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

Well, I do agree about arming the bunnies, except maybe not the big scary jackrabbits with all the fleas. And this is obviously going to be a flawed analogy!

Of course we have to care. I am not allowed to rip up the carpeting in my apartment or tear the plaster off the walls. I am expected to return it in the same condition it was when I moved in. And I'm going to pretty things up and make it a pleasant place to live and to have visitors, and try not to do anything to make it unliveable for future tenants.

The whole time I'm living there, I know that no matter how much I enjoy it, it isn't really "my" apartment, but belongs to someone else, and that whatever improvements I make will probably be taken out later on. So I don't go to extremes. And I don't make the mistake of thinking that I'm going to be here forever. (Especially if they keep raising my rent!! )

(Ahem - sorry, getting back to the analogy! )

So in one sense, yes, we know that the Earth belongs to God and that if we love Him, we should take care of the gifts He has given us. That's all fine and nice and worthwhile.

However, a lot of the eco-spirituality stuff I've seen seems to be predicated on the belief that this earth and environment are all that is and all that ever will be, which we as Christians know is not exactly true.

And as others have pointed out, and as I myself have seen (you can't live in Southern California and not see this stuff), it does seem to be a belief system that's very popular with Wiccans and other pagans. Which should make Christians a bit wary.

Does any of this make sense? If not, I'll go eat my lunch and see if having a full stomach makes any difference.

I don't think that Father Teilhard de Chardin was a "New Ager"!!

No, he wasn't; and I'm sure he was a very good and devout man. However, the Vatican has issued warnings against his teachings; they are considered to contain serious doctrinal errors. So he might not be the best person to cite in defense of your ideas.

I think that the Vatican had had some issues with Fr. de Chardin a while back. But I believe that after serious reconsideration, they came to the understanding that as an anthropologist (as well as theologian) his explanations and theology went a long way in defusing the objections of some in the scientific community who had serious objections to Christian theology dressed in its 'medieval clothes'. Fr.'s point on converging ontology (the reverse of the 'big bang' theory) is not much more than a development of the alpha-omega terms applied to Christ - that is: all creation is coming towards a convergence point of its existence, and that convergence point is God.

I know that there are all sorts of new-agers out there with their crystals and aromas, and their hummy-chants. It's all emotion and feelings, and quite little on the reasoning. But I would not allow them the privilege of forcing us to give up on ecological issues just because they claim to have "claimed them first". That's just compost.

Blessings!

Well, according to the document I found at ETWN, they had issued a warning against his teachings in 1962 and re-issued the same warning in 1981, so it doesn't sound like they've reconsidered him too much.

For what it's worth, I just finished reading a terrific (old) novel, "Shoes of the Fisherman" by Morris West, in which a Ukrainian Catholic is elected Pope and befriends a French Jesuit priest with some radical ideas - obviously loosely based on de Chardin. It's a great story, just don't know if I buy the theology.

While I enjoy a good book burning as much as the next guy, (particularly ones with silly ideas about the earth revolving around the sun) the Vatican, to its credit, seems to understand that matters are much more nunaced than EWTN or others might present.

Sensible people can see a film which they judge to be great art and a tremendous social contribution yet still critic parts or aspects of the film. Even a troubling film like 'Birth of a Nation' still is recognized as great cinema and a work with a rightful place in the development of the art.

Maybe too Teilhard de Chardin. While unlike John Courtney Murray, he has not been rehabilitated (or whatever the term is for a churchman whose writings are firmly condemned and subsequently claimed as the Church's own), the Vatican seems to understand that a great thinker can can make great contributions to the world yet fail in some aspect. (wisdom and value can come from people who do not fully possess the truth?).

It is correct that the Vatican issued a statement to explain that "The letter sent by the Cardinal Secretary of State to His Excellency Mons. Poupard on the occasion of the centenary of the birth of Fr. Teilhard de Chardin has been interpreted in a certain section of the press as a revision of previous stands taken by the Holy See in regard to this author, and in particular of the Monitum of the Holy Office of 30 June 1962" and that this was a mistaken interpetation and that the '62 Monitum had not been nullifed.

I would think it would be proper to note that the Vatican did not re-issue a Monitum but simply answered inquiries as to the status of the '62 Monitum.

