Even though Tearhard Chagrin died in 1955 the Vatican was gravely concerned that his psycho theology would pervade the Council. In June 1962 the Holy See issued a MONITUM warning which alleged "grave errors" both in his philosophical and theological writings. He is now regarded as a fraud scientist and bogus mystic. In 1965 Fr. Arrupe saluted him as one of the "great masters" of contemporary thought. And shame on de Lughead for being writing this horrible book while PERITUS on the Doctrinal Commission of Vatican II.
Both are borderline heretics!
What's wrong with Fr. de Lubac?
The early de Lubac was good.
Who are we to judge the faith of a man?Certain de Chardin espoused ideas into his theological work that were often not in accord with the mainstream theological thought of the day. And admittedly, I don't always agree with what he says. Yet not once did his writings ever indicate to me a man who lacked faith.And de Lubac must have recognized the same for him to dedicate such time to an examination of de Chardin's faith. It is fair to examine, evaluate and judge a theologian's theological work by the criteria established by the Magisterium. However, by what measure do we have to judge his fidelity to God? Particularly if few of us, if any, have ever met him.
I agree with the above poster. Such a view is uncharitable and unjustified.
Faith in what? The Holy See was in the right. His theology was odd. He wrote that Christ is everywhere "growing" more great and that Christ was the final determination "plasmatic" principle of the universe, etc.