GENERAL INTRODUCTION
The whole history of thought is man’s constant search for truth. It is this search for the truth that converges the religion and science. The scientific theory of evolution and the theological theory of creation encounter with each other in this quest for the enigmatic Reality. This search fascinated me towards the unique concept of cosmic Christology of Teilhard de Chardan. I really found worthwhile to take this Herculean task to comprehend and share with others the merging of science and religion in the world of Teilhardian cosmic Christology. To develop and present the Teilhardian cosmic Christology I have chapterized this work into five chapters with a critical appraisal.
The Teilhardian Cosmic Christology is basically grounded on the biblical concept of God and creation. The concept of self-revelation of God, theme of election, concepts about Logos in the Old Testament as well as the New Testament speak volumes about the theme of evolution and from these findings we can safely argue that Teilhardian Christology is sufficiently biblical. These are explained elaborately in the first chapter.
In the second chapter, we will discuss the theological bases for a cosmic Christology. It is interesting to note that his ideas resemble the ideas of ante-Nicene and Post-Nicene Greek Fathers and in the writings of modern theologians like Ladislaus Boros, Rahner and Ansfried Hulsbosch too favored a cosmic Christology. The Magisterium of the Church, though rejected the theory of evolution at the initial stage, gradually accepted it as something probable.
The third chapter spells out some preliminary notions of the Cosmic Christology of Chardin such as the theory of “within” and “without”, the law of complexity consciousness and cephalization. Teilhardian view of the universe, its origin and the evolutionary dynamism that moves from lithosphere to omega point through various critical points such as Hominization and Omega Synthesis will also be highlighted.
Many people no longer view the universe and earth as fixed realities that were created by God somewhere in the past. Instead the earth is considered to be in process, with its own laws and its own forces of destruction and repair. We are not sure of either its origins or its ultimate goal. Further advances in science have for the first time in human history given humanity the power to enter into the creative process and even to intervene and possibly end life planet through nuclear or environmental destruction. The dynamic, evolutionary, relative, and infinitely expansive notion of the cosmos now prevails in the contemporary consciousness.
These major shifts in the understanding of the universe, the earth, and life have compelled Christians to develop a new theology of creation as well as a new Christology that is compatible with these new perspectives. Questions are now being asked of the Christian traditions that were simply never even thought of in the past: “Was there a beginning to creation?” “Will there be an end?” And “what role can humans play in the whole creative process?” From these questions emerge new Christology that link Jesus Christ with the contemporary scientific point of view. Any attempt to link Jesus Christ with contemporary scientific view uses the work of the great Jesuit Scientist and religious thinker, Pierre Teilhard de Chardin (1881-1955). Teilhard was the first Christian thinker to integrate Christian theology with the scientific view of evolution and he is the first one to link Jesus Christ with contemporary cosmic perspective.
CHAPTER 1
BIBLICAL FOUNDATIONS FOR THE CONCEPT OF EVOLUTION
This chapter will mainly deal with the scriptural basis of Teilhardian cosmic Christology. First of all we will be dealing with the idea of evolution in the Old Testament where we will see that the God of Old Testament is not a static God. God moves with the history of human being. God suffers with us, He cries with us and He prepares the way for the salvation of humankind. Secondly we will be making introspections into the Johannine concept of evolution through his theology of logos and Pauline concept of evolution through his idea of unification of everything in Christ. So let us try to find out some proper Biblical and theological foundations for the viability of a cosmic Christology.
1.1 The Concept of Evolution in the Old Testament
There was a time when it was thought that the scripture was the basis for cosmology and all other scientific disciplines. So we know that there was a troubled time of reactionary approach between science and religion especially in the context of Copernican, Galilean and Darwinian inventions. But today it has become clearer for theologians and biblical scholars that the Scripture did not intend to teach human being concerning the internal structure of visible things, the knowledge of which contributes nothing to salvation. It is also interesting to note that theologians find several point of complementarity between science and the Scripture.[1] After a serious study on evolution and the Holy Scripture A. Hulsbosch remarks,
In my effort to assimilate the evolutionary image to my teaching of what revelation says about creation, sin and redemption, I have frequently been astonished by the way in which Holy Scripture shows its divine inspiration almost visibly. Naturally, I do not wish to suggest that, in some occult way or another evolution is spoken of in Holy Scripture. But the teaching of the Bible comes to life in unexpected ways when we know of evolution.[2]
Here Hulsbosch is emphasizing the deep rooted evolutionary concepts in the Bible. It becomes clearer in his subsequent remarks about the Scripture. “Without knowing the evolutionary image, the Bible tells the story of the last two phases of evolution. It tells of man now and of man to come.”[3] Thus we find that the concept of evolution in Bible becomes evident when one reads it with Teilhard’s knowledge of the concept of evolution.
1.1.1 Progressive Self-revelation of God in the Scripture
The Holy Scripture is the revelation of God to humankind.[4] As we read the Scripture, we can notice a progressive self-revelation of God in it. This has been stated by various Church documents particularly, the Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation - Dei Verbum which establishes it emphatically when it says God has prepared the way for the Gospel throughout the ages through our First Parents, Patriarchs, Moses and the Prophets. Dei Verbum no. 4 reads as follows:
Wishing to open up the way to heavenly salvation, he manifested himself to our first parents from the very beginning. After the fall, he buoyed them up with the hope of salvation by promising redemption (cf. Gen. 3 15); and he has never ceased to take care of the human race. For he wishes to give eternal life to all those who seeks salvation by patience in well-doing (cf. Rom 2, 6-7). In his own time God called Abraham and made him into a Great nation (cf. Gen 12,2). After the era of the Patriarchs, he taught this nation by Moses and the prophets, to recognize him as the only living and true God as a provident Father and just judge. He taught them, too, to look for the promised Savior. And so, throughout the ages, he prepared the way for the Gospel.[5]
It can, therefore, be concluded that there is continuity for the self-revelation of God which is progressive through in the history of salvation.
If we analyze the history of Israel Israel
1.1.3 The Election and Universalism
The theme of election is discussed here to explain that God’s salvific plan for the whole world is what is gradually achieved through election of Israel Israel Israel ’s election and its purpose as the salvation of the whole world when it says, “Israel
Deutero Isaiah inherited the Deuteronomic concept of election and perfected it especially in emphasizing Israel Zion
The theme of election, thus, contains a seed of evolution in the salvific plan of God. Election is the beginning of the gradual realization of bringing all to God. We, therefore, understand the New Testament as a crucial stage in this gradual evaluation of salvific plan of God.
1.2 Cosmic Logos of St. John
The concept of evolution has adequate evidences in the New Testament also. Here Jesus, the Son of God, gives us a new picture of God - God as Abba-Father. Jesus is Emmanuel – God with us. He shared humanness in all its depth but remained sinless. He was the fulfillment of the promise in the salvific history. Thus Christ inaugurates a new phase in the salvific plan of God. With the coming of Christ, the Scripture is read in a new light. Christ is recognized as the centre of salvific history, the period before him being a preparation for him and the period after him evolving around him. Though the whole New Testament delineates cosmic Christ, the centre of the universe, we limit our studies to Johannine theology of Logos and Pauline view of cosmic Christ.
1.2.1 Creation by Logos and Creation by Wisdom
“He is the image of the invisible God, the first born of all creation; for in him all things in heaven and on earth were created, things visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or powers – all things have been created through him and for him” (Col 1, 15-16). The Scripture points distinctly at the direction of the Sapiential literature, and especially to Wis 7, 25-26. Here it is said of the divine Wisdom that it is a “pure emanation of the Glory of the Almighty” and a reflection of eternal light.[10] Col 1, 15 parallels with Wis 7, 25-26 and thus permits us to assume that Christ is seen here as the revelation of the divine wisdom about which the wisdom book speaks.
A. Hulsbosch provides us with greater possibility of achieving greater clarity about this parallelism in his book God in Creation and Evolution.[11] In his opinion, the concept of power is combined with wisdom. “By his power he stilled the sea” (Job 10,4) is an example of reference at the power of wisdom. St. Paul
The hymn to the divine Wisdom in the sapiential literature displays three successive ideas, which are clearly discernable in, for instance, Prov. VIII. First, Wisdom preexists, is older than the world (vv. 26-6). Second, she mediates in the creation of the world, and in the confirmation of its laws. (vv. 27-9). Thirdly, she comes down to men to instruct them in God’s will, so that they may find life (vv. 30-6). We can trace this structure in Ecclus. XXIV, and, without mention of the origin of wisdom, in God, in Wis. of Sol. VII. 22-9 and Baruch iii.29-38. It is not difficult to uncover the same plan in John 1. 1-5.[12]
From his extensive study Hulsbosch arrives at the conclusion that “The Son of God made man is the Light of the World. He was the eternal wisdom, who before his becoming flesh, and in the time of preparation, “in every generation passed into the holy soul, and made them friends of God, and prophets.”[13]
Logos, therefore, is applied to Jesus Christ the divine wisdom in his role of creating the total universe. According to George A. Maloney, the role of creating the total universe is not a static role that began and is now finished. Whenever the created beings are coming to existence or moving to a greater degree of existence, there the Logos is operative. The incarnation of the Logos makes it possible for us to become truly the sons of God. We become sons of God through an insertion into that “life” that the Logos is. He gives us this life in order to bring to its full completion his very life as the Logos, the Son of God.[14]Creation by the Logos, is, thus a continued creation with a definite goal of making all sons of God. We find this biblically based truth in the Teilhardian Christology too.
1.2.2 Christ as the Cosmological and Religious Centre
The Logos represents the whole universe in its process of emanation and re-absorption. From the beginning Logos preexists as the centre. All that subsequently exists must come into existence through the mediation of the Logos. Logos is, thus, the source of a new meaning, new beginning and a new organizational point of a new reality. P. Joseph Cahill, in his article, “Johannine Logos as Centre” looks at this centrality of Logos at three levels - cosmological, religious and anthropological. He holds that life, light and darkness motifs in vv 4-5 have a cosmological significance. Light and life represent the cosmos and chaos is represented by darkness. It is the Logos who is light and life, the source of the cosmos.[15]
Cahill further observes that the cosmological entities -light, life and darkness - are soon transferred to the moral order in the Johannine prologue (Jn 1, 10).[16] They become canons of spiritual attitudes. Thus the Logos can be conceived as a centre from which the world and the moral order are to be articulated.[17]
1.2.3 Logos as the Anthropological Centre
With the incarnation, Logos takes up his dwelling among the human beings as a human being. As a cosmological and religious centre the Logos would have remained unknown. But now being a human person he becomes closer to the humanity and hereafter will act as the anthropological centre.
With the becoming of flesh Logos becomes a new and definitive centre. Thus the exteriorization of the Logos takes place. Now humanity becomes a symbol of the Logos and introduces a type of presence commensurate with the full existence and reality of man. The incarnate Logos is the source of unity for everything. The cosmic Logos preexisted, once it became flesh, is the goal not only of all material creations, but also of the spiritual aspects that constitute man.[18]
We may note here that the Teilhardian thought of Eucharist as the physical centre of the universe is very much in tune with the above mentioned view of the Logos.
1.2.4 The Becoming and Eternity of the Logos
The eternal nature of the Logos poses in us a radical question because in the eternity system there is no before or after, no becoming, no incompletion, and no defects. Then how could Jesus – the Logos – is understood as part of the becoming aspect? Rudolf Schnuckeubura in his commentary gives rather satisfactory explanation for this. He says,
The second person of the Trinity, the son of the heavenly Father, endowed, of course, therefore, with the divine nature, but also having a human nature resplendent with the beatific vision etc., scriptural statements, however, also and often refer to the time system. Here we are faced with the “incomplete”, the “not yet” the relative; here becoming as the ordinary phenomenon what is complete in the eternity system could be “not yet’ in the time system.[19]
The Logos is “the complete” or “the not yet” in the eternity and time systems respectively. The becoming of the Logos is, therefore, a possible, natural and understandable reality. Teilhardian Christogenesis, is, therefore, a meaningful explanation.
1.3 The Cosmic Christ of St. Paul
1.3.1 Christ, Principle of Unity and Universalism
Paul’s mystical doctrine of being-in-Christ emerges from his universalistic eschatological expectation. For, it became his basic conviction that the gentiles as well as the Jews together should fill up the number of those who shall enter into the kingdom. Paul’s insistence on the freedom from the Law proceeds from the same belief of universalistic eschatological expectation which calls the gentiles as gentiles and Jews as Jews to be in Christ.[24]
1.3.2 Syn Christo, Eis Christon, En Christo: Mystical Union with Christ
In the second stage of Pauline Christology, as we have earlier stated we find the emphasis on Christian living here and now. Paul uses the terms such as “Christ is to be formed in us”, “one spirit in Christ,” etc. to show a gradual growth or insertion into Christ. This refers to a total union with Christ and could be called the incorporation into Christ. Mathew Thekkekara gives a beautiful description of the mystical expressions of St. Paul
1.3.3 Recapitulation of all Created Beings in Christ
“For the Creation waits with eager longing for the revealing of the children of God, for the creation was subjected to futility, not of its own will but by the will of the one who subjected it, in hope that the creation itself will be set free from the bondage to decay and will obtain the freedom of the glory of the children of God. We know that the whole creation has been groaning in labor pains until now” (Rom 8, 19-22).
