Keep in mind that it was the King of the Kingdom of Heaven that came into this world. It was someone outside the ways and nature of this present age that entered into this age so that those who would turn to God could be set free from this present kingdom of darkness and be able to enter into the Kingdom of Light. A righteousness that is outside this age of wickedness invaded it to bring us freedom from it. The Kingdom of Heaven is so other worldly (outside of the nature of this age) that the darkness could not comprehend it. Our salvation does not come from within our own natural strengths, it comes from the Kingdom of God.
Im sorry, I should have associated my last post to the above posters statement referencing his statement, “Not something otherworldly nor an abstraction”.
I neglected something important – it should have read:
The Eastern Orthodox teaching of Theosis goes back to St. Irenaeus (130-202 AD), who was a disciple of St. Polycarp, who in turn had been taught by St. John Apostle and Evangelist. Irenaeus elaborates the basic statement in the Prolog of St. John Gospel: “The Word became flesh” to conclude:
And then, again, this Word was manifested when the Word of God was made man, assimilating Himself to man, and man to Himself, so that by means of his resemblance to the Son, man might become precious to the Father. (Irenaeus, Against Heresies V, 16.2). [For a detailed discussion see this article.]
Irenaeus (very much relying on St. John’s Word-Theology) considers that Theosis (the deification of man) happens through the identification with Jesus Christ (the Son of God). In other words, Theosis is the same as Divine filiation after all: You become God as far as you become son in the Son. Theosis means basically establishing a familial Father/child relationship with God, and thereby a brother and sister relationship with all human beings in the Image of God.
I think @Cody_G has magnificently expressed the same view:
Happy New Year, Antoine! Thanks for keeping a steady pace here. Will catch up eventually. Can I ask: do you use Telegram? Be welcome to DM if preferred.
“Such ‘selfish’ mechanisms were also present in the evolved Homo sapiens creatures at the moment God made them into human beings in the image of God.”
For me, this sounds too much like Harari & Diamond, and not (enough) like a Roman Catholic message. What you write about “selfish mechanisms” is fine as pure philosophical conjecture, but need not mean much more than that. An entertaining story (borrowed from Hobbes, Malthus, Spencer & Richard Dawkins?!) that provides a “new evolutionary twist” to Christian Scripture. Is this the offering, or if not, who are the other main figures (e.g. Novak & Coakley, Fuentes)?
I would suggest you might be missing out on a huge territory of literature that doesn’t require you to take “selfish mechanisms” as your “starting point” on that one aspect of the larger topic. Or at least that literature may help you to re-situate your starting point so that “the selfish gene” anti-theistic thinking of Dawkins, along with “crude Darwinism”, fades into the background.
Why otherwise the “scare quotes” around “selfish” than that you mean to equivocate “selfish” with “sin”? It’s a kind of expression that is in a way shameful to make, right? Yet it is nevertheless conceded as a “valid scientific approach” because Dawkins wrote about “selfish genes” and “memetics” in 1976, and followed that up with “the extended phenotype”, all of which also simply “good science” across the board, cuz Dawkins is emeritus at Oxford, is this how the rationale goes? We can explain (if not blame) our “sin nature” then, following Dawkins’ insightful and occasionally inspiring (read: enthusiastic, advocacy) public understanding of natural science approach, through better understanding our “selfish evolutionary mechanisms” scientifically. It can merely be framed within a theological context of some kind (the Pontifical Academy of Sciences minimizes Dawkins, & most natural scientists by survey don’t seem to like him very much, after all). Is this the story in a nutshell?
I’m curious though, Antoine, since apparently you have a background in theoretical physics, if you suggest there is ANY (empirical, material, physical, or even “informational”) evidence for this supposed “‘selfish’ mechanism” that can be measured strictly by natural sciences, i.e. “scientifically”? Otherwise, it may be that you are merely suggesting “selfish evolutionary mechanisms” as a philosophical overlay upon the human-social sciences, without actual natural scientific justification through modelling, experimentation, and replication. Is it a natural scientific or philosophical notion of “selfish evolutionary mechanisms” involving the origins of humankind created in God’s image you are putting forward, or some mixture of both? It surely does not sound like it would be wise to argue for “selfish evolutionary mechanisms” in human-social sciences if you don’t want the conversation to quickly descend into a conflict. [I can say this through the experience of someone who at one point taught & mentored me. This person was terminated from their public university position for advocating exactly Darwinian evolutionary history of humanity in class, and for not excluding, but rather for including the “natural history” of religion. The incident reveals ideological power in marginalizing people from “inclusion” in “science” based on their “spiritual” worldview. In this case, the spiritual marginalized won. I am in agreement with them and also the board that decided on the disciplinary matter.]
