Wednesday, May 10, 2017

... on Catholic Church supposedly Changing Position (esp YEC, feat. Limbo and Filioque) (quora)

Why does the Catholic Church constantly change its position on issues when God doesn't change?

C on Q
For example, the Pope and Catholic Church accept evolution when the Bible clearly states Biblical Creationism.

Own answer

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Studied religions as curious parallels and contrasts to Xtian faith since 9, 10?
Answered just now
Does the Catholic Church constantly change?

Does the Pope and does the Catholic Church accept evolution?

  • 1. The Catholic Church does claim not to be changing;
  • 2. There are men claiming to be Pope other than “Pope Francis” who are Catholics and who do clearly not accept evolution.
  • 3. Even “Pope Francis” has so far not tried to dogmatise evolution, just to give an impression in sermon like conditions that it is hunky dory. Bad even that, of course, exactly like Pius XII on November 22 1951, when accepting billions of years as coming from a reliable source.

Not only does the Bible clearly state Creationism (and its statement of it is obviously Biblical), but the Church Fathers also do so, and the Catholic Church has dogmatised agreeing with Church Fathers when they agree. At the Council of Trent, between 1547 and 1563, this was in Session IV, I think.

This obviously also has a bearing on whether the claim of “Pope Francis” to be Pope of the Catholic Church is credible.

Actually, the impression Bergoglio has been giving on more than one occasion is not just that evolution is hunky dory, but that Creationism is for some obscure reason not hunky dory. That is a pretty bad move for someone claiming to be Pope of the same Church which convoked Trent.

Other answers
such as I commented under, all of them.

Amanda Ol
Answered Apr 30
The Catholic Church has unchangeable doctrines on faith and morals. People who are Catholic, including the Pope, have opinions on science (like the particular way God created the world), art, medicine, mathematics, technology, history, psychology, philosophy… We claim we know some things with the certainty of divine revelation. We don’t claim to know everything. We don’t even claim to know everything theological. If Catholic theologians could never debate each other for lack of disagreement, the Dominicans and Franciscans would die out for lack of fun.

The Pope can accept evolution, as a private person. Catholics can accept or reject evolution, as private persons, and in any numbers. (There are Catholics who believe in a 7-day Creation, and that does not make them heretics). The Church herself has no stance on the issue, beyond the doctrine that God created the universe, and the value of seeking the truth.

Doctrines themselves can develop. Not in the sense of a puppy developing into a cat, but in the sense of a puppy developing into a dog. [Chesterton] By becoming clearer and more complete versions of themselves without contradicting what they have always been.

Fundamental truths also apply differently in different circumstances, and so often look different while remaining the same. A juniper may be a ground-creeping bush or a bonsai, and still be a juniper. A complex equation may be algebraically manipulated to the point where it takes some study to recognize it as the same thing. And Newton is still admired for being able to equate inertial mass, which affects how much a given force accelerates an object, with gravitational mass, which determines the motion of the planets. It’s not the most intuitive thing in the world if you haven’t been brought up with it. So the discipline of the Church changes, not to follow the times, but to teach people how to live according to those unchanging truths in the present circumstances.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

In that sense, a primitive Catholic and implicitly doctrinal Six Calendar Day Creationism can develop to a full fledged dogma of Six Calendar Day Creationism, or the matter can stay even draws with One Moment Creation.

It cannot develop into the catma (!) of Theistic Evolution.

Andrew Michael Lenihan
Answered Apr 29
Well, Im not sure that the Catholic Church changes its positions more than other religions but lets not quibble about that.

In the New Testament, Jesus Christ said that after his Ascension, the Comforter (Holy Spirit) would come and teach and guide the Church.

So its no shock that based on the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, the Catholic Church attempts to understand and interpret Christianity with greater clarity over time. The scriptures stay the same, but the interpretation is refined and modified. What’s wrong with that?

Hans-Georg Lundahl
“So its no shock that based on the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, the Catholic Church attempts to understand and interpret Christianity with greater clarity over time. The scriptures stay the same, but the interpretation is refined and modified.”

You have a problem.

Does the Holy Spirit change between First Pentecost and now?


If He doesn’t change, why would His guidance change?

In fact, the Catholic Church has clearly forbidden this theory when saying the Holy Spirit was not given to Papacy so that, Him revealing, the Pope might teach a new thing, but only so that, Him preserving, the Pope might stay faithful in maintaining the same sense.

Al Lundy
Practicing Catholic for 60 years, Diaconate Candidate, Sacristan, servant of God
Answered Apr 29
Upvoted by Linda deMerle
I see the problem you think creationism and evolution are mutually exclusive and they aren't, which is what the Church says. There are parts of evolution that are still scientifically up for discussion but does all of evolution exclude the creative influence of God? No, not at all. Is this a change in doctrine of the Catholic Church, no not at all.

