Since our Roman Catholic brethren are starting to look at Eco-Spirituality: http://www.stjoan.com/fammsfr.htm

See under the title Adult on the left hand side Eco-Spirituality.

I was wondering if our Byzantine Church believes,

So, is our salvation dependent on our relationship with Mother Earth?


I know recently the Holy Father and the Patriarch of Constantinople signed a letter on the environment.

ISTM that Lutherans are, as a general rule, tree-huggin' kind of people. Some of their more modern churches reflect a very nature-oriented focus.

Logos Teen

So, is our salvation dependent on our relationship with Mother Earth?

Sounds like more new age mumbo jumbo to me...while I do believe that we were given stewardship over creation and shouldn't abuse it, I somehow can't get into the idea of Mother Earth as a goddess or myself being of one spirit with the rest of creation. Actually I should say I can't get into this anymore, since I did once fall for all of this. It was a long, long time ago when I was kid and it was called Wicca back then.

What does "Share with all creation the divine spirit." Isn't man, alone, created in the likeness of God? Or are they trying to say all of creation is?

I too was mixed up in Wicca/Neo-paganism in the past. While I agree we need to avoid this I think we may be better equiped at pointing out these new-age abberations to our fellow Catholics.

In Christ,
David

Yes, you love all that exists....You spare all things because all things are yours, LORD, LOVER OF LIFE, you whose imperishable spirit is in all(Wis 11:24-26)".

"It is also the Holy Spirit who becomes creation's life and sanctification. Matter is thus made capable of being a real channel through which God imparts his life and grace. " Archbishop Joseph Raya in 'The Face of God.

"And when I prayed in my heart, everything about me appeared to be pleasing and lovely. It was as though the trees, the grass, the birds, the earth, the air, and the light were saying that they existed for the sake of man, in testimony and proof of the love of God for mankind. It was as if they were saying that everything prayed and praised God. The world is full of joy and delight. Everything draws me to love and thank God-people, trees, plants, animals. I find in them the magic of the name of Jesus." -The Way of a Pilgrim

And your point is?

Posting of quotes without comment is next to useless.


David

Actually, a lot of your Roman Catholic brethren (and sistren!) are a little concerned about New Age ideas creeping into the church via the guise of things like "eco-spirituality".

However, a recent book by Matthew Scully called "Dominion: The Call to Mercy" is an interesting variation on the earth-friendly "animal rights" theme - his argument is that our treatment of animals (and the environment) should be a reflection of our love for the One who created them.

Given what I understand that the Church teaches, I'd like to suggest that it is appropriate to say that YES, our salvation is, to some degree at least dependent on our relationship with Mother Earth.

Here's why I suggest this:

In our theology studies in a Latin seminary a number of years ago, we were taught that Jesus is the Cosmic Christ. This was on the basis of what Scripture teaches. He is the Word without Whom nothing was made that was made. He is the One Who restores the proper order of things so that all of creation in the New Creation can reflect the glory of God as He would have it reflected.

Creation has spiritual value in its own right. It was made to fully reflect God's glory. In that it is a reflection of God.

In of the Catechism of the of the Catholic Church the Church teaches:

"God willed the diversity of His creatures and their own particular goodness, their interdependence, and their order. He destined all material creatures for the good of the human race. Man, and through him all creation, is destined for the glory of God." #353

It also teaches this:

Man occupies a unique place in creation: (I) he is "in the image of God"; (II) in his own nature he unites the spiritual and material worlds; (III) he is created "male and female"; (IV) god established him in his friendship. #355

In # 349, the Church teaches that ... "For us a new day has dawned: the day of Chirst's resurrection. The seventh day completes the first creation. The eighth day begin the new creation. thus, the work of creation culminates in the greater work of redemption. The first creation finds its meaning and its summit in the new creation in Christ, the splendor of which surpasses that of the first creation."

So, creation is restored. It is restored in our renewed relationship with God through the Sacrifice, Resurrection and Ascension of Jesus.
Christians, if I understand correctly, share the effects of these saving actions with the whole of creation.