In the final stage of the Christology of Paul, we find more radical elements of a cosmic Christology. He says that not only is man infected with sin and death, but the whole of creation has been touched by the power of sin. George A. Maloney elucidates this Pauline view. Man was meant to be the master of the created cosmos. Now the non-human cosmos suffers the fate of man. Because under the yoke of sin together, so also man and the non-human cosmos will be redeemed and fulfilled together. No part of the universe will be unredeemed when the Redeemer comes, for he is capable of uniting the universe with the creator.[26]
The redeemer not only reconciles individual creatures with himself; he reconciles in him all things created. A. De Groot also brings home the same position when he says, “Paul placed redemption of man in the wider frame work of creation. Man cannot be redeemed apart from the cosmos which is his home or apart from his fellow men who share his lot.”[27] Pauline cosmic Christology in all its beauty and depth could be seen in the Teilhardian Christology.
In short, we can say that biblical foundations for the concept of evolution, we have noticed to our astonishment, in the pages of the Scripture, the enormous number of ideas and concepts richly and revolutionarily pregnant with evolutionary concepts.[28] The very concept of the self revelation of God has a progressive nature. In the same way, human understanding of God in the bible evolutes stage by stage. The theme of election predominantly present in the Israelite consciousness has its foundation and purpose as the salvation of the whole humankind which is gradually realized through the elect as per the plan of salvation in the scripture.
Coming to the New Testament also we find that the concept of evolution is deeply rooted though we have limited our study to the cosmic Logos of St. John
CHAPTER 2
THEOLOGICAL BASES FOR A COSMIC CHRISTOLOGY
Having discussed the biblical bases for a cosmic Christology in the previous chapter we shall discuss certain theological bases for such an approach. So in this chapter we will deal with a few Greek fathers of Ante-Nicene and Post-Nicene period. Though many fathers have contributed richly to a cosmic Christology we shall limit our studies to Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, Origen, Gregory of Nazianzen and Gregory of Nyssa. We shall further limit the studies to a few views of these men of immense theological caliber, because our purpose is to seek whether a cosmic Christology like that of Teilhard de Chardin had some precedents in the history of catholic theology and the discussion of a few themes would suffice to serve our purpose.
2.1 Ante-Nicene Greek Fathers
Greek fathers have contributed significantly to the development of a cosmic Christology. Their contributions are so fundamental and extensive that we find their ideas developed and emphasized in The Mystical Body of Christ by Pius XII and the Dogmatic Constitution on the Church (Lumen Gentium) by Vatican II. It is also notable that the fathers had adequate foundation on the scripture for their cosmic Christology. In fact, as George A. Maloney points out, “The early Christian writers inherited from the Semitic fonts of Christian revelation an understanding of the activity of Christ in the universe as a story of divine conflict and victory, with Christ fighting against and triumphing over the evil powers of the world in a final victory in the parousia.”[29]
In the attempt to defend Christian revelation against Gnosticism and Stoicism, fathers adopted the concepts of these pagan philosophies and gave a new description to the Semitic victory struggle of Christ.[30] It is in this context that the ante-Nicene Greek fathers namely Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria and Origen developed their cosmic Christology and we find a striking relationship between their Christology and Teilhardian ideas.
2.1.1 Irenaeus and Teilhardian Paradigms
In many ways Teilhard’s ideas are similar to Irenaeus’ concept of Christology. Let us analyse some of the predominant complementarities below.
2.1.1.1The Image and Likeness
Teilhardian cosmic Christology has a dynamic aspect of evolution of man reaching its zenith in omegization. Irenaeus’ idea of image and likeness has a somewhat similar view. According to him man is created in the image of God and this image is Jesus Christ who is fully human and fully divine.[31] Since the perfection of humanity is in Jesus, the true image of God is Jesus. Maloney comments,
Irenaeus ultimately centers his anthropology on Jesus Christ. Man is not really the image of God; the true image that mirrors forth perfectly the Father is the Son. Irenaeus succinctly says: “The image is the Son of God in whose image man was made.” But the perfect prototype of man as image is the Logos incarnate. The incarnate image, Jesus Christ, possesses three necessary elements and therefore all “full” human beings must also possess these three constitutive parts: body, soul and spirit.[32]
For Irenaeus man viewed as body and soul is imperfect and incomplete. He should acquire perfection through the acquisition of divine life. For man, to achieve this perfection in his final end is the full realization of his humanity and therefore man becoming fully human is the glory of God. We may note that Teilhardian idea of Omegization is the manifestation of divine glory where man is deified.
2.1.1.2 Anakephalaiosis
Irenaeus is known for his theme of recapitulation or anakephalaiosis. Anakephalaios is a Pauline term that Irenaeus uses for restoration, perfection and deification. Irenaeus describes Christ as the second Adam[33]. If in the first Adam the entire human race was corrupted, God gathers up in his Logos-the second Adam-his entire work according to the original plan. The human race, in union with the other creatures of the universe is restored to Christ in the anakephalaiosis. In Adversus Heresies Irenaeus says,
Now in the last days, when the fullness of the time of liberty had arrived, the Word Himself did by Himself “wash away the filth of the daughters of Zion
Irenaeus anakephalaiosis and Teilhardian cephalization comprehend the whole cosmos. Nothing is excluded. The two thinkers agree in a final polarization, primacy of Christ, final unification with respect to personal differences. But unlike Irenaeus, Teilhard does not hold the idea of restoration because his view on the fall of man is different; however Irenaeus has a specific emphasis on the first Adam. So we can say that there are several points of mutual agreement between the two authors.
2.1.1.3 Attitude to Matter
There is also a striking similarity between Irenaeus’ attitude to matter and Teilhardian approach to matter. The Gnostic dualist tendencies considered this world as something evil. The conflict between world and God was recognized by the Gnostics. Therefore there evolved a contempt for and fear of the worldly realities. But Irenaeus tells us in unequivocal terms that “there is therefore one God, who by the word and wisdom created and arranged all things.”[35] This shows that Irenaeus upheld the positive value of worldly realities.
Teilhard also had a very positive attitude to matter. He believed that nothing is profane in the world as the world is full of the presence of God. He found no conflict between world and God but saw a profound harmony. Thus he makes a blending of love of God and love of world. Bernard Delfgaauw observes, this means that man finds God not by running away from his task in the world but by giving himself to it completely and by taking upon himself in full the suffering inseparably connected with it. When Teilhard talks about ‘fidelity to the earth,’ he does not mean to imply a turning away from God toward the earth, but a turning toward the earth in order to find God through it.
Delfgaauw is asserting here how positive a view is held by Teilhard on matter. In Teilhard’s own words, matter is, “physical exuberance, ennobling contact, virile effort and the joy of growth. It attracts, renews, unites and flowers. By matter we are nourished, lifted up, linked to everything else, and invaded by life. To be deprived of it is intolerable”.[36]
Teilhard, therefore, rejected the traditional hatred to matter as something evil and advocated an attitude of veneration and deep respect for it since it manifests God himself. This is a holistic vision about God and world. And this vision converges with that of Irenaeus.
2.1.1.4 Manwardness of the Evolving Cosmos
In Teilhardian cosmology man has got a unique position. In the evolutionary process hominization marks a significant stage. Here the evolute becomes aware of the process of evolution and takes the reign of the destiny of the evolutionary process. Hence for Teilhard manwardness is a notable feature of the evolving cosmos. Man is the dynamic centre of cosmos[37]. In Le Milieu Divin Teilhard says, “all reality even material reality around each one of us exist for our souls.”[38] So Teilhard believed that the world is to be hominized by man and that man be divinized and saved. Irenaeus had a similar view. In Advesus Haereses he says, “I have pointed out that all such have been created for the benefit of that human nature which is saved, ripening for immortality that which is (possessed) of its own free will and its own power, and preparing and rendering it more adapted for eternal subjection to God. And therefore the creation is suited to (the wants of) man; for man was not made for its sake, but creation for the sake of man”.[39]
Thus, we can see that both Irenaeus and Teilhard share a common vision about the manwardness of the cosmos. Irenaen anakephalaiosis and Teilhardian omegization has its core in the centrality of man in the evolving of the cosmos.
2.1.2 Theopoiesis of Clement of Alexandria
Clement of Alexandria Alexandria
He has changed sunset into sunrise and through the cross brought death to life and having wrenched man from destruction, He has raised him to the skies transplanting mortality into immortality and translating earth to heaven – He the husbandman of God pointing out the favourable signs and rousing the nations. To Good works, putting them in mind of the true sustenance, having bestowed on us the truly great divine and inalienable inheritance of the Father deifying man by heavenly teaching, putting His laws into our minds and writing them on our hands. What laws does He inscribe? “That all shall know God from small to great”.[43]
Clement’s idea of ‘theopoiesis’ thus touches the human race as a whole. It is here that we note the Teilhardian idea of all-embracing ‘salvation’ in Christ, the Omega resembling in certain aspects ‘theopoiesis’ of Clement of Alexandria because theopoiesis is the assimilation into divine life and this is what is happening in Omegization.
2.1.3 Apokatastasis of Origen
The doctrine of apokatastasis was condemned in the second ecumenical council at Constantinople . Origen used the term apokatastasis for restoration to former condition[44] Quoting St. Paul’s phrase, “the whole creation shall be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the liberty of the glory of the sons of God” (Rom 8:21), Origen described the recapitulation as a liquidation of all corruptible bodies. Though the council condemned Origen’s doctrine of apokatastasis it did not deny Pauline and Irenaen view of recapitulation in parousia.[45] Since our concern is not to dwell upon this controversy but rather find connections between the ideas of Teilhard and Origen, we do not discuss it here. Origen, stressing on the mercy of God, believed in the salvation of all huamanbeings with the eventual disappearance of evil. He therefore taught that God in his goodness and mercy will restore everything at the final stage. In his own words:
The end and consummation of the world will be granted; and then each being will undergo the punishment which his sins have merited. God alone knows that time…We suppose that the goodness of God will restore the whole creation to unity in the end, through his Christ, when his enemies have been subdued and overcome…The human race…will be restored to that unity promised by the Lord Jesus.[46]
The main passage on which Origen’s apokatastasis is based is 1 Cor 15, 23-28. Here Paul says that Christ must reign until He has put all enemies under his feet. Commenting on this Origen says, what, then, is the putting under by which all things must be made subject to Christ. He is of the opinion that this very subjection by which we all wish to be subject to Him; by which the apostles also were subject; and all the saints have been followers of Christ. For the name “subjection” by which we are subject to Christ indicates that the salvation which proceeds from Him belongs to his subjects.[47]
There are many questions regarding Origen’s doctrine of ‘apokatastasis.’ Henry Crouzel raises some of them, (1) “Does Origen represent this restoration as incorporeal? (2) As pantheistic, (3) Is it for him absolutely universal implying the return to grace of the demons and the damned and does he attach to this universality, if there is universality?”[48] Whatever be the answer to these questions we see a similarity between the end picture depicted by both Origen and Teilhard.
2.2 Post-Nicene Greek Fathers
Post Nicene Fathers too gave a remarkable contribution in developing a cosmic Christology. In fact the contribution of Cappadocian Fathers namely Sts. Basil the great, Gregery of Nazianzen and Gregory of Nyssa are worth mentioning. Here we discuss very briefly a theme from both Gregory Nazianzen and Gregory of Nyssa.
2.2.1 The Doctrine of Recapitulation in Christ: Gregory of Nazianzen
Among the early Fathers Gregory Nazianzen was, perhaps, the most systematic in explaining Christian doctrines. That may be the reason why he is called “the theologian”, a title ascribed to him alone among the early Fathers. He gives us new insight into a personalism and “I-Thou” relationship with Christ. According to him Christ incorporates the individual in a most personal way. So he calls Christ “My Christ and My intimate companion.” Therefore Gregory speaks of a personal union with Christ in the final incorporation. Commenting on this Maloney says, “Gregory expresses in vigorous forceful language this reality of incorporation of the individual with Christ through a most personal intimate union. ‘My Christ,’ he constantly repeats, ‘is my constant companion.’ To live with Christ is to act with Him.”[49]
In Teilhardian paradigms too we can find a personal dimension in the final stage of the cosmos. Moreover, Gregory’s ideas of Gradual transformation of the world and the unique place of Christ in this process too find some similarities with that of the Teilhardian ideas. In his Second Oration on Easter Gregory of Nazianzen tells, “A few drops of Blood recreate the whole world, and become to all men what rennet is to milk, drawing us together and compressing us into unity.”[50]
True, Gregory has not developed a systematic theology of the cosmic presence of Christ, but he has definitely spoken of the presence of the incarnate word of God guiding man back to God, a restoration that has got a personal dimension of I-Thou relationship.
2.2.2 The Doctrine of Epectasis: Gregory of Nyssa
“Epectasis” means straining out towards. It is the ever-moving divinization process for reaching the total assimilation into divine life. Explaining this idea of Gregory of Nyssa Maloney says,
The Greek prefix, ep, indicates a pouncing upon, a surrounding and possessing of a good. The prefix, ek, stresses the outgoing movement, an ‘elan’ towards the infinite, transcendent God. Gregory is not derogating matter in this upsurge towards spirit. He is placing the stress on the dynamic process of the inner ‘elan’ in man, a partly material being and immersed in a material cosmos, but who finds his true meaning and fulfillment in Another who is at one and the same time within and without him.[51]
As for Teilhard evolution is a kind of straining out towards the perfection which is achieved in Christ, the Omega. In this sense we can see that the doctrine of epectasis of St. Gregory of Nyssa is shadowed in Teilhardian Christology.
2.3 Some Modern Theologians
We have been discussing various themes from the Ante-Nicene and Post-Nicene Greek fathers and saw that a cosmic Christology is not a strange idea in the theological world even during the time of the fathers. In this section we shall attempt for a short description of some of the modern theologians who have given an insight into a cosmic Christology.
