is the life of a fool’, but we saw in my talk with her Theresa is no fool. ‘Woe to thee when your king is a child’ says the Good Book, but Theresa shows lack of response to recent ill events. It is also written, ‘You are the light of the world. A city set on a mountain cannot be hidden.’ Theresa’s works will be seen by all. She can only do good works if she cares at all what we think, and we’ve seen she does. A woman who puts her trust in a higher power will be unchanged. Theresa will remain Theresa."

I am the OP.

Forgive, this is so complex.

Did Chardin believe in God as in the Catholic sense?

THANKS!

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.