As for me, I don’t think there is scientific evidence available in the way you seem to be suggesting. It may nevertheless make sense to you to speak in a “Darwinian” way from within the nexus of (informational) physics and philosophy. For me, it doesn’t make sense either “socially” or “personally” to speak of “sin” together with “selfish evolutionary mechanisms” that way; it sounds like awkward palaeo-theology.
Questions of “sin”, since they involve choices and actions, TODAY, just as yesterday, are really more suitable for anthropologists, sociologists, and psychologists who are Abrahamic monotheists, aren’t they? If you agree, who are you looking to in your reading instead of physicists or philosophers to set the table for your exploratory conversation and discussion about how those mechanisms you seem to think are primary, might be secondary or even tertiary after all, when looked at from an alternative “competing hypothesis” or neighbouring paradigm. Was Etienne Gilson a “selfish evolutionary mechanisms” or “selfishness intrinsic to the mechanism of evolution” kinda guy? Was Bergson? Is Margaret Archer?
“history and daily evidence show that evolutionary selfish tendencies contribute a lot to the temptations humans undergo” - Antoine (A.Suarez's Treatment on a Pope's Formulation for Original Sin's Transmission! - #40 by AntoineSuarez)
No, I just don’t see this. That is said as someone studying history and daily human evidence now. Otherwise, it’s just eVopsych fantasy talk, following the “inspiration” of an atheist “evolutionary religious studies” narrative in promoting this idea.
Saying that a “crushed skull” or broken bones, for example, suggests “selfish evolutionary mechanisms” in Homo Sapiens’ history isn’t all that helpful or valuable a claim. Sin today in a non-abstract sense is much more acute and valuable than “going paleo” every time on these questions (which of course, surely you do not do).
Likewise, I wonder what evidence of this “pre-human” or pre-Adamic “selfishness” you see in Scripture, Antoine, rather than in extrapolations from evolutionary palaeontology or in attempts to Catholicise evolutionary psychology? Otherwise, teachings directly from the Desert Fathers as you just posted do indeed help. A reinvented Dawkinsian reading of naturalized religious history with Christian emphasis, accepted then covered over with plastic information, however, seems too foul now to consider from you, Antoine, so please forgive, it must be that I have poorly misinterpreted what you wrote.
Again I recommend, Antoine, that you really ought to take a closer look at the Eastern Orthodox teaching of “ancestral sin”, which differs from the Roman Catholic notion of “original sin”. You keep bringing up “original righteousness” as if this isn’t already well-known and taught in the Christian tradition, one feature of the pre-lapsarian. While perhaps you repeat it for those who haven’t heard about it before, the deeper tradition doesn’t turn on Irenaeus vs. Augustine, but rather on a tradition that through both Ireneaus and Augustine goes back to a Common Source.
Most importantly, we agree regarding “need of/for redemption”. It seems what we disagree upon is whether or not the “need of/for redemption” is an “evolved property” or not. The Tradition seems to say “No”. What about you? I prefer to speak of it not as an “evolution”, but rather as an “extension” … of choice beyond information alone. But our choice is not alone, right?
1 Like
“To my limited understanding, they are antithetical and disanalogous to the reality of the familial Father/child relationship”.
Meant positively, that would show too limited an understanding. Please specify the “more like Buddhism” feature of the Eastern Orthodox teachings on theosis as you currently understand them. There is no “theo” (Creator God) in Buddhism.
One helpful resource: Theosis: Partaking of the Divine Nature | Antiochian Orthodox Christian Archdiocese
“without having to become mystics.”
Is the pursuit of theosis itself a problem for you mainly because of where you live?
In what sense does the opposite ring untrue with respect to Scripture. Should it be said and thought that Scripture is entirely “un-mystical” or “amystical”, and calls people to reject mysteries, mystics and mysticism? Do you possibly mean all of those as terms of friendly “reproach” (mysticism | Search Online Etymology Dictionary)?
Granted a call seems to have gone out in central Europe, early “modernity”, to become as entirely un-mystical or amystical as possible. Luther was part of a “rationalization of the world” (Weber), but so was Gutenberg on a technical level through visual bias. Should all of Christianity follow suit going along with the most highly rationalized Protestantism in demystifying the historically-called “divine mysteries”?