2.3.1 Ladislaus Boros
Ladislaus Boros,[52] contemplating on the mystery of Christ, believes firmly that the gulf between God and world is imaginary. He asserts that God is present in the world out of His love and this love of God is reflected in creation and in the change in men and their world. God’s presence is all the more radical through the incarnation of the Son in the world. In Boros’ words, Christ’s resurrection is the first eruption of a volcano, since it shows that the interior of the world is already burning with God’s fire, which will eventually make everything glow. Christ is already in the midst of all the poor things of this earth. Our world is no longer an abyss between God and man. Christ is present in it and he is the heart of our world and the mysterious seal set on it, making it eternally valid. We, as believers, are bound to love this earth because God dwells in it. In the resurrection of Christ, God has shown us his acceptance of our world forever.[53]
The positive attitude to matter, Christ’s presence in the world and the unique place of Christ in history etc., are some points to be noted here because they reflect Boros’ appreciation and approval of Teilhard. In Boros’ own words,
Heaven will be final revelation of what is taking place here and now in a mysterious and hidden manner. That is the ultimate disclosure of the growing of mankind and the world into union with each other and with Christ….This heaven is Christ himself built up from our being as men and enveloped in a glorified world. Teilhard de Chardin, who was deeply influenced by Paul’s thought, called this, “Christ clothed in the world.” By our imitation of Christ we are able to give the earth nothing less than heaven - the risen Christ. In this way, with our co-operation Christ becomes the mediator of a cosmic and universal resurrection and ascension.[54]
From the above description, it can be concluded that Ladislaus Boros agrees with Teilhardian cosmology at least in some respects.
2.3.2 Karl Rahner[55]
Karl Rahner is, perhaps, the authority in many theological positions as far as many modern theologians are concerned. So it is important to learn what Rahner says about the relationship between the world and God and especially Christ. Rahner’s theology begins from his reflection on the transcending character of human self. To assert that the Transcendent is not an illusion Rahner brings his Christology.[56] For him Jesus is Word became flesh. Word is infinite and man is finite. Thus we see the infinite and the finite meeting in Jesus who becomes the measure of becoming human.[57] According to Rahner it is in Christ that the whole humanity and the whole universe are united. That is why Maloney comments that the implicit Christianity “is the whole human, earthly profane, ‘secular’ reality assumed into the God-related life which the secular expresses objectively, even though the relationship to God-life is not recognized explicitly.”[58] In ‘The Christian of the Future’ Rahner explains Church as the visible form of what is already interiorly binding. He says that the Christian “will not cease to hope that the whole world will be drawn into and consumed in the flame of love of God, because ultimately speaking it is impelled by the power of God’s love in Christ for it”.[59]
Karl Rahner speaks of cosmic Christ while explaining the incarnate presence of Christ and His grace to the whole humanity. Love of God in Jesus achieves the unity of the mankind. Thus we see that even in Rahner’s thoughts we find certain ideas of the cosmic Christ spoken of by Teilhard.
2.3.3 Hulsbosch[60]
Hulsbosch’s evolutionary image of the creative action of God in the world echoes many of Teilhardian ideas. He sees self-revelation of God as a progressive creative action of God. This allows room for the idea of evolution and answers intelligently for a logical completion of the evolutionary process. While accepting the scientific view on the evolution of the universe Teilhard affirmed that the evolutionary process was led and guided by God. The same idea is conveyed by Hulsbosch as he says, “yet from the viewpoint of the theology of creation we must say that this development at the same time manifests the progressive action of God, and that the creation has not the built-in power to evolve independently to higher forms”.[61]
Hulsbosch also shows human person is oriented toward a greater perfection - a face to face meeting with God. Like Teilhard, Hulsbosch also says that man does not lose his individuality in this union. The creation of terrestrial man is being completed. Man is on the way to a mysterious future, ever invited and guided by the self-revelation of God until he shall see the Creator unveiled. In this seeing, man does not become God. He remains totally a creature though having a decisively higher mode of being than he now possesses… creation does not stop somewhere in its progress to make room for a kind which transcends what can be created. Creation is summoned to be transformed into glory from within. It remains creation through and through but at the future higher level; glorified man is to respond to the vision of God.[62]
2.4 Gradual Acceptance by the Magisterium of Evolutionary Cosmology
The Church’s first reaction to the theory of evolution was rejection. In fact Church did not know how to reconcile biblical account of creation and the theory of evolution. So the Church’s disapproval of Teilhardian explanation of evolution was natural. However, gradually the magisterium came to understand and approve evolutionary perspectives. In his encyclical letter Humani Generis published in 1950 Pope Pius XII says “The teaching of the Church does not forbid that the doctrine of evolutionism, in so far as it inquires into the origin of the human body from already existing and living matter, be, according to the present state of human disciplines and sacred theology, treated in research and experts on both sides; as to the souls, the catholic faith requires us to hold that they are immediately created by God.”[63]
The same idea is repeated, though in negative terms by Pope Paul VI in his Address to Theologians at the Symposium on Original Sin. “As to the theory of evolutionism, you will not consider it acceptable if it is not clearly in agreement with the immediate creation of human souls by God and does not regard the disobedience of Adam, the first universal parent as of decisive importance for the destiny of humankind.”[64]
Pope Pius XI reconstituted the Pontifical Academy of Science and on the 60th anniversary of the Academy Pope John Paul II addressed the relation between creation and science, evolution and faith. Here we find a great leap in the position of the magisterium on evolution. Taking into account the state of scientific research at the time as well as of the requirements of theology, the encyclical Humani Generis considered the doctrine of “evolutionism” a serious hypothesis, worthy of investigation and in-depth study equal to that of the opposite hypothesis….Today nearly half a century after the appearance of that encyclical, new knowledge leads us to the recognition of the theory of evolution more than a hypothesis. It is indeed remarkable that this theory has been progressively accepted by researchers, following a series of discoveries in various fields of knowledge.[65] The magisterium having recognized the theory of evolution in unequivocal terms, Teilhardian Christology gains significance as it is an attempt to understand Christian mysteries in the context of the current scientific knowledge.
In this chapter, we have rather adequately discussed the theological bases for a cosmic Christology. It came to our attention that Teilhard’s ideas are not altogether new in the sense, shadows of his ideas are found in ante-Nicene and Post-Nicene Greek Fathers. Further we have seen the modern theologians like Ladislaus Boros, Rahner and Hulsbosch who too favoured cosmic Christology. Process theology was discussed as it also is a recent postmodern topic dealt almost like Teilhardian cosmology. As we make a comparison between Teilhard and Whitehead we understand that Teilhard is more traditional than Whitehead. Finally, we searched for the position of the magisterium on the theory of evolution. From our research it became clear that though the magisterium rejected evolution at the initial stage we can see a gradual acceptance of the theme by it.
CHAPTER 3
THE DYNAMICS OF THE COSMIC CHRISTOLOGY OF TEILHARD DE CHARDIN
Teilhard de Chardin is a philosopher as well as scientist and mystic, looks at Christ as the central point in the process of evolution. He is the point towards which the world was evolving according to God’s plan and he is the point from which the evolutionary direction takes affirm orientation toward the Omega point.[66] In this chapter we shall concentrate on the dynamics of Teilhardian Christology.
The originality of Teilhard lies in the fact that he realized that our age of science and technology calls for a new Christology, because Christology of the former times was closely linked with the scientific outlook of those times. Now the static outlook of science is outdated and hence the need of reconciling the new science and Christianity.[67] In his attempt to give a new Christology, Teilhard endevoured to provide with his concept of Christ as Omega – the goal of the evolutionary drive.[68] It is important to note how Teilhard reaches this conclusion. Therefore we shall delve into the dynamics of Teilhardian cosmic Christology.
3.1 Some Preliminary Notions
There are some theories and principles around which Teilhard weaved his thoughts. The theory of “within” and “without”; the law of complexity consciousness, cephalization etc., are some among them.
3.1.1 The Theory of “Within” and “Without”
This theory points out that every reality has two aspects – “within” and “without.” The “within” aspect is the conscious or internal aspect. The “without” aspect is the material or external aspect[69]. In other words “without” is the physical aspect of every being. Teilhard believed that not only man but also everything that exists has consciousness.[70] The difference between man and the other existing things is that in man the “within” aspect is more explicit than in any other beings. According to Teilhard, at the lower stages, when low molecular weights are involved there is hardly any folding back of matter upon itself; and in consequences the effect of consciousness can still not be observed in it; they are as impossible for us to apprehend experientially as are the variations of mass that occur in our bodies when we are in motion.[71]
The materialistic and spiritual interpretation of reality emphasized the external and internal aspects respectively.[72] However, Teilhard was convinced that the external and the internal aspects are equally important and that they are to be considered together. So Teilhard says, “I am convinced that two points of view require to be brought into union and that they soon will unite in a kind of phenomenology or generalized physics in which the internal and external aspects will be taken into account.”[73]
So in the theory of “within” and “without” Teilhard affirmed that every being has a “within” that is the consciousness or internal aspect and a “without” that is the physical or external aspect. In man the “within” aspect is more explicit than in other beings.[74]
3.1.2 Law of Complexity Consciousness
This theory helps us to understand more clearly about the destiny of man and the “within” and “without” of a thing. In The Future of Man Teilhard says, “To speak of complexity in the true sense we acknowledge in relation to living matter is necessary to imply a multitude of unified elements.”[75]
The Law of complexity consciousness is that the consciousness arises as complexity arises. In other words, the reason for the clarity of consciousness in man is his complexity.[76] Complexity is not confusion. Teilhard understands complexity as order or organization. That means the order and organization is clearer as the evolution reaches the stage of man.[77] Teilhard endevours to explain that it is logical to think that if there is organization in man it must have an aim and final destiny.
3.1.3 Cephalization
Cephalization is related to the law of complexity consciousness. It is the complexification of the brain-centered nervous system.[78] This fundamental variable indicates unmistakably the direction of the development of life under the aspects of both the “without” and “within.” In brief, progress in life is progress of cephalization.[79] That means cephalizing tendency is higher in higher forms of life. Through this process the innumerable beings are unified as a single body. It can also be said that cephalization brings about order and unification. Teilhard will explain the great leaps from one stage of evolution to the next on the basis of this cephalizing tendency. That is why he hays in his book Man’s Place in Nature “cephalization sheds light on the confused arborescence of this great mass of living beings.”[80]
Teilhard explains that the cephalizing tendency in biological level leads to the growth of brain centred nervous system and at the cosmic level this tendency leads to the growth of Christ-centered perfection or fullness.[81]
3.2 The Origin of the Universe and Evolution
Teilhard develops an integral view of the universe. According to him the world evolved through a long process, which continues even now. According to him, at the beginning the process was in non-living beings. He calls it the Lithosphere.[82] The second sphere was Biosphere in which there were vegetative beings. The third sphere is called Noussphere which is the sphere of the humans. The fourth sphere is Christophere and the culmination of this evoluting universe is Omega Point.[83]
According to Teilhard just as God exists only by uniting himself, he fulfills only by uniting. He accepts the creation out of nothingness.[84] For him the word nothingness means total disorder and so creation is a creative union. In Le Milieu Divin, Teilhard says about the origin of the universe, Some thousands of millions of years ago, not, it would appear, by a regular process of astral evolution but as the result of some unbelievable accident; like a fragment of matter composed of particular stable atom was detached from the surface of the sun.[85]
So Teilhardian view is that the universe and the material realities gradually appeared in the course of a progressive evolution. But everything that was to appear, even man, was already there in the initial stuff of the universe. The movement of evolution continues until it reaches the centre of centres that is Omega – Christ.[86]
3.3 Biogenesis to Anthropogenesis – Hominization
As we have seen, according to Teilhard there are various stages in evolution such as lithosphere, biosphere, Noussphere, christosphere, and omega point. Among these various stages Hominization and Omega Point are two epochs in the evolutionary process. The first thrust of the evolutionary process was hominization.[87] In this stage man has been the definite goal of evolution. Everything has been geared into the emergence of man. Man is thus, the crown and summit of the primary evolutionary dynamism.[88] As Christopher F. Mooney puts it, “What Teilhard is affirming, then, in this first stage of his analysis is that the world is a coherent unity, that a single pattern runs through the whole of the universe and that the dominant orientation of this pattern is towards man.”[89]
This means that when evolution reached the point of man a total difference has taken place because man arrived at the scene as the supreme product of evolution. This is a long process from lithosphere to Noussphere.[90]
In lithosphere cosmic stuff had only pre-life and due to its cephalizing tendency these semi-alive units complexified and blossomed into the first living being. The difference between life and non-life is too deep and broad to be bridged. So the passage to biosphere was very crucial stage in evolution.[91] The origin of life was followed by its development. Complexification and cephalization led gradually to the appearance of humans. This too marked an extraordinarily significant leap in evolutionary process.[92]
Hominization is a critical and unique event in the evolutionary series because reflective consciousness is the very nature of man. “In reality crossing of that threshold was a unique event, of an order quite different from that of non-reflective consciousness, a mutation from zero to everything.”[93] By the very act of hominization, that is, by the arrival of man on the evolutionary scene, the evolute becomes conscious of the very process of evolution. This is what is unique about homanization. The radial energy effected an instantaneous leap from instinct to thought.[94] Now on, man takes the helm of the evolution.