This view in no way changed or conflicted with the existing Church doctrines.

Perhaps you have another misconception that we can clear up for you!

Hans-Georg Lundahl
“ does all of evolution exclude the creative influence of God?”

The Biblical and Patristic truth is very much NOT limited to “creative influence of God”.

And how we must deal with Bible and Fathers was defined at Trent, Session IV, I think.

Johnston Robert
homespun pastoraliaist
Answered Apr 29
This is a good point. The Roman Church proclaims it is 'semper eadam' - always the same. It is not. Throughout history it has chopped and changed: Apart from the more recent case of a creationist stance to one favouring evolution, there is the most striking one of insisting on the filoque clause in the creed which it had previously disagreed with. If anything it has drifted further and further from the biblical norm and sound tradition to fit in with the world and even things like total clerical celibacy (and we know the abuse that has lead to) At the reformation Queen Mary I asked bishop Cramner ,'What do you mean by all these innovations?' The reformer replied that it was Rome that had changed things in a way that people like her hadn't noticed. Of course even Protestant churches are still stuck with the filioque clause.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
“there is the most striking one of insisting on the filoque clause in the creed which it had previously disagreed with.”

You can document some side changed the formulation of the creed of Nicea and Constantinople, but there is some doubt on whether that is the Greek or the Latin side.

You cannot document that the Catholic Church as a whole, previously to accepting the filioque clause in the creed, had been disagreeing with the content of said clause.

Dick Harfield
Answered Apr 30
The time comes when the Catholic Church can no longer ignore reality. Any change in position is couched in terms that, as far as possible, need not be read as a change in doctrine, but once it was indisputable that evolution is real, the Church finds a way to change its position.

There have been other changes that have been introduced gradually and in such a way as to be consistent with an unchanging Church. Until the middle of the twentieth century, the Catholic Church firmly taught that babies who die before they can be baptised go to a place or state called limbo. The Church no longer teaches this and its position is that limbo was never an official doctrine of the Church. Many of the accepted teachings of the Church were never accepted as formal doctrine, often because they were considered so self-evident that this was an unnecessary step, but that omission is one way the Church can abrogate a former teaching when it no longer suits modern thinking.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
I am sure that the man you call Pope Francis neither believes in Limbo nor in Six Calendar Day Creation.

I am also sure Pope Michael (whom you might perhaps call Bishop Bawden, by now : he was consecrated on Gaudete Sunday 2011/Church Year 2012) does believe Six Calendar Day Creation and find it at least probable he also believes in Limbus Infantum.

While Six Calendar Day Creation is not a formal doctrine as compared with One Moment Creation, it is contained in a formal doctrine as to compared with Creation over Millions of Years.

Council of Trent, I think Session IV, formally ruled that whenever a point is agreed between all Church Fathers, it must be believed.

St Augustine advocated one moment creation, but was as firmly as the rest against a very prolonged and protracted one or against a world older than the Biblical Chronology.

Michael Lalla
Answered Apr 29
This is a fishing question. Which issues are you talking about? Which position was changed? An inherently poor and nonspecific question…

Hans-Georg Lundahl
A good method on quora is to not just read the question, but also comment to the question.

At least by now, you will find in the questioner’s own comment these words:

“For example, the Pope and Catholic Church accept evolution when the Bible clearly states Biblical Creationism.”

My own disagreement involves not accepting Bergoglio as “Pope Francis” or “una cum papa nostro Francisco” as the correct Catholic communion, I am accepting Pope Michael.

Linda deMerle
more experience than most people need. Catholic revert.
Answered May 1
First of all, the Catholic Church most certainly does not constantly change its position. Do your homework and go back 1800 years and start reading, Secondly, God and his kingdom are far bigger than the few books which made it into the Bible.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Bigger, not smaller.

And 73 books are nearly all of the candidates, as per other Christian bodies (Russians have also “I Esra” renaming our I and II Esra - the latter a k a Nehemia - II and III Esra, thus a prequel to Esra, Romanians have III and IV Maccabees, Ethiopians have 151 or even more psalms and also Henoch, Nestorians and Ethiopians each have an extra Baruch, that is about it).

Not smaller means, obviously, ALL truths within the 73 books need to be believed.

Paul Brocklehurst
works at Self-Employment
Answered Apr 29
Yes it also changed it’s mind about limbo too & several other issues. It’s because it became to embarrising to pretend it knew things which it became clearer & clearer it really didn’t!

Hans-Georg Lundahl
I take it you are not Catholic, and at least your position is honest about your impression of what has happened on Limbo and YEC fronts.

I am a conservative on both matters, esp. YEC.

No comments: