Christopher West Thanks and Responds to his critics
#38
(10-29-2009, 01:49 AM)MeaMaximaCulpa Wrote:
(10-28-2009, 09:45 PM)Gerard Wrote: By saying Jesus is the model of all Creation, I'm reminded of Tielhard's "Omega Point" in which Jesus is for all intents and purposes, the most highly evolved of us and not really a separate fully man, fully God being part of the Trinity with us as  a separate thing, a Creation. 

Wow...

St. Paul Wrote:He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation. For in him were created all things in heaven and on earth, the visible and the invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or powers; all things were created through him and for him. He is before all things, and in him all things hold together. He is the head of the body, the church. He is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, that in all things he himself might be preeminent. For in him all the fullness was pleased to dwell.

Is St. Paul espousing heresy when he says that Christ is the "firstborn of all Creation"?  Or when we say that the Son is the Logos, the principle on which the entire created world rests, are we then nodding in agreement with Teilhard?  Or when Christ says He's the "Alpha and Omega", what does He mean?

No.  St. Paul is not espousing heresy.  What in the world makes you think that what St. Paul wrote is the same thing that Tielhard espoused? 

Quote: You've made a beautiful strawman. 

Not the strawman you just put up is truly a work of art.   

Quote: In all that I've read of JPII, I've never ever seen him espouse the notion that we can somehow evolve into divinity (to summarize Teilhard).  Creation proceeds from the Word, and thus Christ can be called the model of all Creation.

Ah yes. Because YOU haven't seen him "espouse the notion" it must not be there.  But espousing notions is what JPII was best at.  He won't directly contradict the Church, but he will espouse a notion of heresy and let a bunch of people fall into actual heresy by his imprudent formulations. 

The point is simple.  Creation as we see it is Fallen.  It is not as it was when God created it.   Unfortunately someone with a Darwinist mentality will view this tri-dimensional existence as an apex of Creation. 

Tielhard, Rahner, von Balthazar, JPII while disagreeing on niggling details, all have the mentality of Man as demi-God to become God someday.  Why else would JPII be "espousing the notion" of "Universal Salvation?"  Because God can't really be damned to Hell.  And if Man is ultimately God, it's illogical that He would be damned. 

Quote:Just, wow...

And to comment on the post previous to this one, you can't say "consequently":

Quote:The problem with that take on TOB is that it runs along the lines of Karl Rahner's Supernatural Existential which leads to his "anonymous Christianity" claptrap.    It also bears the influence of Darwin and consequently Tielhard de Chardin.

Premise: "One who believes in Darwin, consequently believes in Teilhard de Chardin." 

Correction:  One who believe in Darwin may consequently believe in Teilhard de Chardin.   

Your false premise is:  "Consequence =  Necessity"   :P

Quote: I don't think atheists would agree with Teilhard. 

Wow.  You are calling JPII an Atheist.    just wow.....  (at least that's what I think you are saying, because otherwise, it would be completely irrelevant to the discussion at hand.  )

Quote: Thus, I don't think it can be said that just because one accepts tenets of evolution, necessarily has to believe in the "Omega Point" (since evolution says nothing about the order of grace). 

Again, you are conflating "consequence" with "necessity."   Are you denying that there is a logical sequence between someone believing in evolution and therefore (consequently) accepting Tielhard's fantasies? 

Quote:  And while I don't want to re-hash a debate on evolution, I do think Pius XII at least thought that discussion on evolution sans Teilhard was possible (given that he allowed such general discussions to take place in the same encyclical in which he condemned the forementioned theory).

There is no indication that JPII followed the teaching of Pius XII with regards to evolution.  Based on nothing, he affirmed his personal belief in it, based on no scientific argument.   Pius XII allowed discussion provided that arguments both for and against be presented.  JPII and unfortunately BXVI have not followed this prudent course. 

And Pius XII left no room for the polygenism that attempts to undermine the belief in the special creation of man.   Pius XII bound the Church to that position with the Ordinary infallible Magisterium.

<i>"When, however, there is question of another conjectural opinion, namely polygenism, the children of the Church by no means enjoy such liberty. For the faithful cannot embrace that opinion which maintains that either after Adam there existed on this earth true men who did not take their origin through natural generation from him as from the first parent of all, or that Adam represents a certain number of first parents. Now it is in no way apparent how such an opinion can be reconciled with that which the sources of revealed truth and the documents of the Teaching Authority of the Church propose with regard to original sin, which proceeds from a sin actually committed by an individual Adam and which, through generation, is passed on to all and is in everyone as his own"</I>
Reply


Messages In This Thread
UO - by Historian - 10-29-2009, 01:49 AM
Re: UO - by Gerard - 10-29-2009, 10:51 AM



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)