3.4 Anthropogenesis to Omega Point – Christogenesis
With the arrival of man, there arises a question, ‘Is man the end of evolution?’ Commenting on this question Maroky opines,
Hominization, according to Teilhard, is not the harbor at which the vessel of evolution is to disembark. Thanks to the creative fertility of nature, man came into being. But man’s birth does not mark nature’s menopause. The view that man is the finest and final product of evolution is rejected by Teilhard as “a pernicious illusion”. Teilhard tells that “we must distinctly and once and for all finish with the legend…of an earth that has, in man and with the man we now see reached the limit of its biological potentialities.”[95]
Teilhard says, “It would be easier, at the stage of evolution we have reached, to prevent the earth from revolving than to prevent mankind from becoming totalized.”[96] So man is undergoing a process of progress. Man is growing towards certain definite goal. Teilhard sought to explain this goal and said that socialization or coming together, not as groups but as community, is the aim of mankind.[97]
The collectivization is done in a double process. At one side the process of multiplication or development of consciousness happens. At the same time, a convergence is taking place. In other words, a force of totalization and a force of complexity are there in the universe.[98] Explaining this double process Teilhard says,
We come to the really interesting point when we realize that this increase in mental interiority and hence of inventive power (in which man’s compression upon our planet is ultimately expressed) simultaneously and inevitably increases each human element of action and power of penetration, in relation to others and in proportion it does so, it has as its direct effect a super-compression upon itself. This super-compression in turn produces a super-organization and that it again a super-compression … and so the process continues.[99]
Having mentioned that socialization directed towards Christogenesis has a double process, we shall explain them a bit more.
3.4.1 The Process of Multiplication and Expansion
The phase of socialization began with the appearance of man on the earth.[100] It continued in the progress of mankind by the increase of population, the gradual occupation of the earth and the development of civilization and cultures. This phase of socialization is like the spreading of a pulsation from one pole of a sphere to the other. From its beginning at one pole upto the equator this pulsation expands. But beyond the equator it gets compressed and finally converges at the other pole. The spread of the waves of humanity over the globe follows this pattern. Expansion of mankind leads to its compression.[101]
3.4.2 The Process of Convergence
It is clear from what is said about Multiplication and expansion that the process of convergence or compression begins when the expansion reaches its end and that for humanity, according to Teilhard, this second phase has already begun.[102]
3.4.2.1 The Factors Influencing Convergence
The curvature of the earth is a factor influencing convergence. Every year organisms expand and the earth available does not expand. So naturally there is a compulsion of coming together. In Teilhard’s words, “All available space being occupied, the occupiers had to pack together.”[103]
Technological development is another factor influencing convergence. Man advances in scientific discoveries day by day. And technology is developing at a rapid speed. Man is able to establish a widespread relation with other men. So the presence of man can go beyond his earlier constructed limits. Teilhard says “thanks to the prodigious biological event represented by the discovery of electromagnetic waves, each individual finds himself, hence forth, (Actively and Passively) simultaneously present over land and sea, in every corner of earth.”[104]
Pressure of thought and education are also factors influencing convergence. Through education man is uplifted, in his thinking dynamism. So advancement of thought causes man to come together.[105] This development in thought promotes the tendency to be more sociable.
3.4.2.2 The Steps of Convergence
Convergence is a very slow process it has certain steps. They are:
a) Unification
In this process mankind comes together or joins together as a species. But individuality is not destroyed here, but more developed. “Thus socialization whose hour seems to have sounded for mankind does not by any fact signify the ending of an era of the individual upon earth but far more its beginning.”[106]
b) Socialization
This is not only the coming together of mankind as a species but also the grouping of societies. Man cannot escape it, because “born on a current of socialization, that is taking place and gathering speed around us, we cannot either turn back or stop.”[107]
c) Planetization
Planetization can be understood as the process in which all societies come together into one group. According to Teilhard, now planetization is taking place. He says, “finally planetization of mankind, associated with a close grouping of people has started. Mankind born on this planet and spread over its earthly matrix a single major organic unity enclosed upon itself.”[108]
d) Omegization
Omegization is the final stage of convergence. The whole process of convergence culminates here. This is the centre, the centre of centers.[109] It is in this stage the whole earth finds its meaning. Here a systhesis takes place. Teilhard calls it Omega synthesis. However in this synthesis, personalities are not destroyed. Teilhard says, “the more the individual on his side associate himself in an appropriate way with others, the more, as an effect of synthesis, does he enter deeper into his own being, becomes conscious of himself and in consequence personalize himself.”[110]
3.5 The Final Stage of Omega
We have seen that omegization is the final step of convergence. So the culminating point of Teilhard’s system is Omega. Omega is the ultimate principle, it is the centre of centres.[111] Teilhard’s own words explain it very beautifully. “By its structure Omega in its ultimate principle, can only be a distinct centre radiating at core of system of centres, a grouping in which personalization of the elements reach their maximum, simultaneously and without merging under the influence of a supremely autonomous focus of union.”[112] It is this central point which Teilhard recognize as the Omega Point.
It is also important to examine the force of this great synthesis, and also the characteristics of the ‘centre of centers’ or ‘supreme synthesis’ for understanding the culmination of the evolutionary drive properly.[113] Brennan Hill says, “The convergence of all things is what Teilhard called ‘cosmic Christ,’ the fullness of Jesus Christ with all creation transformed and bought to completion.”[114]
3.5.1 Love – The Synthesizing Factor
The originality of Teilhard in interpreting the Christian mysteries is quite unique. Perplexed by the radicality of Omega Synthesis we may ask Teilhard how individuals can come together in a group without losing individualities. He answers this with the help of the dynamism of love. He says, “Mankind will only find and shape itself, if men can learn to love one another in the very fact of drawing closer.”[115] So love is the only source of synthesis that makes mankind come together.
Teilhard believes that mutual love is the force of synthesis of the factor of convergence and the process of multiplication and expansion. It must be noted that love is not a synthesizing factor but love is the synthesizing factor.[116] According to Teilhard love alone is capable of uniting living beings in such a way as to complete and fulfill them, for it alone takes them and joins them by what is deepest in them. This is the fact of daily experience.[117]
Teilhard’s conviction of the power of love is again strongly reflected in his words, “Love is the most universal, the most tremendous and the most mysterious of cosmic forces.”[118] Bernnan in his book “ Jesus the Christ” views that the ultimate converging of all reality is brought about the power of love.[119]
3.5.2 Characteristics of Omega
a. Personal
One of the characteristics of Omega is that it is personal, and not individualistic.[120] Teilhard says, “The greatest event in the history of earth now taking place, may be the gradual discovery by those with eyes to see, not merely of something but of someone at the peak created by the convergence of the evolving universe upon itself.”[121] He again speaks of Omega as personal: To fuse together the human multitude without crushing it, it seems essential that there should be a field of attraction at once powerful and irreversible and as such cannot emanate collectively from a simple nebula of reflecting atoms; but which requires as its source a self-substituting, strongly personalized star.[122]
b. Irreversible
The above lines also point out to another factor that Omega is irreversible. A real and present Noussphere goes along with a real and present centre. The supreme source and supreme object of man’s love emphasizes irreversibility of Omega.[123]
c. Transcendent
It means Omega is not the result of evolution. Though it is final stage, it is above that. Teilhard believes that Omega still doesn’t reveal itself fully because while being the last term in its series it is also outside all the series.[124]
d. Omega is Already and not Yet
Omega is omnipotent and eternal. Omega is present at the same time it is not present. Omega is the supreme centre and therefore it is already there. However, as the culmination of socialization, which is yet to be reached, Omega is not yet.[125]
e. Omega is a Person
Omega is the personal centre of all centers including man.[126] For Teilhard Omega is the supreme centre, which is the sure, and unifying focal point of love. Omega is the socializing fulfillment of a person. If it is impersonal, it cannot be the fulfillment of a person. So, Omega, the ultimate centre of convergence also must posses the quality of a person.[127]
f. Omega is Real and Actual
Omega is neither an ideal centre nor a potential centre but an actual and real Noussphere goes with a real and actual centre. To be supremely attractive Omega must be already supremely present.[128]
3.5.3 Christ, the Omega
Teilhard attributes the qualities of Omega to Christ, because he felt that to consider Omega, as the final product of evolution will not be satisfactory. He could not come to a conclusion without Christ. In his own words:
Both in nature and in function Christ gathers up in him-self and consummates the totality and fullness of humanity. On that point, all believers are unanimous. If, in convergence, our evidence obliges our reasons (as we have just seen) to accept that something greater than the man of today is in gestation on earth, it means that in order to be able to continue to worship as before we must be able to say to ourselves, as we look at the Son of Man, ‘Appaesuit Super-humanitas!. Christ coincides (though this assertion will have to be examined more deeply) with what I earlier called Omega Point.[129]
Teilhard, thus, thinks that it is quite legitimate to identify the Omega of evolution with the Christ of revelation. However, not all may think so. Some may think that Omega of evolution is a future reality, something that has to be formed or somebody who is to be born.[130] The Christ of Revelation on the contrary is a historical person already born of the Virgin Mary. When Omega belongs to the future, Christ seems to belong to the past.[131] In the Teilhardian world view Omega does not belong only to the future, Omega belongs to the present and past as well. In fact there could not be Omega if it did not transcend time. Joseph V. Kopp comments that the creation came from God, from Point-Alpha. It culminates, qualitatively, in man and perfects itself through the return of thinking beings to God. God-made-man is the last phase of return, in other words, Omega. As God-made-man Christ is simultaneously the axis and final goal of salvation. He is the transcendent pole toward which all souls are striving. He is the highest being, toward which the progressive personalization of mankind aims.[132]
To sum up, we have discussed some preliminary notions such as the theory of “within” and “without”, the law of complexity consciousness and cephalization. The theory of “within” and “without” holds that there are two aspects for every reality that is to say the external (the physical) and the internal (consciousness). The law of complexity explains that the consciousness increases as the complexity increases. Man is the most complex among beings created and this is the reason for the clarity of his consciousness. Cephalization is a complexification of brain-centred nervous system. Further we have seen the Teilhardian view of the universe and its origin and the evolutionary dynamism that moves from lithosphere to omega point. Thus Christ is seen as the alpha and omega points of the entire universe. Alpha point (starting point) is cosmogenesis which brings the universe to cosmos as well as biogenesis which brings the universe to bios, anthropogenesis which brings the universe to anthropos, christogenesis which brings the universe to christ and at last it is noogenesis which leads the universe and all in it to the culminatind high point of Omega where multiplicity is resolved in a final unity. Everything has been made “Christic” and filled with the “spirit” (nous). [133]
Hominization was a crucial phase in the evolutionary process. Here the evolute became conscious of the evolutionary process. There is radically a new direction for the evolutionary process with the advent of man on earth. There began a convergence process which will ultimately reach Omega Synthesis. Analyzing the force of convergence and multiplication and expansion Teilhard says it is love that is the only synthesizing factor. He also analyses the characteristics of omega and emphasizes his conclusion that Omega and Christ are identical. Thus in Teilhardian explanation of the cosmos, Christ becomes the centre of centres- the Supreme Synthesis.
CHAPTER 4
THEOLOGICAL IMPLICATIONS OF TEILHARDIAN COSMIC CHRISTOLOGY
Teilhardian Cosmic Christology shaped a new worldview that challenges our present concepts. We have attempted to give a brief description of the dynamics of the Cosmic Christology of Teilhard de Chardin in the previous chapter. In this chapter, we shall inquire into the implications of this Christology in the theological world. So we shall discuss the themes such as science, historicity of Jesus, evil, Eucharist, dogmas, love, redemption, work, ecology, etc., from Teilhardian perspective.
4.1 Science in Teilhardian Vision
There are many views regarding Teilhard’s method or approach. Some say that his academic enterprise has got predominantly a scientific nature while others argue that he is more a metaphysician or a philosopher. There are yet some others who regard his effort as spiritualization by a scientifically equipped scholar. However, Teilhard claims that in his vision there is nothing but pure and simple science. He states this clearly and emphatically in the opening sentence of The Phenomenon of Man. “If this book is to be properly understood it must be read not as a work on metaphysics, still less as a sort of theological essay, but purely and simply as a scientific treatise.”[134] Teilhard’s work doesn’t restrict itself within the narrow boundaries of science such as experiment, observation and measurement – the criteria of rigid science. Paul Maroky disagrees with these two views and says that using the magnificent and manifold data and discoveries of diverse science; Teilhard was weaving a coherent vision of the world. In this effort, like many other original scientists Teilhard too employed provisional concepts, bold speculations and tentative explanations.[135]
Though he accepts Teilhard’s approach as basically scientific like any other scientist, Maroky agrees that Teilhard doesn’t test his plan scientifically. It is due to his position regarding science as hyperphysics in which man is the key to understand universe. Teilhard claims that his vision is scientific in the sense that it does justice to “observable pattern of the universe” revealed by sciences. It is scientific also in the sense that this synthesis reveals the true meaning of all scientific work.[136]
4.2 Teilhardian Idea of Man
He sees human beings as prime participants in the evolutionary movements, because, at this current stage of evolutionary history, the most important increase in complexity occurs in human thought and culture. In The Phenomenon of Man, Teilhard de Chardin’s thought moves in a great drama of evolution from matter to life, from life to self-conscious thinking creature, and from self-conscious thinking creatures to the convergence of consciousness in what he calls the “Omega Pont.”[137] His most fundamental affirmation is that just as the universe is engaged in a process of cosmic expansion, so it is also engaged in a movement of increasing complexity. This complexity is bound up with an increase in interiorization, an increase of consciousness. Teilhard sees this trend toward increasing complexity and consciousness as a universe law, a law that he finds empirically evident from his study of evolutionary history. Teilhard calls this dimension of our evolutionary history the ‘noosphere.’ The living world of plants ad animals that inhabit the earth has long been thought of as a “biosphere”, a layer around the global “geospere.” With the emergence of human consciousness we have the emergence of a new layer, a “thinking layer.” Teilhard tells us, that with the noosphere, the Earth “gets a new skin” and “finds its soul.”[138]
4. 3 Evolution and Christ As the Omega Point
Christopher Mooney points out that Teilhard connects evolution and Christ as the Omega Point by means of three distinct but related levels of argument.[139]
4.3.1 The Scientific Argument
There is a scientific argument, built on observation of the pattern of evolution. In the history of evolution, Teilhard finds the law of complexity-consciousness at work. It is this that gives rises to the true becoming of the universe, which he calls “cosmogenesis.’[140] A study of this process leads Teilhard to project forward into its future. He suggests that, after perhaps millions of years, humankind will be able to cross a new threshold of reflection and enter into a single collectivity of consciousness, the Omega Point.
4.3.2 Philosophical Argument
At a second level, Teilhard moves to a more philosophical argument. He begins from his conviction that evolutionary progress now takes the shape of higher forms of interpersonal communion. This leads Teilhard to argue for the need for a divine Center, an Omega who is a personal source and object of love, capable of motivating the human community to develop a capacity for a love that will come to embrace the whole reality already at work in the world, radiating and activating the love energy of the universe.[141]
4.3.3 The Theological Argument
At this level of his discussion, Teilhard draws directly on Christian revelation, and sees Jesus Christ of revelation as the true Omega of evolution. The goal and the convergence of the process of evolution are found into Christ of the resurrection, the Christ who will come again in parousia. For Teilhard, the phenomenological and philosophical levels of analysis are brought into a unity with the data of revelation to form his Christology, in which the risen Christ is the Prime Mover of evolution, the one who actuates the energies of the universe. Cosmogensesis now takes on the shape of the Word incarnate. This leads Teilhard to speak of a genesis which is truly Christic, which he calls a “Christogenesis.”[142]
4.4 Jesus of Nazareth
At the heart of Teilhard’s concept of Christogenesis is the idea that Body of Christ forms the personal center for humankind and for the whole of physical reality. He sees this as the same bodily being, Jesus of Nazareth, who lived and died at a particular time in history. It is this same Christ who has now become the universal Christ, the one center of the one supernaturally graced universe. Teilhard insists that it is the physical center. In his Le Milieu divine, it is clear that it is Christ who is omnipresent “milieu” and center, radiating the energy that leads the universe to its culmination in God.[143] Teilhard takes the traditional teaching about God’s interior presence to all things and applies it to the risen Christ through the incarnation, he tells “the divine immensity has transformed itself for us into the omnipresence of a christification.”[144]
The theme about the historicity of Jesus and its relevance in the evolutionary cosmos is very important as it touches one of the basic affirmations of Christian dogmas. Christopher F. Mooney has rather elaborately explained how emphatic is Teilhard in asserting the historicity of Jesus.
As we have seen in the second chapter Teilhard refers Jesus of Nazareth and identifies Christ of revelation with Omega. From this identification comes the affirmation that Body of Christ – Jesus of Nazareth – becomes a personal centre for humankind and the entire material world. Because Teilhardian thesis of the converging universe demands existence of a transcendent personal centre capable of drawing evolution to its natural conclusion. Teilhard observes that it would be an error to distinguish in man two distinct attractions one towards a hypothetical natural end of the cosmos and the other towards an end which is supernatural.[145] But Teilhard’s Cosmos demands a centre which is natural and supernatural at the same time. This is found in Jesus of Nazareth. According to Mooney there is only one centre in the universe, at the same time natural and supernatural, which activates the whole of creation along one and the same line, first towards the highest degree of sanctity and this centre is Christ Jesus, personal as well as cosmic.[146]
This position of Teilhard makes it home that for him, the birth of the Son of God in the night at Bethlehem
4.5 The Problem of Evil
For Teilhard evil is a reality due to many reasons and he approaches evil in a positive manner. There is evil in the world as disorder, disunion, suffering, pain, moral evil, etc., and Teilhard accepts this as a fact. However, he understands evil as a result of evolutionary process; the process towards its omega point.[148] If there is vast progress, there must be some failures too. But this does not take away human responsibility in moral evil because when we write on something extensively it is possible to make some spelling mistakes, but we are certainly responsible for the mistakes. So even when he speaks about evil as a product of evolutionary process, Teilhard maintains human freedom and responsibility. According to him “Evil is thus a secondary effect, an inevitable byproduct, of the progress of a universe in evolution.”[149] Teilhard’s positive attitude towards the reality of evil is emphasized by R.B. Smith. “He highlights that the disunity, disorder, sufferings, pain and even moral evil as understood as primarily a grouping towards further evolutionary advance, either of the individual or of mankind as a whole has quite a reasonable place in a world which is in evolution. Evolution does not justify the evil and reduce the resposibilty to reach the finality. He also mentions about the various concepts of the evil which will be given below.” [150]
4.5.1 Physical Evil
There is physical evil and they are death, suffering etc. They can be conquered. He says, “Evil on earth will be reduced to its minimum. Diseases and hunger will be conquered by science.”[151]
4.5.2 Indifference as Evil
For Teilhard, the greatest evil is indifference. Because man has to attain his goal of evolutionary process and if he is indifferent to himself and the happenings he cannot reach the goal. So indifference is the greatest evil in the world. He also calls this as unconsciousness and it is a sort of ontological inferiority or evil. The world can only fulfill itself in so far as it expresses itself its goal in a systematic and reflexive perception.[152]
4.5.3 Failure as Evil
The failures of life are evils. Failures also can be result of man’s irresponsible behavior and hence be called moral evils. Man has the duty to develop the universe. When man fails to fulfill this task the result is evil.[153] But it must be noted that if there are achievements there must be also failures. Teilhard observes, “We are realizing that within the vast process of arrangement from which life emerges every success is paid for by large percentage of failures.”[154] So Teilhard believed that evil must be seen in relation to the method of creation and the goal of creation. If creation were a once-for-all act, evil cannot be explained. In a world of evolution there is progress and in the vast progress of the world there will be also failures.
4.6 Vision of Redemption
In his thought on the redemption, Teilhard’s emphasis is very much on developing a positive view of the redeemer in terms of evolutionary history. He has little to say about the atonement and forgiveness of sin. He suggests that Christ the redeemer will “ultimately be seen in the fullness of his power as Christ the evolver.” His focus is not so much on Christ bearing the sins of a guilty world as on Christ “bearing the weight of a world in the course of evolution.
Christ the evolver animates and gathers up all the biological and spiritual energies developed by the universe. And it is that form then, that Christ the redeemer and saviour henceforth offers himself for our worship is now clearly defined and all embracing.
4.7 Eucharist as the Matrix of Teilhardian Thought
Teilhard de Chardin contributed greatly to the development of a modern cosmic theology of the Eucharist in the framework of an evolutionary world-vision. The Christ of history becomes the Lord of the universe at the resurrection by his conquest of space and time. But he lives and acts today in the world through a new form of existence i.e the Eucharist. Through the Eucharist, Christ achieves the unification of the entire universe into his cosmic Body. So Eucharist is the very heart of the cosmic Christ.[155] “By ‘Eucharist’ Teilhard means the real body of Christ, the profoundly realistic mystery of his flesh. It is first by incarnation and next by Eucharist that Christ organizes us for himself and imposes himself upon us. So, Teilhardian thoughts on the Holy Eucharist affirms that it is a concrete reality.” [156] He sees this too as part of the progress of the evolutionary process into the Omega Point. To understand the profound richness of Teilhard’s reflection on this great mystery we shall discuss it a bit more extensively.
4.7.1 Eucharistation
Teilhardian evolution is unthinkable, unless it is essentially connected and related to Christ acting dynamically in the heart of this world as the motive force of evolution promoting the cosmos towards Himself. So the Teilhardian synthesis could be seen in “Eucharistation” the movement through which the many are united into one. Eucharistation is the process through which the Christification of matter happens. It is the process of convergence in Omega effected by two forces that is to say love energy and God. Thus, Eucharist becomes the unitive force of transformation.[157] Teilhard observes that when the multiplicity within us and around us disappears, then something more than a certain higher spirituality emerges. It is God Himself who rises up at the heart of the simplified world. Thus, the organic form of the universe divinized is Christ Jesus in his own personal, mystical and cosmic body. And Christ through the magnetism of his love and the effective power of his Eucharist, gradually gather into himself all the unitive energy scattered through his creation.[158]
4.7.2 The Extensions of the Eucharist
Nothing is excluded from the radiation of the consecrated Host. Under the influence of the Holy Host the universe imperceptibly becomes the body and blood of Christ. Hottenroth quotes Teilhard in his article regarding this “lifeless Host has become for me as vast as the world, as insatiable as a furnace. I am encircled by its power. It seeks to close around me.”[159] Antony Mannarkulam explains what is meant exactly by Teilhard when he speaks about the extensions of the Eucharist.
The Cosmic Christ is the Head of the universe and this is not by a juridical attribution of the authority or lordship. The universe is mysteriously inserted into the universal Christ as his ‘body.’ This universal Christ is the glorified Christ who is active today in the world through the Eucharist. For through his incarnation, he entered not only into mankind but also into the universe that bears mankind. This he did not simply in the capacity of an element associated with it, but with the dignity and function of a directive principle, of a centre upon which every form of love and affinity converge.[160]
Mannarkulam further clarifies that by referring to the universe as the cosmic body of Jesus Christ and the extensions of the Eucharist, Teilhard does not apply a crude material sense or fall into pantheism.[161]The primary Body of Christ is confined to the species of bread and wine. It is true that the Host is in the first place and primarily the fragment of matter to which, through transubstantiation, the presence of the Incarnate Word attaches itself among us, that is to say however, in the human zone of the universe Christ cannot remain contained in the primary Body.[162]
4.7.3 The Centrality of the Holy Eucharist
Mary Hottenroth emphatically states that Eucharist is the Matrix in the system of thought of Teilhard. She analyses all his works and discovers that most of his works are either primarily Eucharistic or the Eucharist is treated as the climax in those works.[163] The centrality of Eucharist in Teilhard’s interior life is attested by his friend, Henri de Lubac. “The Eucharist…gave vigor to his religious thoughts and one can recognize in him something similar to what may be found in other Christians who lead the spiritual life, a development of mystical life that starts from the Host.”[164]
4.8 Teilhard’s Reflection on Love
A study on Teilhard’s cosmic Christology without reference to the theme of love will certainly be seriously defective because Teilhard finds a deep relationship between evolution of love and evolution of the universe and he finds Church’s role in this universe as the phylum of love in this world.
4.8.1 The Evolution of Love
Teilhard sees a deep natural connection between the evolution of the universe and the evolution of love, since the goal of each is fuller union. Because of this, he suggests that “the most telling and profound way of describing the evolution of the universe is undoubtedly to trace the evolution of love.”[165] It is this approach that leads him finally to Omega - the source of Love. Teilhard believes that there is presence of love from the very beginning of the universe. So he explains the evolution of human beings with the emergence of love, “in its most primitive forms, when life was scarcely individualized, love was hard to distinguish from molecular forces.”[166] He, thus, states that there is a perfect symmetry of the material and the psychic forces in the initial stages. And as time progresses the matter complexifies and the spiritual components become stronger and finally in the human, it differentiates itself and the human love emerges.
4.8.2 The Church as the Phylum[167] of Love in the World: A New Ecclesiology
Vatican II has redefined the role of the Church in a most radical way. It took away the hierarchical picture of a Church and stated emphatically that the Church is a people of God called to the service of the world,[168] to become a sacrament of God to the world by becoming the concrete expression of God’s love for the whole world. Surprisingly, years before this historic ecumenical council Teilhard had envisaged the Church as a phylum of love. So the Church as the phylum of love refers to the Church’s role as the fundamental unit working for the evolution of love to its climax - Omega Point. Emily M. Binns observes,
It is next to impossible not to think of Teilhard’s phylum of love, in which authority is indeed devoid of power and ordered to serve. A new way of looking at the traditional marks of the church presents itself: its unity is in the body, not the external conformities of an institution; its holiness is in Christ and not in places or thing, so that wherever liturgy is celebrated and the sinfulness and mistakes, of the members are acknowledged and repented ‘is church.’ Its apostolicity is not granted only because it can look back but because it looks forward to its continuing proclamation; its catholicity is in its cosmic intent, its eschatological universality. Such a church will be prophetic in the midst of a pluralistic society.[169]
How beautiful a description about the Church and its place in the modern world! It is highly radical and finds perfectly in harmony with the views of the Council Fathers of Vatican II.
It is clear from the above discussion that Teilhard had proposed a revolutionary concept of the Church, in the sense it was altogether new and different from the hierarchical concept. For him Church is the phylum of love in the evolution of love and he identifies Church-phylum with Catholic Church.[170]
The role of the Church is crucial. It is called to be a “phylum of love” with in the nousphere. The church has the fundamental task of giving expression to the Christic energy of charity for the world. The parousia can take place only at the point of “plaintary maturation.” This will be an event that is not within our history but at its end. This maturation can occur through the progress of human evolution, on the one hand, and by the inner transformation of the process by divine love, on the other. In Teilhard’s view, this cannot be completed without the animating action of the Church, the phylum of love within the community of creation.[171]
4.9 Teilhardian Theology of Work
For centuries work had been explained in terms of original sin. Development of the extensive researches in the scripture prompted by the protestant reformation and the counter reformation, a new way of looking at work as something positive gradually grew. In this development of the positive view of work, Teilhardian contribution is significant. Teilhard solved the serious problem of separation between spiritual life and human action in the world. Man, as the evolute conscious of the process of evolution and his responsibility to further the upward movement and the conveying process of the universe, has to contribute to the world through his acts every moment. So Teilhard finds no dualism between human tasks and spirituality. “Jean Danielou comments that there is no dualism in Christian life. The Christian is precisely he, in whom this relation to a personal God implicit in all actions becomes conscious. And this is why his action simultaneously constructs the world, bears witness to God and builds up the church.”[172] This means work is a worship of God. It constructs the world and the Church simultaneously. Teilhard also explains work as something willed by God. Hence man has a divine call to work and thereby build the world and the Church glorifying God. [173]
We can understand from all what is stated above that Teilhard builds a very positive theology of work. There is no action insignificant in taken the wider context of the evolutionary world.