Is the following quotation the sort of feeling that still pervades among some over-rationalized, amystical Protestants?
“We have not the reverent feeling for the rainbow that the savage has, because we know how it is made. We have lost as much as we gained by prying into that matter.” - Mark Twain
Have the “divine mysteries” become so over-rationalized among evangelicals now, e.g. via C.S. Lewis, folks like W.L. Craig, Ravi Zacharias and so forth, who have “formulated” their rational Christianity as “amystical” because they can most easily do it that way in today’s societies they live in? Why would anyone “become mystics”, Dale, when that option is simply not available for most people nowadays living in Weber’s “iron cage of rationality”?
The recent work of Orthodox icon carver Jonathan Pageau, as joyfully and innocently outside of that “iron cage of rationality” as I’ve seen in a long time, alongside the wave of psychologist Jordan Peterson’s “maps of meaning” approach that is “pro-religious” while still uncommitted on it’s relation to Christianity, has been significant in raising awarenesss about this, as more and more people who were stuck in almost completely anti-mystical thinking, often spurred in classrooms and in media by people upholding if not promoting ideological (natural) scientism, are now starting to break down this barrier in their understanding of life, human existence and the world around us. I’m not sure if your aversion, Dale, is held by today’s younger generations, though could be wrong about that & would be pleased to hear more about it here.
After having travelled and lived in the “east” for considerable time, living in a way that is totally “amystical” sounds to me like “white man got no dreaming”, which you are welcome to interpret however you like from the Australian Indigenous. 
Btw, looking back, I thought your early comment on this thread was one of the best ones (To Capitalize or Not to Capitalize? ID Theory vs. BioLogos - #4 by Dale). Thanks for that!
- G.
Here is a mystery that a person who still loves sin will not understand.
Col 1:25 I have become its servant by the commission God gave me to present to you the word of God in its fullness— 26 the mystery that has been kept hidden for ages and generations, but is now disclosed to the saints. 27 To them God has chosen to make known among the Gentiles the glorious riches of this mystery, which is Christ in you, the hope of glory.
Col 2:2My purpose is that they may be encouraged in heart and united in love, so that they may have the full riches of complete understanding, in order that they may know the mystery of God, namely, Christ, 3 in whom are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge.
This mystery cannot be comprehended by those who want to continue in sin. There are conditions that a person must meet to understand this mystery. This mystery, “Christ in you, the hope of glory” was never conceived in the mind of man. This mystery had to be revealed from outside ourselves, it had to come from God. Looking at rocks, fossils and star light will never reveal this mystery. It only comes from God and that by the proclaiming of the Word of Christ.
Hi Cody,
First time greeting here!
“a person who still loves sin will not understand”
Please be careful that you are not standing in “protestant” judgment of humanity, including Christians.
What you say now sounds like it elevates Orthodox beliefs, not ideological protestantism. Yet no doubt the anti-science you have been demonstrating is a result of protestant pastors in your life. Please excuse if I got this wrong.
Many YECists, far too many white protestant evangelicals love the sin of scientism. Social fact. It’s found in YECism, it’s found in IDism & it’s found in TEism/ECism. Please share how you disagree.
Hello Gregory,
Where I stand is on Christ. As I said before, rocks, fossils and star light will not reveal Christ to someone. Truly knowing Jesus only comes from hearing the message about Jesus, turning from sin and self and submitting your allegiance to Him as Lord. It is only by the Spirit of God convicting a person of their sin that a person will look for a way of safety, and that way is Jesus.
I don’t identify with any religious organization, my identity is absolutely in Christ. It is the person of Jesus I was united to in fact and reality, the moment i turned from sin and placed my confidence in Him and called out on His name. The scripture says, " May I never boast except in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, through which the world has been crucified to me, and I to the world". No amount of excavation, radiometric dating or any of man’s understanding of the material world will reveal Christ in them or crucify the world and sin to them. Only in the message of Christ can a person come to fully know the Father. Jesus is a person and it is He who reveals Himself to any who seek Him with all their heart.
The Spirit makes it plain when He says, “The whole world is under the power of the wicked one”. So, the whole world, or those of this present age are condemned. Only in being executed with Jesus and being raised up a New Creation, in this present time, can a person know the mystery, “Christ in you, the hope of Glory”.