More important (and my point -- I know, I've blabbled on for too long to get to my point) is the original letter which EWTN seemed to think too unimportant to provide. Here it is:

On 12 May 1981 the Vatican's Cardinal Secretary of State, Agostino Casaroli, wrote to Archbishop Paul Poupard, rector of the Catholic Institute of Paris:
"The international scientific community, and more broadly, the whole intellectual world, are preparing to celebrate the centenary of the birth of Father Pierre Teilhard de Chardin. The astonishing repercussions of his researches, together with the influence of his personality and the richness of his thought, have left a lasting mark on our age."
"A powerful insight into the deep value of nature, a keen perception of the dynamism of creation, a wide view of the becoming of the world were combined in him with undeniable religious fervour.
"Geared to the future, this synthesis, often so lyrical in expression and fraught with a passion for the universal, will have contributed to restoring to men tormented by doubt the taste of hope. But at the same time, the complexity of the problems tackled as well as the variety of approaches adopted, have not failed to raise difficulties, which rightly motivate a
critical and serene study -- both on the scientific and on the philosophical and theological levels -- of this exceptional work.
"There is no doubt that the celebrations of this centenary, at the Catholic Institute of Paris, or at the National History Museum, at UNESCO as well as in Notre Dame de Paris, will be from this point of view an opportunity for a stimulating confrontation, through a rightful
methodological distinction of levels, on strict epistemological lines.
"Our time will certainly remember, beyond difficulties of conception and deficiencies of expression in this bold attempt at a synthesis, the witness of the unified life of a man seized by Christ in the depths of his being, and concerned to honour faith and reason at the same time, responding in advance, as it were, [Chardin died in 1955!] to John Paul II's appeal, 'Do not be afraid; open, open wide the doors to Christ, the immense fields of culture, civilization, and development.'
"I am happy, Your Excellency, to communicate this message to you on behalf of the holy Father, for all the participants in the conference over
which you preside at the Catholic institute of Paris as a tribute to Father Teilhard de Chardin, and I assure you of my faithful devotion." (s/
Agostino Card. Casaroli).


This letter from the Cardinal Secretary of State seems to be the Catholic Church at its most catholic. The additional statment when coupled with the Casaroli letter adds some clarificiation. Uncoupled with the letter it responds to, well.....

Axios

Dear David,

Thanks for your comments. They are a stimulus to refresh what I learned so many years ago. But given the limited time available, I'll just take a stab using the resources at hand to share the underpinnings of what I was taught.

I am glad that what I have said so far sounds ok on the surface. From what I remember the underpinnings are just as sound. I hope that some of these will relieve the funny tingling. The notion of the Cosmic effects of Jesus' Resurrection is scripturally based especially in the writings of St. Paul.

Chapter 1 of Collossians, verses 15 to 28 was cited as a basis for asserting the cosmic relationship of Christ to Creation. "He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature. For in him were created all things in the heavens and on the earth, things visible and things invisible, whether Thrones, or Dominations, or Principalities, or Powers. All things have been created through and unto him and he is before all creatures, and in him all things hold together. Again, he is the head of his body, the Church; he, who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, that in all things he may have the first place. For it has pleased God the Father that in him all his fullness should dwell, and that through him he should reconcile to himself all things, whether on the earth or in the heavens, making peace through the blood of his cross." ( The New Testament, Confraternity Text, 1950 -1959)


The cosmic aspect of Jesus work was presented also in the beginning of the Gospel of John. "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God; and the word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things were made through him, and without him was made nothing that has been made...." John 1: 1-4.

I was also taught that the cosmic effects of the work of Jesus is reflected in the Book of Revelations in the Cosmic struggle that is presented there. Don't ask me to explain that book, though.

Origen was a father who was pointed out as one who taught the notion of the Cosmic Christ, the Christ whose resurrection has effects on the whole cosmos.

Dionysius the Areopagite (EP. VIII; PG3, 1086D is referred to in the book Transfiguration - An Introduction to the Contemplation of Icons, by Maria Giovanna Muzj, (St. Pauls Books and Media, 1991).

There he is quoted as saying "Let us raise our eyes towards the heights and peacefully receive the beneficial ray of Christ, who is the absolute good, who transcends every individual good; may his light elevate us to the divine workings of his goodness. Is it not he himself who, having created everything, desires that every creature live in close contact with him and share in a communion with him insofar as possible? "
(bold by Steve)

His comments were cited, as I recall, to teach that the work of Christ has cosmic aspects not only for us humans but for every creature who is called to "share in a communion with him insofar as possible."

As an aside, I found it interesting that in leading the examination of the Icon, The Savior Amid the Heavenly Powers, in the same book the author makes this comment:

"This icon possesses a vision of greatly concentrated power, in which many aspects of the mystery of the Incarnate Word converge. Seated on a throne supported by the wheels of cherubim, surrounded by seraphim, Christ appears, above all, as the Creator and Lord of the whole universe, which orders itself around him in accordance with the combined vision of Ezekiel and Isaiah.... The throne, carefully delineated in white, expresses a cosmic symbolism, with its cubed seat surmounted by a circular arch; the rectangular foot rest on which the Lord places his feet further emphasizes his Lordship: " with heaven my throne and earth my footstool"(Isaiah 66:1 (bold by Steve)

In my study, I came across a comment by Joseph Ratzinger in his Introduction to Christianity, (1971, p.52). He said that Eastern Christianity "... has always sought to see the Christian faith in a cosmic and metaphysical perspective... this ... is at last beginning to gain or regain currency in the Western consciousness as well."