4.10 Teilhardian Ecological Paradigm
Teilhard’s concept of the world is fundamental to his ecological vision. Duffy gives a very clear picture about Teilhard’s outlook on the world.
He sees the world as truly holy, a divine milieu, a place permeated with the divine. The divine milieu is vast, formidable, charming. But like the divine Lover, it continually withdraws from us, eluding our grasp though bearing us along. …Beneath the surface, where the soul is most deep and matter is most dense, things are so interconnected that the least of our desires and efforts set up vibrations that travel throughout the universe. At the divine center, all sound is fused into a harmonious whole without becoming confused; all springs of the universe are harmonized.[174]
We have seen earlier the Teilhardian concept of the extensions of the Eucharist. Teilhard does not exclude anything in the world from the extension of the Eucharist. So though Teilhard is not advocating pantheism he tells that there is a divine spark in everything. Consequently Teilhard advocates an attitude, of respect to the nature. Man has the responsibility to build the nature. He becomes the custodian of the nature rather than the owner. This demands that man has to constructively contribute to the building up of an eco-system leading ultimately to the converging point.
We have been trying to highlight the implications of Teilhardian cosmology with a specific reference to the Christian theology and worldview because Teilhardian cosmology is a cosmic Christology by its very nature. This Christology evolves a new vision of science that goes beyond the realm of experimentability and observability. It not only accepts the historicity of Jesus but also affirms that the historicity of Jesus is intimately connected with the evolutionary world as he forms the physical centre of the universe. Teilhard’s approach to evil has a tendency to neutralize reality since it accepts evil as something inevitable. However, Teilhard succeeds, to a certain extent, in drawing up reconciliation with the concept of personal sin and responsibility saying that one needn’t sacrifice individual freedom and responsibility while asserting that evil is inevitable.
Eucharistic concept is one of the most fundamental ideas of Teilhard. The Holy Eucharist was, perhaps, the axis of Teilhard’s thoughts. His ideas on the extensions of the Eucharist may evoke an impression of pantheistic view, but he emphatically removes this cloud of doubt when he clarifies his position on the real presence. Teilhard’s uniqueness could be understood as one recognizes the striking similarity between the development of dogmas and the evolutionary growth. Love is the central force in Teilhardian cosmic Christology. It also doubles our respect for Teilhard when we find its radical implications in theology of work, ecology etc.
CHAPTER 5
A CRITICAL APPRAISAL OF THE TEILHRDIAN COSMIC CHRISTOLOGY
Teilhard’s attempt to unite science and theology was most severely criticized by many at various grounds. Most of these criticisms were due to the misunderstandings and prejudices against evolution or general opposition to new forms of thought. So let us analyse some of the points that critique attempt negatively and some positive aspect of Teilhrdian Cosmic Christology in this final chapter as an evalution of the whole work. From the thought of Teilhard, it has become clear that he is best known for his religious thoughts today. During the past decades his theology has been explained, attacked, defended, condemned and praised, excoriated and exalted in hundreds of articles and books. So it is apt and necessary to have a glance at both the critical as well as the positive aspects of the Teilhardian thinking.
5.1 Negative approach
Mooney observes that certain criticisms against Teilhard are not due to hostility but are based on serious scientific, philosophical or theological argument. Mooney enumerates a few of such criticisms.[175]
The first risk involved in Teilhard’s thinking is its “uncompromising evolutionism.” Here lies the weakness of Teilhard’s approach. He doesn’t accept any alternative worldview though he proposed his approach as tentative. For Teilhard, an evolutionary worldview is the only worldview, the sole framework, the sole mode of approach to reality, the sole criterion for solving all problems, whether scientific, philosophical, theological or spiritual.[176] Thus, it becomes clear that Teilhard’s “evolutionism” tends to narrow the field of research, to limit debate, to close out problems and to make impossible any real objective evaluation of certain basic questions, such as, beginning and the end of the world, the purpose and meaning of the creation, the goal and role of life, etc.
The essential character of personal sin is its refusal of love. This aspect is very inadequately treated in Teilhardian system. Teilhard’s strong emphasis on the role of human person involves an ironic tendency towards the impersonal. Teilhard certainly describes Omega as a personal centre and at Omega Point the personal distinction is maintained. However, with regard to the personal rejection of love and to the convergence, Teilhard lacks clarity.[177]
Teilhardian understanding of incarnation is remarkable for its originality and faithfullness to the authentic understanding. However, we cannot but mention one of the important drawbacks of his Christology. It is an important Christological content that the incarnation and the Christological events had the basic element of the personal initiative of Christ. But when Teilhard places overemphasis on the necessity of incarnation this element of the personal initiative of Christ is pushed behind the curtains.
We have discussed while speaking about Teilhardian approach to the problem of evil that his system accepts evil as an unavoidable consequence of evolutionary process. When Teilhard attempts to explain the responsibility for moral evil there is a strong tendency to neutralize the mystery of evil seeing it as an inevitable consequence of a progressing universe.
Teilhardian system gives a clear picture about the future of mankind. However, faith tells us that human person, with his/her corporeal nature, cannot ascertain a concrete future of the world. So Teilhard’s position on human knowability transgresses the limits of human certitude regarding the future of the world.
Teilhard’s overemphasis on the immanence of God in the evolutionary process itself goes to the extreme and the aspect of transcendence is neglected to a certain extent. As for the mystery of cross, for example, it is quite understandable in a world where personal sin is something ordinary or, perhaps, inevitable. However faith reveals us that it is an impenetrable mystery which simply cannot be situated within the evolutionary framework. So Teilhard’s mistake here is not rejection of the aspect of transcendence but the sidelining of it due to the overemphasis placed on the aspect of immanence.
We have mentioned earlier that Teilhard calls his effort for synthesis as pure and simple science at the very opening sentence of his book Phenomenon of Man and that science for him is a very broad concept. However Teilhard has been criticized for this claim by Christopher Mooney. The critique argues that it is true that Teilhard draws material for his synthesis from scientific world; however, the synthesis itself is not science but philosophy. So Teilhard faces the risk of mixing science with philosophy.
5.2 Positive Critique
We have been trying to identify certain drawbacks of Teilhardian synthesis. These drawbacks, however, do not in anyway reduce the significance of Teilhardian contribution. One who has analysed the radicality and originality of his effort will certainly place him among those who created epochs in Christian theological transitions. Therefore, we shall also mention a few positive aspects of his contribution briefly.
Theology cannot remain static in the long, march of history. It has to be adapted to the contemporary period so that the basics of faith will be intelligibly explained though the fundamental articles of faith revealed will be kept intact. St. Thomas Aquinas did exactly the same thing as he anxiously incorporated the insight of Aristotle into the Christian vision of the world.[178] Because of Aristotelian influence St. Thomas
Teilhard answered well the problem of two faiths. He recognized that there exists dualism in the world and it is his mission to bring unity to a fragmented world. He saw that a chasm exists between science and religion, spiritual life and temporal life. Faith in the world and faith in Christ confuses many. One finds it difficult to reconcile the Christian attachment to the world and the natural attraction of man/woman to human progress. Similarly love of God and love of the world place man in a spiritual combat.[179] To a world fragmented like this between two faiths, Teilhard, makes possible a synthesis. And this synthesis is really convincing and at the same time it preserves the orthodoxy as well.
There is an accusation in the modern world that the catholic dogmas remain merely at the theoretical levels and that the modern man finds no relevance for it in his personal life. This question is made emphatically irrelevant by Teilhard. Christ, for Teilhard, is relevant for the modern man not simply because it was somehow, or somewhere revealed that Christ is the Savior, but because Christ becomes the personal centre for his ultimate movement to the goal Omega. The Holy Eucharist is the centre of one’s life not because Catholic Church teaches it so but because of the intrinsic vitality of the Eucharist whose extensions crosses all boundaries by divinizing everything in the process. So Teilhard could be considered as the champion of Christian apologist in the modern world.
The question why human person is inviolable was answered in scholastic context using the categories of personhood, soul, etc. But these answers and the explanations do not give very satisfactory conclusion for human person’s superior value. However, in Teilhardian evolutionary paradigms this is better explained. Evolutionary dynamism has the room for development to the better forms. So since evolution has come finally to man and that he (evolute) himself became aware of his position in this evolutionary process, there is meaning in Teilhard’s explanation of human freedom. It is his/her freedom as a conscious being that makes a person responsible and accounts for his/her superiority. And Teilhard explains this superiority in terms of responsibility.
There is a tendency to reject everything beyond the observable and the experimental character of science is considered as something meaningful and reality. But Teilhard has proved that it is an immature, and incomplete understanding. His hyperphysics crossed the barriers constructed by the so-called scientists and incorporated the philosophical. So he has made it clear to the fast-developing world that there is something that evades human observability and experiment and the fundamental nature of the world stays at this level of transcendence. In short, Teilhard could make a new world-view that encompassed the material and the spiritual in its totality. Teilhard is not without mistakes in his conclusions. However, taking into consideration the innumerable possibilities of his worldview one can undoubtedly affirm that his contributions have got great significance in this modern world. His vision of God, man, ecology, etc., can have tremendous influence upon the world. This is the reason why Teilhardian views are highly valued inspite of it having certain setbacks.
GENERAL CONCLUSION
Teilhard de Chardin spoke of the greatness and beauty of creation, called for reverence for all that God created, invited science and religion to cooperate together. He believed that there is a need for a contemporary world to formulate a new Christology; a Christology based on evolution; Christology which is rooted in human history; Christology that is related to cosmology and Christology that hopes for a new horizon of life and finally, a Christology that brings the salvation, the final satisfaction and culmination of all creation.
Teilhrdian Cosmic Christology is very relevant in the fields of science and religion in this post technocratic world of today. Teilhard’s vision has helped us enormously to integrate the person of Jesus Christ, as well as the Christian tradition, with the findings of science. He was also instrumental in moving the church to find its role in participating in the progress of the modern world. Calling for a vision of unity in creation, Teilhard attempt to show how within us there is a link or interdependence of all things, culminating in an interdependence of all reality on Christ. Teilhard offered Christians a sweeping vision that enables them to better understand how to link faith with the need for progress and world unity. Today’s emphasis should be more on our interdependence with nature, than on our superiority to it. Teilhard maintained that love was the basic energy that made all things one. He wrote; “Love is the only power that makes things one without destroying them.”[180] And, of course, love of God, neighbour, and love of self is at the heart of Jesus’ teaching and is essential for world unity and cooperation. The idea of the cosmic Christ can help the Christians move toward a more global perspective than to be rigid in Christianity itself.
Teilhard often expressed his concern that Christology was still understood in the old medieval framework of a static universe. He feared that Christianity would become ineffective because it had not brought Jesus’ message into the modern world. Teilhard saw Christian doctrine evolving over the centuries-thorough the Gospel period, the early councils, and throughout subsequent periods, of the Church’s history. In the same way, he believed, the needs of the contemporary world called for a new formulation of Christology. Just as the Gospel of John had linked Jesus to the Logos and the Council of Nicea has explained how God was related to the human in Jesus Christ, Teilhard believed that our age was called to link Christ to evolution and to the cosmos.[181] In many ways Teilhard did for our age what Aquinas had done for the thirteenth century. He reinterpreted Christian thought in new categories. For Aquinas, the categories were Aristotelian and Scholastic; for Theilhard, they were evolutionary and cosmological.[182]
The God of our times is for the moment vague but real because the modern man is still unable to give a name to the Great Being which is taking form in the heart of the world. According to Teilhard, the God of our age awaits is 1) as vast and mysterious as the cosmos, 2) as immediate as life and 3) as linked to our endeavour as mankind.[183] He finds that there exists a schism between the Christian and the human in the Gospels preached that is to say it creates souls interested in their own good and uninterested in the common task. Therefore, Teilhard says in his famous book Science and Christ, the real battle going on around us is not between believers and non-believers but between two kinds of believers. Two ideals, two conceptions of divinity that are at stake.[184]
The non-believers do not find in Christ the traits that which they adore and await in him because we do not present Christ as what he really is. The God of Christians, whose face is discernible behind every page of Scripture, is much closer to the aspirations of our contemporaries than we imagine. The God of Bible is not different from the God of nature. It is this realization that led Teilhard de Chardin to redefine the Christian concepts of God to formulate a Christology proportionate to the presently recognized dimensions of the universe especially the concept of evolution.
Teilhard has done a commendable service to the Christian theologization by reflecting on the Christian mysteries from the point of the changed concept of the world as evoluting because the Aristotelian static concept of the world (on which St. Thomas, the giant of Christian theology based his theories) is rejected or not much supported by the modern scientists and in its place, a world of change and progress is approved. Here lies the significance of the Teilhardian contribution. Teilhard could beautifully blend the changed worldview into Christian theological reflection. He, being a great man of faith didn’t sacrifice his scientific aptitudes rather made it a great blessing. In this age of science and technology, to be a Christian with integrity, we need at least the Teilhardian approach of looking at things with a holistic vision.
In a this scientific study on the cosmic Christology of Teilhard de Chardin we have searched first for some biblical bases of his theological positions. In our effort to find the biblical foundations for the concept of evolution, we have noticed to our astonishment, in the pages of the Scripture, the enormous number of ideas and concepts richly and revolutionarily pregnant with evolutionary concepts.