Apologetics is apparently how you are trained to “think” as a “protestant”. Yet that’s far too superficial. Pride in self-confident evangelicalistic individualism sounds sinful too, doesn’t it, Cody?
“I don’t identify with any religious organization, my identity is absolutely in Christ.”
Disobedient? Individualistic? Independent?
You were not called to be ignorant in Jesus, but wise. Barely awake protestantism based on biblical literalism seem careless and superficial. Yet such an approach is your “young earth” calling card, is it not? If so, then from a sociological awareness, you’re not alone. Peace and healing wishes.
Not sure if I understand all that you said. But the reality is as the scripture says, “he who unites himself with the Lord is one with Him in spirit”. That is the reality. Not some denominational belief or a certain brand of theology, it is Christ. Those who have not turned from sin don’t know Him and many who have called out to Him dont understand all that God did in Jesus when he was executed and rose from the dead and ascended to the Fathers side. Christ in me is daily saving me from sin. That is unmerited favor, grace. Through the cross of Christ I died to the world and the world to me, (thus saith the Spirit of God).
Disobedient? No! I was created in Christ unto good works.
Individualistic? Yes! Those who are in Christ are one spirit with Him, we are His body. One individual, Christ.
Independent? No! Jesus said, “If you love me you will keep my commands and I and my Father will come and make our home in you.” I am fully dependent on Jesus and the Father abiding in me.
Once dead in sin, once asleep without the knowledge of Jesus, but now filled with the Spirit of Christ which makes me awake and wise in the ways of God. It appears you are stuck on categorizing those who are born of the Spirit by using terms like protestantism, the truth is I have become a New Creation in Christ through His cross. It is Jesus who has bought me and freed me from the slavery to sin and the god of this world. Why would I align myself or call myself by any other name. I am bound to Jesus by being one spirit with him, just as the Word of God makes clear.
Thanks for taking time to discussing my proposal on “transmission of original sin”.
I get the impression you are misunderstanding what I write. I dare to repeat my claim to clarify:
The behaviors of lions, chimps, orangutans, and bonobos I refer to are well established physical evidence.
Question 1: Are you doubting this?
I qualify these behaviors (and the mechanisms underpinning them) as “selfish” in the sense that the actions they lead to are criminal and sinful, if they are committed by free and conscious human beings in the image of God.
Before God made Homo sapiens in the Image of God, the Homo sapiens creatures did such actions but they were not aware of being morally responsible and therefore accountable toward God for them.
Question 2: Are you claiming that such Homo sapiens creatures (that were not accountable beings in the image of God) were committing crimes and sins?
I would be thankful if you answer these 2 Questions, in order we can progress in our discussion.
Hello Antoine,
Thanks for keeping the conversation moving foward.
You said:
I get the impression you are misunderstanding what I write.
Instead, Antoine, it may be that I do understand what you write, but that in my understanding I critique it where it seems to differ significantly from established Roman Catholic teachings. Is that an option for you to consider also? Please leave it open as a possibility, in case you might not be aware of your apparent deviations from Catholic teachings.
If I was mainly interested to read Roman Catholic standard, I wouldn’t be reading what you write. I would just go to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences and read what they say there. Yours, however, appears to be a novelty approach to Catholic teachings, just as was Teilhard de Chardin’s “evolutionist” version of Christianity, a version which has largely failed and was censured by the Vatican.
Is this a fair assessment & comparison with your views, since you’ve promoted Teilhard in this thread, and surely have entertained Teilhard’s ideas, granted, not all positively, here with another unorthodox Catholic, who is a Teilhardian?
“The behaviors of lions, chimps, orangutans, and bonobos I refer to are well established physical evidence. Question 1: Are you doubting this?”
No, I am not doubting the existence or evidence of behaviours and actions of lions, chimps, orangutans, and bonobos. Of course not! Why would you even make this otherwise trivial claim?
Question 2: Are you claiming that such Homo sapiens creatures (that were not accountable beings in the image of God) were committing crimes and sins?
No. Yet rather than being problematic for Christianity, that is instead YOUR problem in promoting a novelty Catholic evolutionist position as a philosophical physicist. It’s not a problem for historical Christianity, which doesn’t teach about Homo Sapiens the way you are doing now. “Christianity” as “we” know it throughout history starts with “Adam”, not with Homo Sapiens. Do you disagree?
It sounds like you’re trying to do something similar to what S.Joshua Swamidass is doing. Let me suggest that is a bad and heterodox idea.