This is not wiccan theory or tree hugger nice talk. It is of the substance of Christian theology. It is important, I think, because it teaches us that matter is a gift from God that Jesus in His role as the Cosmic Chirst has restored to wholeness in solidarity with us.

Because of this we understand Creation better. Mother Earth is not a goddess. Creation, including Mother Earth, is the Icon of God's glory. In the New Creation the first creation's solidarity with us is made clear. We are restored to more fully reflect God's glory and to glorify God.

The Divine Spirit uses us and the rest of the Cosmos for His own ends. Can it not be said then that we share the same Divine Spirit in some way?

Are we not, in some way responsible to use Creation as God intends so that it reflects His glory? To that degree does not our salvation depend on our relationship to God's creation, including Mother Earth?

This is not New Age theory. It seems to me that in New Age theory we find a faint and distorted reflection of what Christianity teaches.

I wonder if New Age would be so popular if we Christians showed how much we valued God's Creation and matter in general.

We are not just spirit. We are not just matter. Matter and Spirit make a whole, us. We are made whole through the Resurrection. Creation is made whole in the same way.

I hope that this makes some sense. It is important stuff, in my estimation.

Is what the Eastern Church teaches different?

Thanks for hearing me out.

Steve

I don't know Steve.

I did a quick search of "Cosmic Christ" on the 'net and found it linked to many, many new age sites and ideas.

That a Latin Seminary taught about it doesn't mean that it is Catholic, unfortunatly many of our seminaries are full of un-Catholic teachings.

No where, ever, in my personal studies have I run across the term "Cosmic Christ" but as it is described, from my search above, it does match a lot of what I learned when I was a new-ager.

You also said;

But this is actually the basis of wiccan theory and neo-paganism. They actually worship the creation instead of the creator.

We must draw a line here so that we do not end up doing this.

Yes we are stewards of the creation and we must act as good stewards and not squander it but we must remember that the creation is not a god and it is not equal to us. That is we are to use creation for our benefit.

As a side note, one of the big "Catholic" supporters of the "Cosmic Christ" idea and "Creation Spirituality" is a known dissenter of Catholic teachings.


David

Dear David,

Thank you for your post. You have posed some interesting and valid points, I think. On others, I have some futher reflections.

I agree that simply because something was taught in a seminary doesn't mean that it is correct. Yet, I have not found anything raised in opposition to what I was taught to lead me to question its orthodoxy. If you see something in what I said that leads you to question whether or not it is Catholic thinking, I'd be interested in hearing the reasons.

I am not sure that simply because the term Cosmic Christ is linked to many new age ideas or sites, that it is not an orthodox teaching. The idea of the priesthood of believers is taught in many churches and on their sites and is interpreted differently, for example. That does not mean that it is not a truth taught by the Catholic Church.

In what I said, following the references to the Catechism, I believe that I simply restated in my own words what I understood the Catechism to be teaching. I pointed out that what I was saying came from the teaching of the Church, if I understand it correctly.

If that is so, then what I learned in the seminary has roots in orthodoxy.

In addition, I pointed out that I was not drawing on either Wiccan theory or Tree Hugger nice talk as sources on which to depend in what I had to say.

In your post you said, "But THIS (caps and bold by Steve) is actually the basis of wiccan theory and neo-paganism. They actually worship the creation instead of the creator."

I am not sure what in my posting you refer to with your use of the word THIS so I cannot clarify my meaning or respond to the issue.


David, I agree with you that we must draw lines.

I think though that we must be careful not to draw the lines in such a manner that we exclude orthodox teachings because someone has taken them and used them inappropriately and incorrectly. We should not stop talking about the priesthood of believers because others use the term when they buttress what the Church tells us are incorrect teachings. Nor should we not talk about the Risen Christ and the implications of His Resurrection on creation and the cosmos Christ because some (like Fox?) interpret it in a way that the Church says is incorrect.

I don't think that in my my report on what I learned in my theological education or in what I have said here I have used the term Cosmic Christ and Creation and Spirit or spiritual in an unorthodox manner. I do not think that what I have said goes beyond the bounds of orthodox teaching. I can't stop believing or saying this, then, because someone else has used them erroneously or has taught error about them.

