Christopher West Thanks and Responds to his critics
#34
(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?

You've made a beautiful strawman.  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.

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." 

I don't think atheists would agree with Teilhard.  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).  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).
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)