You wish to start with Homo Sapiens , which shows you’ve drunk the “natural history of religion” Cool Aid by atheists and are now trying to repackage it for Christian evangelicals here at BioLogos. That’s how it sounds, sorry. No doubt you will emphasize to me how that is untrue, and merely my false impression from your words above. Your anthropology appears to start with Homo Sapiens, rather than with Christ.
“Before God made Homo sapiens in the Image of God, the Homo sapiens creatures did such actions but they were not aware of being morally responsible and therefore accountable toward God for them.”
That’s a “thought experiment” that doesn’t come from Scripture, right? You’re speculating, iow, right? If not, then please quote the source material from Scripture supporting your position. I don’t think the support you need to justify your “philosophy” about this is actually there.
““selfish” in the sense that the actions they lead to are criminal and sinful”
No, that’s retrodiction and awkwardly mixing fields of interpretation. There was no “law” given for pre-Adamites to violate, as you know. Your view is thus evolutionarily fantastic – it makes things up and then suggests they might be historical – but there’s no clear moral teaching evident in it. Indeed, evolutionism as an ideology has been used to viciously attack Christian morality, claiming that “sin is natural”. The view of “sin is natural” sounds very similar to your position, even though I don’t doubt you wish to embrace the Vatican’s teachings on this topic.
Now that I have answered your two questions, quid pro quo:
Question 3: Do you mistake lions, chimps, orangutans, and bonobos for human beings?
Social sciences and humanities study human beings, not zoology. Why are you asking me to comment on animals, when the topic is human beings? It makes your position sometimes sounds animistic this way, Antoine, not RC Christian. It thus seems that you leave the spiritual tent, talk to the “secular science” audience, then wish to re-enter the Christian tent as if the same language makes sense and should be adopted. Yet it doesn’t and won’t be adopted that way.
Previous questions unanswered from above:
Question 4: Is this the offering, or if not, who are the other main figures (e.g. Novak & Coakley, Fuentes)?
You have offered NO names of scholars who you draw on so far to me, Antoine. Are your thoughts so entirely novel that you’re the only one suggesting these things, that you cannot point to anyone before you who was arguing the same thing as you are now? I doubt it. So will you please help by stating where you got these “ideas” from? It seems all atheists and agnostics so far that you take your language from, with a bit of Catholic supervenience on top of it. Forgive me please that I have not read all 1,455 posts in this thread, in case you’ve already shared the names of those you draw on for your ideas as presented here now.
Question 5: Why otherwise the “scare quotes” around “selfish” than that you mean to equivocate “selfish” with “sin”?
Again, I don’t think there actually is “scientific” evidence for your claims. Certainly it wouldn’t be a physicist sharing the evidence with us anyway, right, since that isn’t the most relevant field? Instead, you are asking me to take onboard your “philosophy”, it seems. And frankly, I don’t see coherency in your evolutionary philosophy regarding humanity as presented so far, which appears to veer away from Christian standards. Yes, I could be very wrong about your veering, but so far have not seen you acknowledge being aware of it.
In short, please don’t ask me or others to follow you into heresy due to a European “philosophical stance” that you are asking people to take along with you today. I hope that is not what you’re asking for here. Instead, I would suggest you promote the teachings of the Church Fathers, rather than “selfish evolutionary mechanisms” as if that idea were inevitable and brilliant. Sorry, it’s not.
Question 6: “Was Etienne Gilson a “selfish evolutionary mechanisms” or “selfishness intrinsic to the mechanism of evolution” kinda guy? Was Bergson? Is Margaret Archer?”
No, none of them was or is. Only you embrace “selfish evolutionary mechanisms”, Antoine, as part of your theological anthropology, it seems. But you can of course directly say otherwise, and I would express remorse at having misunderstood, if that’s not actually true about your “offering” here. Thanks for moving the conversation forward.
““Christianity” as “we” know it throughout history starts with “Adam”, not with Homo Sapiens. Do you disagree?”
To be clearer, of course Christianity starts with Jesus Christ, not “evolutionary anthropology”. If Antoine thinks “humanity” did not begin with Christ, that human beings “emerged randomly” in natural history, then his views are clearly not “Catholic”.
Hi Gregory
It seems to me that you are taking a ‘hard line’ approach to the concept of Papal Infallibility which deems any “novelty approach” to Catholic teachings as an invitation to heresy. It’s true that early in the 20th century the Vatican did censor Teilhard’s teachings, and that on this Forum Suarez has spoken favorably about some of them. As a scientist and a lifelong Roman Catholic, I see this as a welcome breath of fresh air that presages an era wherein the Vatican makes sure the Church remains relevant.
A quick glance at Wikipedia makes me think I am in good company in this regard. There is a groundswell of reputable thinkers urging change in dogma. Amazon lists a number of good books by recognized theologians, philosophers, & scientists who support a more forward-looking approach. I would recommend Ilia Delio’s “From Teilhard to Omega”, if you have not yet read it. I found the direct translation of Teilhard’s works a little opaque for my taste, but the reality of the Noosphere (sphere of ideas or ‘memes’) as the third Universal Sphere ( following the Cosmophere & Biosphere) provides a satisfying foundation for my worldview: Nothing is truly static in any of the three spheres; a changing Cosmosphere induces changes in each occupant of the Biosphere or else it becomes extinct; changes in the Biosphere induces changes in the Noosphere where current ideas (memes that support religious dogmas & govt. constitutions etc…) must change to survive.
Christian Fundamentalist may reject the concept that Dogmas must evolve if they are to survive, but this is my quite unorthodox stance.
Al Leo
Hi Al,
No, my comment had nothing to do with the late-modern doctrine of papal infallibility.
“A quick glance at Wikipedia makes me think I am in good company in this regard.”
No, you’re really not and the Wikipedia article includes people like Dietrich Bonhoeffer, who outlined how he believed Telihard was an arch-heretic. Barth called Telihard a “giant gnostic snake”. And Wolfgang Smith has made sure the “Teilhardian heresy” is not forgotten.
So, if you only see roses there, then that would reflect that you prefer to leave out significant and meaningful criticisms against Teilhard’s teachings. The Catholic Church has not removed the monitum on Teilhard’s writings, so that’s obvious evidence against your “good company” claim, even if a few people have been rumbling to try to get the Vatican to lift it.
Already above you learned that “memetics” was a bogus ideology, though a much newer approach than “noosphere”. This is supported by evidence of the flagship Journal of Memetics closing in 2005, with one of the previous main proponents rejecting it, and saying it adds little to what is already known. Nothing you write will change this fact, since the journal is still shut, which also goes against your support of Teilhard’s “noosphere”, especially as you did not know about the collapse of memetics.
Teilhard was obviously an “errant cleric” in his life, as the record shows. That isn’t in question. His “evolutionary theology”, which it seems you think is “good Catholic thinking”, Al, has attracted a rather small number of followers, mostly those who refuse to accept certain historical teachings of the Church. Their “dogmas evolve” view helps marginalize them & guarantees it.
Teilhard was a marginal figure and controversial (by his own words) Roman Cathollic. He made very little contribution to natural science, and what “religious thinking” he published was censured, for what I believe, following others, to be good reasons. Antoine also rejects some of Teilhard’s views, e.g. re: “original sin”, but it is not clear to me yet how Antoine would try to salvage Teilhard for “orthodoxy”.
A larger question hovers over your embrace of Teilhard’s views, while he is barely even acknowledged at BioLogos, and nowhere prominently. Why don’t you think BioLogos promotes the work of Teilhard de Chardin more, Al? He’s perhaps the most identifiable figure regarding “evolutionary theology”, after all, right? One might imagine BioLogos would be all over Teilhard. Why aren’t they (please leave aside translation, as it’s not a major issue by now)?
What does scripture say happens to the spirit of a person when they place their trust in Jesus and pledged their aligence to Him by calling Him Lord?
I hope the following quotes may help in making clear to you why I think that Teilhard didn’t get all wrong, as you seem to suspect:
Pope Francis, Laudato si, 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.[ In this horizon we can set the contribution of Fr Teilhard de Chardin]”
Pope St. Paul VI, Address (24 February 1966)
The Holy Father quoted Teilhard de Chardin’s statement “The more I study material reality, the more I discover spiritual reality”, and he praised a key insight of Teilhard’s theory on the evolution of the universe as “an explanation of the universe that, among many fantastic and imprudent things, nonetheless understood how to find the intelligent principle that one should call God inside everything. Science itself, therefore, obliges us to be religious. Whoever is intelligent must kneel and say: ‘God is present here’. “
Pope St. John Paul II, Letter to the Reverend George Coyne (1 June 1988):
Does an evolutionary perspective bring any light to bear upon theological anthropology, the meaning of the human person as the imago Dei, the problem of Christology – and even upon the development of doctrine itself? […] Can theological method fruitfully appropriate insights from scientific methodology and the philosophy of science?
Questions of this kind can be suggested in abundance. Pursuing them further would require the sort of intense dialogue with contemporary science that has, on the whole, been lacking among those engaged in theological research and teaching. It would entail that some theologians, at least, should be sufficiently wellversed in the sciences to make authentic and creative use of the resources that the best-established theories may offer them.
Pope Benedict XVI, Homily (24 July 2009)
“The role of the priesthood is to consecrate the world so that it may become a living host, a liturgy: so that the liturgy may not be something alongside the reality of the world, but that the world itself shall become a living host, a liturgy. This is also the great vision of Teilhard de Chardin: in the end we shall achieve a true cosmic liturgy, where the cosmos becomes a living host.”
This said, I deviate (as you remark) from Teilhard’s view regarding “original sin”. The reason is that he ambiguously suggests that both, the sin of “Adam and Eve” (the first sin of human history) and the state deriving from (the “state of original sin”), reduce to evolutionary deadly behavioral patterns. In other words, Teilhard seems to reject that “Adam and Eve” (the first humans in the Image of God) were created by God in the state of “original righteousness”.
By contrast, in line with Biologos’ Staff member Kathryn Applegate in this remarkable Essay, I acknowledge that:
Gregory, I appreciate your endeavor for keeping to “Catholic orthodoxy” and will pleased discussing any objection regarding the orthodoxy of my views, provided you quote the particular statement of mine you object to, and the particular dogmatic declaration by a Pope or a Council you think my statement contradicts.
However, I would like to suggest that in future posts in this thread you avoid referring to other posters or authors as promoting “heresy” or deviating from “established Roman Catholic teaching”. In doing so you are illegitimately entitling yourself with an authority that in the Roman Catholic Church is reserved to the Pope when he speaks ex cathedra .
Thank you, Antoine. Yes, helpful to have the quotations. No, again, I’m not talking about ex cathedra. You and Al both said that, but actually you’re both stuck, since that is not at issue here. Please stop getting stuck on that. Thank you.
Both what the current pope and Pope Benedict XVI said about Teilhard is troubling, given the Catholic Church warned against Teilhard’s teachings (Monitum on the Writings of Fr. Teilhard de Chardin, SJ | EWTN).
"This is also the great vision of Teilhard de Chardin: in the end we shall achieve a true cosmic liturgy, where the cosmos becomes a living host.”
Only Catholics who ignore the Church Fathers would turn to Teilhard, instead of the voluminious writings on the “cosmic liturgy” available. Hans Urs van Balthasar wrote about “cosmic liturgy” drawing on St. Maximus the Confessor. You’re WAAAY late to the table in fixating on Teilhard de Chardin about this.
"The theory of a progressive evolution of lower to more perfect principles of formation deserves the reproach that Gregory of Nyssa had already made against it and against the proponents of the theory of reincarnation, which Maximus now repeats: “This amounts to mixing everything up together!” - In Balthasar
Question 4: Is this the offering, or if not, who are the other main figures (e.g. Novak & Coakley, Fuentes)?
Question 6: “Was Etienne Gilson a “selfish evolutionary mechanisms” or “selfishness intrinsic to the mechanism of evolution” kinda guy? Was Bergson? Is Margaret Archer?”
Why are you not answering these, Antoine? None of the major Catholic thinkers above supports what you say about “selfish evolutionary mechanisms”. So who are “the other main [Catholic] thinkers” you draw on for your “selfish evolutionary mechanisms” approach, other than Teilhard? This “selfish evolutionary mechanisms” is what you are reading from outside Scripture, into Scripture. Let there be no confusion that this language is what I am taking issue with specifically. This language you have chosen is both entirely unnecessary and highly problematic in many ways. Since I am now quoting “the particular statement of mine you object to”. Let us see then how ideological you are in your promotion of “evolutionary selfish mechanism”, since it seems quite important to your current theological anthropology.
Let me just add a potential aid. If you had followed my advice and read McLuhan, this would give you another available Roman Catholic-formed option. Post-Teilhard, and anti-Teilhard, I suggest McLuhan offers a much more holistic and engaging, as well as “Catholic orthodox” position, indeed, by a long shot, than what you seem at this point to prefer with slipping into Teilhard de Chardinism.