I agree that we are stewards of creation. One of our duties is to act as its stewards and not squander it. We must not treat creation as if it is the Creator. There is indeed an order of creatures in Creation. We should not forget that.

The greater danger today, in my view is to forget that we are also part of Creation, fellows to the other creatures in some ways. To do so, in my estimation, is to deny Creation's intrinsic value and the importance that it takes on in the light of the Resurrection. We make light of its importance in the history of salvation, in my opinion.

By not acknowledging the importance of Creation and our fellow creatures in the plan of God, we might be sending some of our most caring and dedicated people to groups like the wiccans.

I am not sure what in the posting that I made would lead one to deduce that my teachers or the Catechism or what I've learned from study suggests anything to the contrary of orthodox teaching. If there is something, please let me know.

If I am in error, of course, I will gratefully acquiesce. I just don't think that I am at this point.

Thanks again, David, for hearing me out.

Steve

I've always taken inspiration from "let everything that lives, praise the Lord."

And, I've also always loved St. Francis of Assisi and his approach to all of creation as the handiwork of God the Father. (I too like animals. Especially dogs, but let's not get back into that again. I was attacked by the cat people!!)

For me, I need a theology that is going to acknowledge the reality that nothing would exist unless God first "willed it" into existence and then keeps it in existence. (St. Tommy Aquinas).

Thus, to acknowledge all of creation as the handiwork of God implies that it deserves both care and respect. No problem.

That fact that there are loonies out there who worship trees (like the neo-Druids), or the moon and/or stars, or Gaia/Earth, etc. doesn't invalidate our Christian perspective. And watering my plants does not make me a Druid any more than using toilet paper makes me an anti-Druid.

I do see how all of creation is linked together, and how -- like those damnable quadratic equations -- something done to one side affects the value of the other side. We can't just use up resources without its having an affect on us people. And so, good stewardship of creation is a part of reverencing God. (And it has the practical aspect of enhancing our lives. Gee. A win-win situation. How often does THAT happen!?!?)

Blessings!

"Behold I saw a new heaven and a new earth,
for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away."

Not that it isn't important to be good stewards and take care of what has been entrusted to us, but it is important to remember that not only will WE not be here permanently, but this *earth* won't either.

If you are renting an apartment, you are obligated to return it in the same condition or pay a penalty. But you are not obligated to go to extremes to decorate it, or pay your own money to fix the plumbing if it breaks down. You only do that stuff if you own the place - otherwise, you report it to the landlord and let him take care of it.

We don't own the earth, we're just the tenants! (and all this should give you a pretty good idea of just how good a tenant I am! )

T.G., I'm not quite sure I understand your perspective on this. Are you saying that since Creation (including the earth) belongs to God and that we are just "tenants", we don't have to care? Or perhaps that God will take care of His creation regardless of what we do? I suspect that this is NOT what you meant, but I am having trouble understanding your perspective.

"Arm the Bunnies!!!"

Blessings!

Steve,
Thanks for the reply.

My use of the word THIS was confusing, and to tell the truth, I am confused by it now.... lost my train of thought there, sorry.

As for the Cosmic Christ, yes, just becuase new agers use this term does not invalidate it, but it does mean that you need to fully explain its usage so that we do not confuse it with the new age ideas attached to it.

Also the fact that a known Catholic Dissenter uses this term it push forward "Creation Spirituality" which is seperate from Catholic Teachings does bother me.

All I can say about what you have said is that on the surface it looks ok, but I still have this funny tingling at the base of my neck that tells me something is wrong with the use of the term "Cosmic Christ". I have felt this way before and it has yet to let me down, so until proven other wise I will not use this term or promote it's use.

Also let me ask you this, have any of the Fathers of the Church used the term "Cosmic Christ" in any of their wirtings? If not, then why must we create a new term?

So Theist Gal, are you saying that if we do not return the earth as we got it that we will not get our deposit back? :p

Can you back this up with scripture or other writings/teachings of the Church?


David

If you're having a problem with the "Cosmic Christ," well then, how about with "Christ, the Eternal Tao?" :-)

OrthodoxEast