On Accepting Changes In The Church

The social bonding of the Church is one of its most vital offerings, perhaps its most important offering; the science of sociobiology has brilliantly affirmed this as well. In light of this, how must one think of the changes of Vatican II, e.g. changes in the Mass (Recently changed back to the Traditional Mass) which traditionalists defined as virtually a change to the Protestant mass?

I think it would have been better had the Protestants changed to the Catholic Mass, since the latter is an older, deeper, and more authentic way to reach God the God Within. The general problem, however, is the fading interest in Christianity in the world, which Vatican II was essentially trying to deal with by moving toward connection between all Christians in the world.

The Theoevolutionary Church will require a few more rather large changes in the future, or at least changes in emphasis, which should not be thought of as evil. Conservatism supports traditions, but not to the point of ignoring the reality of change in nature and change in the kosmos, where God created the laws of evolution, which affirm the reality of change.

Science has damaged Christianity, but Christian's who cannot accept the truths of science have also damaged Christianity. Science can bring a deeper understanding of Christianity, but this deeper understanding requires at least a change in Christian emphasis. Traditionalists who refuse any kind of change refuse the changes that God affirms in an evolutionary kosmos, and this cannot be virtuous, especially if refusing change leads to destroying all traditions, and in destroying traditions the people of the West are destroyed.

Two choices facing Vatican II were: (1) If we do not change we will decline and perhaps fall, and (2) if we change we will decline and perhaps fall. The Church was declining before VII, perhaps because it rejected much of modern knowledge, and it has declined since VII because it accepted much of modern knowledge.

This can be resolved by affirming Evolution as both a scientific and religious principle. We evolve materially and spiritually to Godhood. We accept the spirit of VII as eventually moving toward refining and synthesizing the evolutionary goal of Godhood. But traditionalists can certainly retain Church traditions all the way back to Christ, and affirm the same God we affirm, Who is also Him whom we must evolve to.

Conservative Change over Radical Change

All conservatives of whatever leaning seem to see the present and coming crisis in the West, it is the methods we advocate for trying to solve the crisis that separate us.

Critics on the Right of Conservatism (e.g. evolutionary) tend to emphasize the evolutionary over the conservative, which seems to lead to more radical political schemes (although it need not do so). But Conservatism involves not merely economic or social philosophy, it also involves conservative political methods.

Being prudent should be vital, as Russell Kirk always talked about, taking into account the reality of change, preferring conservative change rather than radical change, even when radical change is desperately needed, because radical methods almost never succeed.

I emphasize conservative change over radical change. I affirm the Theoevolutionary Church for conservative reasons over radical Modernism and Traditionalism which are equally radical. Successful survival and reproduction help determine the method, along with the overarching long-term spiritual goals in our evolution toward Godhood.

Reconciling Traditionalists With Evolutionists

The relatively new “evolutionary integralists,” e.g. Ken Wilber and Andrew Cohen, have apparently blacklisted the Traditionalist School of Rene Guenon, Frithjof Schuon, Mircea Eliade, etc., and not for the politically incorrect tendencies of Traditionalists, but for their rejection of evolution and science. I can agree with rejecting those who reject evolution, to a point, but the Traditionalist School (and Perennial Wisdom) deserve better than blacklisting. (Christians against evolution get the same New Age disdain)

The Traditionalist School is a great resurrection of Traditional religion, which I define as the micro-traditional way to discover God in ourselves and in our history and traditions. Living in the West, Traditional Christianity is the conservative way to approach God in the micro-traditional way. The Theoevolutionary Church is the combined macro-evolutionary/micro-traditional way, which I have been defining in this blog.

The Traditionalists and Evolutionists can be reconciled when both approaches are seen as legitimate. Micro-traditionalists and macro-evolutionists approach God running back to back, on the same continuum, and not running perpendicular (at right angles) to one another, as Robert Godwin has suggested regarding scientific and spiritual things. Godhood is seen virtually, in micro-traditional religion, and actually reached through evolution, in macro-evolutionary religion.

Enlightenment and Evolution

One problem with the new “evolutionary spirituality” proposed by Andrew Cohen, Ken Wilber and Robert W. Godwin, is that is maintains outmoded, one-world ideology, seeing future evolution in large-scale empires, which they would call world “cooperatives.” Yes, individuals learn to cooperate in groups, but real evolution breaks down in large scale empires, as the old Roman, Soviet and American Empires have shown.

When examining actual evolution, “small is beautiful.” Small-scale societies assure variety, which is vital in evolution. Christendom is not governed with one-size-fits-all, contrary to liberal opinion; subsidiarity and federalism affirm variety. Conservatives and liberals are biased toward one another, which hurts both their attempts to find workable social programs. Conservatives should claim ecology and evolution, liberals should claim small states rights and religion.