There are recognitions of the cosmic value of our work as the Church, the Body of Christ in Gaudeum et Spes # 45. Pope John Paul II in the first line of the Encyclical, Redemptor Hominis, says that the Redeemer of Men is the ongoing center of the universe and of history which extends from the beginning to the end of time. Certainly this is a Cosmic role for the Redeemer.

David, I cannot share all there is to share to make clear why the teaching that I learned can be distinguished from the teachings of the New-Age Movement. I have tried to briefly share the surface and some of the underpinnings. In this I have pointed out some resources that might be of use to you to explore this area also. Using the term Christology along with the Cosmic Christ should produce results other than simply new age stuff when you do a search on this topic.

I am not sure how new agers use the term Cosmic Christ. Frankly, I am agog that wiccans use Christian terminology to teach their beliefs at all. Perhaps you can help me understand this. I've not had the time to deeply explore what they are teaching in this area.

At any rate, I hope that I have been clear enough that you can see that those whose writings I have cited pretty much off the top of my head, with brief research, are not new agers. They represent the mainstream of Christian thought over the years. They recognize that the work of Christ has cosmic aspects. In that sense, at least, it seems safe to say that Jesus is the Cosmic Christ.

I am not trying to convince you, David, or anyone else to adopt that term. The idea that it conveys is much too important to overload with a problematic term.

I was addressing the negativity about Christian eco-spirituality as it was being discussed above. I was attempting to stress the effects of the Resurrection of Christ, not only on us but on the cosmos. I wanted to suggest the importance of creation and matter in our spiritual jouney as a result.

That seemed to be a missing piece in the discussion. That lack has important repercussions on people who see it as a denial of the importance of the earth and matter on the part of Christians.

Eco spirituality, as I saw it discussed in the link provided by Johan earlier, is not new age. It is simply a recognition of the spiritual value of matter, the world, indeed the whole cosmos in the light of the Saving Actions of Jesus. It is also a way of encouraging us to examine our use of nature and matter to ensure that we try to ensure that the whole of creation, including us reflects the glory of God. At least that's how it seems to me.

There was a book, I think it was called The Cosmic Christ, by George Mahoney that dealt with this concept as it was used in the Byzantine Tradition. It was published around the same time as, now Cardinal, Ratzinger's book. I can't be more specific at this time though. It was good.

I believe he is the Jesuit who wrote Uncreated Energies that dealt with the Eastern approach to Grace.

Thank you for your patience with my writing. I've tried to express myself clearly, but time limits my ability to edit at this time.

Thanks also for hearing me out again.

Steve

PS I hope that the tingling has lessened at least a little bit! :rolleyes:

Dear Dr. John,

I wonder if someone in Rome saw Oliver and decided to heed the call of Fagan, "Lets reconsider the situation.

You called it correctly. But then, you usually do.

Steve

Dear Axios,

Thanks for sharing that update.

There has been much made of deChardin's Cosmic Christ and its relationship to Origen's teaching on the subject. I think that there was a book on the topic some time ago.

My memory being what it is, I can't recall the title or the name of the author.

The notion of the Omega Point, the Christ who is the end all, the real goal of all creation and history, challenges some people who are oriented more to scientce and the philosophy of science tp tale theology seriously. For some it leads them to consider Christianity as an explanation of the pilgrimage on which we and the cosmos are embarked. It helps those who study the new cosmology to see Christianity as a viable answer to some of their questions.

Thanks again for pointing out that the final word on de Chardin's thinking has not been said. The final word is seldom the first word.

Steve

Fr. DeChardin's anthropoligical/theological perspective attempted to unite both the anthropological and theolgical perspectives on what is the true evolution of the Cosmos. For DeChardin, the evolution of both the human race as wella s "creation" was tending towards unity with God the Father, the Creator.

Theologically, this is a counterpart with the notion of God the Father as both Alpha and Omega, i.e., the beginning of all creation as well as its culmination.

We live in 'creation'. Everything that exists exists because God has spoken the "word" of existence - and we (as well as everything else) come into existence. If God should determine that something should NOT exist, then it would go from being a reality to a non-entity.

But in the normal course of existing, everything that is part of the "word" of existence, will ultimately return to the reality of God. And then, ALL creation will come to the Creator. This is the Omega, the "end-point" of existence.

We human beings, because we have free-will, are able to facilitate the return to God the Omega point. When we are in harmony with God's will, we bring all of creation towards the Omega Point of reunion with the Father/Creator.

When we do elsewise, we are seducing God's reality/Creation to some other non-Omega point. And thus, we are in sin.

We human beings, therefore, are obligated to make sure that ALL existence is on the path to Omega/Creator adn we must ensure that the "spiritual" values of humanity are defeated and that people are able to see the wonderful reality of God's creation.

And this means: WORK!!

Blessings!!

Dear Dr. John and other tree-huggers

I used to love Fr. Chardin's work in university!

But I think the best commentary on the Cosmic Christ etc. is in the Eastern Fathers, especially with respect to Theosis.

Social sciences are a great thing.

But it is best NOT to try and adapt theology to their methodologies.

Alex