The "Recyclical" or "Eco-cyclical" contains a reference to heretic Pierre Teilhard de Chardin in §83:

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

Thus, creation becomes God, which Francis with De Chardin calls the "common point of arrival"‽

Sure, God is the Final Cause of creation, but that certainly does not mean creation becomes God. Creation comes ex nihilo and will return to nothing (cf. Gen. 3:19: "…dust thou [i.e., thy body] art, and into dust thou shalt return.").

The Holy Office suspected De Chardin of error because his works were "filled with ambiguities and even serious errors that offend Catholic doctrine," e.g., pantheism. He posited that matter evolves until it becomes living (reaching the “Biosphere”), self-conscious (reaching the “Noosphere”), spiritual, and then ultimately God (reaching the “Omega Point”). His most famous work is The Phenomenon of Man, which is on the Index.

Thompson's Between Science and Religion p. 74. says:

Pius XII’s encyclical Humani Generis (1950) completely rejected the Teilhardian position on evolution. Teilhard was furious and he accused the encyclical of exhibiting a “masochism and sadism of orthodoxy.” The encyclical appeared to require the faithful to “swallow the truth under its crudest and stupidest forms.” The Church failed to recognize that the theories of relativity and evolution were as critical to understanding God as the constant refinement of dogmas.

When De Chardin met Fr. Garrigou-Lagrange, O.P. (thought to be the drafter of Humani Generis; cf. his commentary on it), he told a friend, after Fr. G.-L. left: "This is the man who wants to burn me at the stake!" (reported in Fr. G.-L.'s biography, The Sacred Monster of Thomism by Fr. Peddicord, O.P.).

Even Voris is attacking Humani Generis (specifically, §20) in saying Catholics are not bound by encyclicals!

Also, "conservative" Benedict XVI praised De Chardin in a homily.

all creatures are moving forward with us and through us towards a common point of arrival, which is God

This gives us a whole new understanding of the phrase:  All dogs go to heaven.

Can you see more clearly that it's pantheism now?

I have not had any doubts that Bergoglio is not a Christian, at least not since about six hours after his election and I first heard of him.  

In the past, sedevacantists were always condemned because most of the demonstrations of apostasy and heresy by the Conciliar popes were manifested in non-magisterial ways, e.g., actions, speeches, interviews, etc.  Yet, here is Bergoglio writing in a magisterial docuмent something a Hindu could accept.  

I think I can safely predict that the SSPX, Michael Voris, et. al., will do their best to ignore this as long as they can and when they finally have to say something will simply claim that it's not apostasy.

"May the Force be with you."

Laudato Si: The New Age Kindergarten

Quote

Now, someone might say that I am taking a paragraph in isolation and ignoring the context, in which Francis even does us the favour of mentioning Christ a couple of times. But this is exactly what we must do. No Pope will ever write an encyclical entirely devoted to espousing heretical thinking. What will happen is that – like every Modernist – he will publish texts in which the errors or outright heresies are mixed with the orthodoxy. We must, therefore, expose this pernicious ideology irrespective of what else there might be in this encyclical which might happen to be right.

Yes, this is exactly what Pope Pius VI said in Auctorum Fidei:

In order not to shock the ears of Catholics, the innovators sought to hide the subtleties of their tortuous maneuvers by the use of seemingly innocuous words such as would allow them to insinuate error into souls in the most gentle manner. Once the truth had been compromised, they could, by means of slight changes or additions in phraseology, distort the confession of the faith that is necessary for our salvation, and lead the faithful by subtle errors to their eternal damnation. This manner of dissimulating and lying is vicious, regardless of the circuмstances under which it is used. For very good reasons it can never be tolerated in a synod of which the principal glory consists above all in teaching the truth with clarity and excluding all danger of error.

Moreover, if all this is sinful, it cannot be excused in the way that one sees it being done, under the erroneous pretext that the seemingly shocking affirmations in one place are further developed along orthodox lines in other places, and even in yet other places corrected; as if allowing for the possibility of either affirming or denying the statement, or of leaving it up the personal inclinations of the individual – such has always been the fraudulent and daring method used by innovators to establish error. It allows for both the possibility of promoting error and of excusing it.

It is as if the innovators pretended that they always intended to present the alternative passages, especially to those of simple faith who eventually come to know only some part of the conclusions of such discussions, which are published in the common language for everyone's use. Or again, as if the same faithful had the ability on examining such docuмents to judge such matters for themselves without getting confused and avoiding all risk of error. It is a most reprehensible technique for the insinuation of doctrinal errors and one condemned long ago by our predecessor St. Celestine who found it used in the writings of Nestorius, bishop of Constantinople, and which he exposed in order to condemn it with the greatest possible severity. Once these texts were examined carefully, the impostor was exposed and confounded, for he expressed himself in a plethora of words, mixing true things with others that were obscure; mixing at times one with the other in such a way that he was also able to confess those things which were denied while at the same time possessing a basis for denying those very sentences which he confessed.

In order to expose such snares, something which becomes necessary with a certain frequency in every century, no other method is required than the following: Whenever it becomes necessary to expose statements that disguise some suspected error or danger under the veil of ambiguity, one must denounce the perverse meaning under which the error opposed to Catholic truth is camouflaged.

https://mundabor.wordpress.com/2015/06/19/laudato-si-the-new-age-kindergarten/?blogsub=confirming#subscribe-blog

Nice, he quotes §83, too. It seems to be the worst.

A new article by James Larson who details Teilhardianism in Laudato Sì:
Two Altars at the End of Time: Laudato Si, A Manifesto of Teilhardian Theology