Having mentioned the significance and scope, we find some of the limitations of this work too. This study doesn’t give a comprehensive explanation of everything pertaining to the Christology of Teilhard de Chardin rather it explains that there is possibility for a cosmic Christology as proposed by Chardin analysing certain hints from the Scripture and theological world. The implications of the Teilhardian Christology are not exhaustively dealt with in this study. For example, in the fourth chapter of this work themes like Eucharist, ecology, work, evil, etc. are discussed but the description is too less to exhaust the theme. However, as an introduction for the study in Teilhardian contribution this study might do some help. This work assures the firm faith and knowledge about Christ and expands the Theology into the world of science. Here one can seek out the converging point of science and religion.
In nutshell we can articulate that Pierre ATeilhard Chardin had a Christian vision of the cosmic processes. He spoke of ‘leaps to a higher plane,’ ‘complexification,’ the ‘ascent of life’, ‘diversification in lower species and convergence in humankind’, ‘rise in consciousness’, ‘nousphere’, and ‘Omega point’, and finally the Cosmic Christ. He claimed that we have become a superhuman organism of thinking humanity bound together in inventiveness and human intellect (libraries, media, internet, literature, arts and cultural traditions), leading to global consciousness. [185] Thus, humanity has to cooperate spiritually in the destiny of the universe, through the worldwide landscape of inventiveness and creativity.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
a) Commentaries
Christensen, Duanel L., Deuteronomy 1-11. Word Biblical Commentary, WBC 6A; Texas
b) Church Documents
The Christian Faith, edited by Neuner, J. Deupis, Bangalore : Theological Publications in India
The Vatican Council II, Dei Verbum, 3: Vatican Council II. The Conciliar and Post-Conciliar Documents, “Dominus Jesus” edited by Flannery, A., Bombay
c) Books
Primary Sources
Chardin, Teilhard de, Le Milieu Divin, London
_________________, Science and Christ, London
_________________, The Future of Man, London
_________________, Man’s Place in Nature, New York
_________________, The Phenomenon of Man, London
_________________, Writings in Time of War, New York
_________________, Human Energy, New York
_________________,The Activation of Human Energy, London
_________________, Let Me Explain, London
Secondary Sources
Bravo, Francisco, Christ in the Thought of Teilhard De Chardin, translated by Cathryn B. Larme, London : University of Nortre Dame Press
Chetany, Jose, The Future of Man According to Teilhard And Aurobindo Ghosh, Bangalore
Clement of Alexandria Grand Rapids
CrouzeL, Henry, Origen, translated by Worral, A.S., Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1989.
Delfgaauw, Bernard, Evolution: The Theory of Teilhard de Chardin, New York
Duggan, G.H., Teilhard and the Faith, 4 Bridge Street Cork : The Mercier Press, 1968.
Edwards, Denis, The God of Evolution: A Trinitarian Theology, New York
Francis, B. Joseph, Jesus Christ: Our Lord, God, Brother and Saviour, Bangalore
Groot, A. De, The Bible on the Salvation of Nations, translated by F. V. Heijden , Wisconsin
Hill, Brennan, Jesus the Christ: Contemporary Perspectives, Willow Street : Twenty-Third Publications, 1988.
Hulsbosch, A., God in Creation and Evolution, New York
Hulsbosch, A., God in Creation and Evolution, translated by M. Versfeld, New York
Irenaeus, Adversus Haereses: The Ante-Nicene Fathers, edited by, A. Donaldson J. Roberts, Grand Rapids
Keane, Gerard. J, Creation Rediscovered: Evolution and the Importance of the Origins Debate, Rockford
Kopp, Joseph V., Teilhard de Chardin: A New Synthesis of Evolution, New Jersey
Ladislaus, The Cosmic Christ, translated by David Smith, London
Lubac, Henri de, The Religion of Teilhard de Chardin, translated by R. Hague , New York
Lyons, J. A, The Cosmic Christ in Origen and Teilhard de Chardin, New York
Mannarkulam, Antony
Maroky, Paul, “Critical Comments,” in Convergence, edited by Maroky, Paul, Kottayam: Oriental Institute of Religious Studies, 1981.
Maloney, George A., The Cosmic Christ: From Paul to Teilhard , New York
Mooney, Christopher F., Teilhard de Chardin and the Mystery of Christ, New York
Nazianzen, Gregory, The Second Oration on Easter: Nicene and Post Nicene Fathers, edited by H. P. Wace Schaff, Grand Rapids
Origen, De Principiis. The Early Christian Fahters, edited by H. Bettenson, Oxford
Origen, De Principiis . The Ante-Nicene Fahters, edited by A. Roberts, J. Donaldson, Grand Rapids
Quasten, Johannes, Patrology: The Ante-Nicene Literature After Irenaeus Vol-2, Maryland
Quasten, Johannes, Patrology: The beginninging of the Patristic Literature, Maryland
Rahner, Karl, The Christian of the Future, New York
Schnackenbura, Rudolf, The Gospel According to John, Vol.1, translated by Kevin Smyth, Britain
Schweitzer, Albert, The Mysticism of Paul the Apostle, New York
Smith, Josep. P, Irenaeus Ancient Christian Writers: Proof of the Apostolic Preaching, New York
Smith, R. B., “The Place of Evil in a World of Evolution,”,in Teilhard Reassessed, edited by Hanson, Antony, Landon: Darton, Longman & Tod, 1970.
Thekkekara, V. Mathew, Christ is All and in All, Bangalore
d) Articles
Binns, Emily M., “Teilhard de Chardin and the Future of the Church. The Drama of the Universe,” The American Ecclesiastical Review, no.164 (January 1971): 73-89.
Cahill, Joseph P., “Johannine Logos as Centre,” The Catholic Biblical Quarterly, no. 38 (January 1976): 59-70.
Clancy, Edward, “The Election Tradition of the Old Testament,” Australasian Catholic Record, no. 42 (January 1965): 98-109.
Danielou, Jean, “The Meaning and Significance of Teilhard de Chardin,” Communio (Fall 1988): 98-109.
Duffy, Kathleen, “The Spiritual Power of Matter: Teilhard and the Exercises,” Review for Religious, no. 63 (2004): 192-203.
Faricy, Robert L, “Teilhard de Chardin. A Critical Survey,” American Ecclesiastical Review, no. 159 (October 1968): 261 – 269.
Henry, Sarojini, “Can a Christain Believe in Darvin’s Evolutionary theory?” Omega, Vol. 8, no. 2, (Dec 2009): 18- 33.
Hottenroth, Mary, “The Eucharist as Matirix in the System of Thought of Teilhard de Chardin,” The American Benedictine Review, no. 21 (March 1970): 98-105.
Joseph, Babu, “Evolution: Science and Metascience an Introdution,” Omega, Indian Journal of Science and Religion, Vol. 8, no.2, (December 2009): 7-17.
Kaluder, Francis J, “The Challenge of the Thought of Pierre Teilhard de Chardin,” Chicago Studies, no. 17 (Spring 1968): 101-108.
Maroky, Paul, “Teilhardian Weltanschauung,” in Convergence, edited by Maroky, Paul, (Kottayam: Oriental Institute of Religious Studies, 1981): 9-17.
Meyer, Charles R, “Logos in Time and Eternity Symbolism and Systems Analysis,” Chicago Studies, no.19 (Spring 1980): 79-88.
Mikes, Frantisek and Geraldine Edith Mikes, “Spiritual and Scientific Perceptive On evolution Views of Aurobindo, Teilhard and Contemporary Religious System,” Omega, Vol.VII, no. 2 (Dec 2008): 41-70.
e) Unpublished Materials
Chirayath, Babu, Unpublised Class Notes: “The Gospel According to John,” Ashta: Khrist premalaya Regional Theologate, 2009.
John, C .Michael, Unpublised Class Notes: “Prophets,” Ashta: Khrist: premalaya Regional Theologate, 2009.
______________, Unpublished Class Notes: “Pentateuch,” Ashta: Khrist Premalaya Regional Theologate, 2008.
Rayappan, Jesuraj, Unpublised Class Notes: “Patrology,” Ashta: Khrist premalaya Regional Theologate, 2009.
Scaria, Francis, Unpublished Class Notes: “Ecclesiology,” Ashta: Khrist Premalaya Regional Theologate, 2009.
Srampickal, Thomas, Unpublised Class Notes: “Pauline Writings,” Ashta: Khrist premalaya Regional Theologate, 2008.
Varayilan, Davis, Unpublished Class Notes: “Revelation and Faith,” Ashta: Khrist Premalaya Regional Theologate, 2009.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ACKNOWKEDEMENT
This dissertation on ‘Teilhardian Cosmic Christology: A Theological Analysis’ owes a great deal to the generous help of many. I gratefully acknowledge the indebtedness to all those who helped me complete this work. I would like to express my deep-felt gratitude Rev. Dr. Jesuraj Rayappan SVD who guided me in this endeavor. His personal encouragement, patient correction and enlightening suggestions helped me to complete this work. Special thanks are extended to Rev. Fr. Clarence Srampickal SVD, the Rector of the KPRT Seminary Ashta and to the Librarians. I also register here my sincere gratitude to all my companions for their constant encouragement and valuable services throughout the course of this work. I would like to remember and thank in a special way the genuine and generous support of Bro. Mejo Puthussery CST.
Ashta Bro. Tom Padinjarayil CST
[1] Cf. Gerard J. Keane, Creation Rediscovered: Evolution and the Importance of the Origins Debate (Rockford: Tan Books and Publishers, Inc., 1999), 12-16.
[2] A. Hulsbosch, God in Creation and Evolution (New York: Sheed and Ward, 1965), xiii.
[3] Ibid.
[4] Cf. Davis Varayilan, Unpublished Class Notes: “Revelation and Faith” (Ashta: Khrist Premalaya Regional Theologate, 2009), 8-14.
[5] The VaticanConcil II, Dei Verbum, 3: Vatican Council II. The Conciliar and Post-Conciliar Documents. (ed. A. Flannery) (Bombay: St. Paul Publications, 1975), 664.
[6] Cf. C .Michael John, Unpublished Class Notes: “Pentateuch” (Ashta: Khrist Premalaya Regional Theologate, 2008), 13.
[7] C .Michael John, Unpublised Class Notes: “Prophets” (Ashta: Khrist: premalaya Regional Theologate, 2009), 12.
[8] D. L. Christensen, Deuteronomy 1-11. Word Biblical Commentary (WBC 6A; Texas: Word Books Publisher, 1991), 159.
[9] J. D.W. Watts, Isaiah 34-66. Word Biblical Commentary (WBC 25, Texas: Word Books Publisher, 1987), 162.
[10] Davis
[11] Hulsbosch, God in Creation, 73-87.
[12] Ibid., 77.
[13] Ibid., 86.
[14] G. A.Maloney, The Cosmic Christ. From Paul to Teilhard (New York: Sheed and Ward, 1968) , 76-77.
[15] Cf. P. J. Cahill, “Johannine Logos as Centre,” The Catholic Biblical Quarterly 38 (January 1976), 66-67.
[16] Cf. Babu Chirayath, Unpublised Class Notes: “The Gospel According to John” (Ashta: Khrist premalaya Regional Theologate, 2009), 15.
[17] Cf. P. J. Cahill, 67.
[18] Cf. Ibid., 68.
[19] Rudolf Schnackenbura,The Gospel According to John –Vol.1, trans., Kevin Smyth:(Britain
[20] Paul expresses the gradual insertion of man and Christ into in the following expression: The Christian is with Christ (Syn Christo) he moves into Christ (Eis Christon) he is in Christ (En Christos) (Rom 6, 2-11).
[21] Cf. Thomas Srampickal, Unpublished Class Notes: “Pauline Writings” (Ashta: Khrist premalaya Regional Theologate, 2008), 43.
[22] Cf. A. D. Groot, The Bible on the Salvation of Nations (Wisconsin: St. Norbert Abbey Press, 1966), 131.
[23] Cf. Cahill, “Johannine Logos,” 71.
[24] Cf. V. Mathew Thekkekara, Christ is all and in all (Bangalore: Kristu Jyothi Publications, 1999), 177-178.
[25] Cf. Ibid., 179-180.
[26] Cf. Maloney, The Cosmic Christ, 23.
[27] Cf. Groot, The Bible on the Salvation of Nations, 139-140.
[28] Cf. Gerard J. Keane, 38-39.
[29] Maloney, The Cosmic Christ, 100.
[30] Cf. Jesuraj Rayappan, Unpublised Class Notes: “Patrology”( Ashta: Khrist premalaya Regional Theologate), 2-3
[31] Cf. Johannes Quasten, Patrology. The Beginninging of the Patristic Literature (Maryland: Christian Classics, 1986), 296
[32] Maloney, The Cosmic Christ, 103.
[33] Cf. Josep. P .Smith, Irenaeus Ancient Christian Writers: Proof of the Apostolic Preaching (New York: Newman Press, 1952), 22.
[34] A. Roberts - J. Donaldson, ed., Clement of Alexandria
[35] Ibid., 485.
[36]Chardin, Le Milieu Divin (London: Collins, Fontana Book, 1964), 106.
[37]Cf. Johannes Quasten, Patrology: The beginninging of the Patristic Literature, 309-310
[38]Chardin, Le Milieu Divin, 56.
[39]Irenaeus, Adversus Haereses, 558.
[40]Maloney, The Cosmic Christ, 117.
[41] Ibid., 117.
[42] Cf. Johannes Quasten, Patrology.The Ante-Nicene Literature After Irenaeus Vol-2 (Maryland: Christian Classices,1986), 20-22.
[43] Irenaeus, Adversus 20-22 Haereses: The Ante-Nicene Fathers, 203-204.
[44] Cf. Johannes Quasten, Patrology.The Ante-Nicene Literature After Irenaeus,77.