“Enlightenment” has two unequal definitions, one virtual, the other actual. Revealed religions have defined the virtual experience of enlightenment, glorious as this was; bio-spiritual evolution defines actual enlightenment, which can be achieved only at the majestic culmination of evolution.

What I Affirm

For the historical, traditionally-understood God, I affirm Traditional Christianity, and the Involutionary Inward Path, for the same, evolving, but futuristically-understood God, I affirm the Evolutionary Outward Path.

I affirm two ways to understand Godhood: Traditionalist, looking back to God, and Futurist, looking forward toward evolution to Godhood; the micro–back, the macro-forward, affirming the same God, although the Theoevolutionary Church (TC) says that Godhood must be evolved to.

I affirm the conservative social philosophy which harmonizes with subsidiarity, agrarianism (including serious ecological concerns), separatism and a strictly interpreted “federalism” of the American variety, i.e. strong states rights, and above all local rights.

“Small is beautiful” is affirmed for conservative and sociobiological reasons, e.g. Beyondism; evolution seems to work best within the biological variety of a natural, conservatism. This can harmonize science and religion.

The Traditional Church is affirmed, for spiritual, conservative, and sociobiological reasons, with the important and vital addition of evolution, and with the "expanded" definition of Godhood defined as that which must be evolved to, a Godhood which was virtually, and blissfully “seen” or “experienced” inwardly by the great religious founders and sages. We see now that we evolve to Godhood.

From Paul VI

“Modern man, will he not gradually come to the point where he will discover as a result of scientific progress, the laws and hidden realities behind the mute face of matter and give ear to the marvelous voice of the spirit that vibrates in it?...”
Milan, 1956

“The order to which Christianity tends is not static, but an order in continual evolution towards a high form...”
Dialogues, Reflections on God and Man

“Mankind is undergoing profound changes and searching for guiding principles and new forces which will show it the way in the world of the future.”
Speech in Bombay 1964

Change In The Theoevolutionary Church

Nothing practical changes when evolution is brought into Catholicism or other religions. The change is in the consciousness of Godhood as that which must be bio-spiritually evolved to. Prudent Conservatism remains the preferred political method, along with federalism or subsidiarity. Traditional Catholicism remains a healthy religious base and structure. Aspects of Vatican Two are affirmed, which can help end the tragic feud between traditionalists and modernists.

A great advantage in the Theoevolutionary Church, with its evolutionary consciousness of Godhood, comes from rejoining religion and science, which have been tearing apart the Western world. Another advantage comes in joining insights from other religions, e.g. Eastern religions, which could lesson tensions and advance wisdom.

Resolving Definitions of the Soul

The Theoevolutionary Church seeks to resolve the differences in defining the Spirit, between Christians, Platonist, Gnostics, Eastern Religions and Darwinists.

The Bible talks of the union of body and spirit, immortality requires the “resurrection” of the body to sustain the spirit. Yet to Platonists the spirit must be immaterial and separate from the body.

Platonists need not denigrate the material world, and empiricists need not denigrate the ideal world. The Theoevolutionary Church can resolve the differences.

Darwin did not tell the deepest truth about our purpose, he did not take evolution as far as it goes.  And Aristotelians and Thomists, who believe that the spirit is an action that cannot be explained by material survival drives, can perhaps, rest easier. In the sacred material evolution of life to Godhood, evolution eventually brings us into the higher realms, and evolution continues, all the way to Godhood, for those who are successful.  Wide is the gate and narrow the way.

Evolution and Conservatism

The science of evolution can save the Church from much of the modernism it absorbed since Vatican Two. For example, the communist views on man were decadent, even as the new attitude toward science was healthy.

Evolution brings federalism and subsidiarity back, indeed, evolution affirms conservatism, if an unbiased reading of sociobiology is applied. Sociobiology affirms the preference for group and ethnic selection and this moves the Church back to a healthier traditional position of federalism and subsidiarity, as well as ethnostates. 

Sacred Evolution And The Church

All the things that have been said about attaining happiness, and ultimately attaining God, by St. Thomas, St. Augustine, and others, including the great sages of Eastern Religions, can be applied to the sacred evolution to Godhood. It is not only the inward vision of the Divine Essence we seek, it is actually evolving materially-supermaterially to Godhood. Godhood is attained through sacred evolution, evolving within nature, and evolving through higher stages until Godhood is supremely attained.

The vision of Divine Essence which the great sages saw was a virtual inward vision of Godhood, but Godhood Itself must be evolved to in the cosmos. Christianity believes---unlike the other revealed religions---that Jesus Christ was also God Himself.

Our view of the sacred evolution to Godhood can be confirmed within the structures of the laws of nature. The Spirit-Will-To-Godhood within Primal Matter activates natural law and evolution. The terrible long-term antagonism between religion and science can this way be synchronized.

Having great respect for the philosophy of conservatism, I have no wish to harm the great traditions of the great religions. I seek to add the Outward Path to Godhood to the Inward Path to the Father Within.