[45] Cf. Maloney, The Cosmic Christ, 124.
[46] H. Bettenson, ed., Origen, De Principiis, The Early Christian Fahter, (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1969), 256.
[47] A. Roberts, J. Donaldson, ed., De Principiis, The Ante-Nicene Fahters (Grand Rapids: WMB Eerdmans, 1967) IV, 260.
[48] H. Crouzel, trans., A. S. Worral , Origen (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1989), 258.
[49] Maloney, The Cosmic Christ, 146.
[50] P. Schaff – H. Wace, ed., Gregory Nazianzen, The Second Oration on Easter:. Nicene and Post Nicene Fathers, VII (Grand Rapids: WMB Eerdmans, 1967), 433.
[51] Maloney, The Cosmic Christ, 157.
[52] Ladislaus Boros was Born in 1927, Budapest University of Innsbruck
[53] L. Boros, trans., D. Smith, The Cosmic Christ (London: Search Press Ltd., 1975), 84.
[54] Ibid., 84-85.
[55] Karl Rahner was born in Freiburg im Breisgau , Germany March 5, 1904 . He died in Innsbruck , Austria March 30, 1984 . Rahner’s creative appropriation of diverse theological and philosophical sources (including Ignatian spirituality, Thomas Aquinas, Kant, Hegel, Maréchal, Rousselot, and Heidegger) provided an innovative conceptual framework for retrieving Catholic doctrine and the neo-scholastic theology of the previous generation and established his reputation as one of the most influential systematic theologians in the Vatican II era. His probing essays responded to the broad range of topics from the 1940's to 80's.
[56] Cf. Denis Edwards, The God of Evolution: A Trinitarian Theology ( New York: Paulist Press, 1999), 105-107.
[57]Ibid., 85.
[58]Maloney, The Cosmic Christ, 228.
[59]K. Rahner, The Christian of the Future (New York: Herder and Herder, 1967), 90.
[60] Ansfried Hulsbosch (born 1912), the Dutch Augustinian, is in some ways a disciple of Teilhard. He divides the evolutionary process into four stages: matter without life, next plant and animal life, then human life, and finally the coexistence of bios and theos. He taught scripture and theology in Nijmegen
[61]Hulsbosch, trans., M. Versfeld, God in Creation and Evolution (New York: Sheed and Word, 1965), 67.
[62]Ibid.
[63]J. Neuner - J. Dupuis, ed., The Christian Faith (Bangalore : Theological Publications in India
[64]Ibid., 205.
[65]Ibid., 189.
[66] B. Joseph Francis, Jesus Christ: Our Lord, God, Brother and Saviour (Bangalore
[67] Cf. Brennan Hill, Jesus the Christ: Contemporary Perspectives (Willow Street :Twenty-Third Publications,1988), 192- 129.
[68] Cf. G.H. Duggan, Teilhard and the Faith (4 Bridge Street Cork : The Mercier Press, 1968), 61.
[69] Cf. Jose Chetany, The Future of Man According to Teilhard And Aurobindo Ghosh (Bangalore: Oriental Publications and Distributors, 1978), 56.
[70] Cf. Brennan Hill, 130.
[71] Cf. Chardin, The Phenomenon of Man (London: William Collins Sons and Company Ltd., 1966), 149.
[72] Cf. Babu Joseph, “Evolution: Science and Metascience an Introdution,” Omega, Indian journal of science and religion, Vol. VIII, No.2, (Dec.2009), 15.
[73] Cf. Ibid., 53.
[74] Cf. Frantisek Mikes and Geraldine Edith Mikes, “Spiritual and Scientific Perceptive On Evolution Views of Aurobindo, Teilhard and Contemporary Religious System,” Omega, Vol.VII, No.2, (Dec 2008), 52.
[75] Chardin, The Future of Man (trans. N. Denny) (London: Collins, 1965), 29.
[76] Ibid., 30.
[77] Cf. Jose Chetany, 105-106.
[78] Cf. Frantisek Mikes and Geraldine Edith Mikes, 46.
[79] Cf. P. Maroky, “Teilhardian Weltanschauung,” in Convergence (ed. P. Maroky) (Kottayam: Oriental Institute of Religious Studies, 1981), 13.
[80] Chardin, Man’s Place in Nature (New York: Harper and Row, 1966), 49.
[81] Cf. Frantisek Mikes and Geraldine Edith Mikes, 53.
[82] Cf. Chardin, The Phenomenon of Man, 185-187.
[83] Cf. Ibid., 185.
[84] Ibid., 194.
[85] Chardin, Le Milieu Divin , 127.
[86] Cf. Sarojini Henry, “Can a Christain Believe in Darvin’s Evolutionary theory?” Omega, Vol.VIII, No.2, (Dec 2009), 28.
[87] Cf. Chardin, Man’s Place in Nature, 64.
[88] Cf. Jose Chetany, 162.
[89] Cf. Mooney, Teilhard de Chardin and the Mystery of Christ (New York: Harper & Row Publishers, 1966), 41.
[90] Cf. Jose Chetany, 170.
[91] Cf. Jose Chetany, 119.
[92] Cf. Maroky, Convergence, 10-14.
[93] Mooney, Teilhard de Chardin and the Mystery of Christ, 41.
[94] Chardin assumed all energy as psychic, although it manifests itself in two different tendencies which he calls respectively radial and tangential energy. Radial energy draws an element forward into greater complexity, tangential energy, on the contrary, links an element to other elements on the same level of organization. For further reference Cf. Chardin, The Phenomenon of Man, 54.
[95] Maroky, Convergence, 15.
[96] Chardin, The Future of Man, 29.
[97] Cf. Jose Chetany, 198-203.
[98] Cf. Ibid., 215-218.
[99]Chardin, The Future of Man, 239.
[100] Cf. Ibid.
[101]Maroky, Convergence, 16.
[102] Cf. Jose Chetany, 215.
[103]Chardin, The Phenomenon of Man, 264.
[104]Ibid., 264.
[105] Ibid.
[106]Chardin, The Future of Man, 54.
[107]Chardin, Man’s Place in Nature, 62.
[108]Chardin, The Activation of Human Energy (London: William Collins, 1970), 51.
[109] Cf. Frantisek Mikes and Geraldine Edith Mikes, “Spiritual and Scientific Perceptive On Evolution Views of Aurobindo, Teilhard and Contemporary Religious System,” Omega, Vol.VII, No.2, (Dec 2008), 54.
[110] Chardin, Man’s Place in Nature, 62.
[111] Cf. Sarojini Henry, “Can a Christain Believe in Darvin’s Evolutionary theory?” Omega, Vol.VIII, No.2, (Dec 2009), 28.
[112] Chardin, The Phenomenon of Man, 288.
[113] Cf. Frantisek Mikes and Geraldine Edith Mikes, “Spiritual and Scientific Perceptive On Evolution Views of Aurobindo, Teilhard and Contemporary Religious System,” Omega, Vol.VII, No.2, (Dec 2008), 54.
[114] Cf. Brennan Hill, Jesus the Christ: Contemporary Perspectives, 130.
[115] Chardin, The Future of Man, 235.
[116] Cf. Brennan Hill, Jesus the Christ Contemporary Perspectives, 131.
[117] Chardin, The Phenomenon of Man, 291.
[118] Cf. Chardin, Let Me Explain (London: William Collins, 1972), 66.
[119] Cf. Brennan Hill, Jesus the Christ Contemporary Perspectives, 134.
[120] Cf. Chardin, Let Me Explain, 81.
[121] Cf. Chardin, The Future of Man, 279.
[122] Ibid., p. 279.
[123] Cf. Chardin, Let Me Explain, 79- 81.
[124] Cf. Ibid., 84.
[125] Cf. Chardin, Let Me Explain, 84.
[126] Cf. Frantisek Mikes and Geraldine Edith Mikes, “Spiritual and Scientific Perceptive On Evolution Views of Aurobindo, Teilhard and Contemporary Religious System,” Omega, Vol.VII, No.2, (Dec 2008), 54.
[127] Cf. Chardin, The Phenomenon of Man, 272.
[128] Ibid., 283.
[129] Cf. D. Chardin, Science and Christ (tr. Rene Hague) (London: Collins, 1965), 120.164.
[130] Teilhard de Chardin, The Divine Milieu, trans., Bernad Wall (New York: harper and row publishers, 1965), 56.
[131] Cf. Sarojini Henry, “Can a Christain Believe in Darvin’s Evolutionary theory?” Omega, Vol.VIII, No.2, (Dec 2009), 28.
[132] J. V. Kopp, Teilhard de Chardin. A New Synthesis of Evolution (New Jersey: Paulist Press, 1964), 56.
[133] Cf. Col
[134] Chardin, The Phenomenon of Man, 31.
[135] Maroky, “Critical Comments,”in Convergence, ed., P. Maroky, (Kottayam: Oriental Institute of Religious Studies, 1981) 229.
[136] Ibid., p. 231.
[137] Cf. Dennis Edwards, The God of Evolution ( New York: Paulist Press, 1999), 101.
[138] Cf. Ibid., 102.
[139] Mooney, Teilhard de Chardin and the Mystery of Christ, 65-66.
[140] Cf. Dennis Edwards, 102.
[141] Cf. Ibid.
[142] Cf. Ibid., 103.
[143] Cf. Dennis Edwards, 103.
[144] Mooney, Teilhard de Chardin and the Mystery of Christ, 71.
[145] Cf. Ibid., 73-75.
[146] Ibid., p. 75.
[147] Cf. J. Danielou, “The Meaning and Significance of Teilhard de Chardin,” Communio (Fall 1988) 355-356.
[148] Cf. Jose Chetany, 266.
[149] Chardin, Activation of Energy, 260.
[150] Cf.R.B. Smith, “The Place of Evil in a World of Evolution,” in Teilhard Reassessed (ed. A. Hanson) (Landon: Darton, Longman & Tod, 1970), p. 65-66 [59—77].
[151] Cf.Chardin, Activation of Energy, p. 316.
[152] Cf. Smith, “The Place of Evil, p. 65-68.
[153] Cf. Jose Chetany, 268.
[154] Chardin, Activation of Energy, p. 78.
[155] Cf. A. Mannarkulam, “The Eucharist in the Design of Teilhard de Chardin”, in Convergence (ed. P. Maroky) (Kottayam: Oriental Institute of Religious Studies, 1981), p. 33-37.
[156] Mooney, Teilhard de Chardin and the Mystery of Christ, p. 70.
[157] Cf. M. Hottenroth, “The Eucharist as Matirix in the System of Thought of Teilhard de Chardin,” The American Benedictine Review, 21 (March 1970), pp. 98-105.
[158] Chardin, “The Struggle against the Multitude’, in Writings in Time of War ( tr. Rene Hauge) (New York: Collins, 1968) 106; Cited by Hottenroth, “The Eucharist as Matrix,” p. 107.
[159] Hottenroth, “The Eucharist as Matrix,” 107.
[160] Mannarkulam, “The Eucharist in the Design,” p. 38.
[161] He writes, The term ‘cosmic body’ is not to be understood in a crude material sense lest we should fall into pantheism. The cosmic body is none other than the body of the glorified Christ having a mysterious influence over the entire universe. To clarify the concept of cosmic body Teilhard writes: “My own body is not these cells or those cells that belong exclusively to me: it is what in these cells and in the rest of the world, feels my influence and reacts against me. Mannarkulam, “The Eucharist in the Design,” p. 39.
[162] Hottenroth, “The Eucharist as Matrix,” p.111.
[163] Ibid., pp. 115-119.
[164] H. D. Lubac, The Religion of Teilhard de Chrdin (tr. R. hague) (New York: 1967), p. 75.
[165] Chardin, Human Energy, tr. J. M. Cohen (New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, Inc., 1969), p. 33.
[166] Ibid.
[167] Phylum is a zoological group or branch, it is a living bundle having the specific power and law of autonomous growth. In every phylum there is inclination towards socialization. Cf. Mooney, Teilhard de Chardin and the Mystery of Christ, p.156.
[168] Cf. Francis Scaria, Unpublished Class Notes: “Ecclesiology” (Ashta: Khrist Premalaya Regional Theologate, 2009), pp. 14.
[169] E. M Binns, “Teilhard de Chardin and the Future of the Church. The Drama of the Universe,” The American Ecclesiastical Review, 164 (January 1971) 84-85. (73-89).
[170] Cf. Dennis Edwards, 104.
[171] Cf. Ibid.
[172] Danielou, “The Meaning and Significance of Teilhard de Chardin,” 360.
[173] K. Duffy, “The Spiritual Power of Matter: Teilhard and the Exercises,” Review for Religious, 63 (2004), 196-197.
[174] Ibid., 201.
[175] Cf. Mooney, Teilhard de Chardin and the Mystery of Christ, 199-209.
[176] Ibid., 201.
[177] Ibid.,204
[178] Cf. F. J. Kaluder, “The Challenge of the Thought of Pierre Teilhard de Chardin,” Chicago Studies, 17 (Spring 1968), 101-108.
[179] Cf. Faricy, “Teilhard de Chardin. A Critical Survey,” 261-264.
[180] Cf. Brennan Hill, Jesus the Christ: Contemporary Perspectives, 134.
[181] Cf. J. A Lyons, The Cosmic Christ in Origen and Teilhard de Chardin ( New York:Oxford Univercity Press, 1982), 215.
[182] Ibid.
[183] F. Bravo, Christ in the Thought of Teilhard De Chardin , tr. C. B. Larme, (London: University of Nortre Dame Press, 1967), 114.
[184] T. D. Chardin, Science and Christ , 120.
[185] Thomas Menamparampil, “True Science Opens Out An Exciting Path To God-11,” Catechetics India
