Church adaptation over the years?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Struggling1
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
S

Struggling1

Guest
Have we seen the church change with the changes in society in terms of advancement? Or are the majority of the information we rely on based solely on ideas and concepts that we’re held from ages ago. For example I see a lot of the proofs of God coming from Aquinas and I see people like Ed Feser who dissect those proofs and explain them but have there been modern proofs of God? Sorry for yet another question.
On the plus side I found Eucharistic adoration and will be attending today!
 
Last edited:
I’m really trying to hard and after today I won’t be posting for a while! Promise! I’m going to try to let God work. I get fearful that all of this belief and faith and religion is just an outdated concept because we couldn’t explain things or were fearful of things. Perhaps that’s my challenge and cross to bear.
 
The Truth does not change. How we interact with the Truth does.
Vatican II was an attempt to synthesize with the modern world, cultural changes, etc.
 
I suppose that’s true. Even science bases our understanding on ancient beliefs. But like it’s again the struggle against oh science has evolved with the years and changed and how could a group of people 1000 years ago hold a flame to current knowledge. How do we know it just wasn’t things above their level of understanding?
 
I feel fairly confident saying, based upon what I have seen, that the doctors of the Church of old were FAR greater philosophers than most scientists today.
 
I find simply lighting a candle and meditating upon the light of Christ quite enriching. Spirituality does not need to be overbearing, complicated or laden with rules, law and so many expectations of others. God is with us in every moment. He is the light of eternity dispelling the darkness of the present.
 
Yeah I know that’s likely the case but it’s still hard when in every single other area we have made major advancements and like just this one area we hold ancient beliefs as the same as modern ones and it seems a difficult thing to accept.
 
We still use the wheel and fire, my bud.

Right reason is right. Philosophy is a manner of looking at that which is unchanging, as the underlying nature of reality is unchanging.

The sun still shines in the sky.
 
True but a thousand years ago we philosophized it was a dude in a chariot pulling it across the sky and we know that now to be 100% false. I guess maybe that’s moreso the question we can prove many religions false by objective standards how can we know what we believe isn’t false or misunderstandings now that science will figure out in 500 years?
 
I appreciate the answers again. Can I pray for any specific intentions for you?
 
I suppose what makes sense of this for me is that the things of eternity are not like the things of history which progress. We do not know God as an area of science but as one mystery. It is the manner in which he chooses to share Himself becuase he does not change. We change.
 
Struggling1 said:
Have we seen the church change with the changes in society in terms of advancement? Or are the majority of the information we rely on based solely on ideas and concepts that we’re held from ages ago. For example I see a lot of the proofs of God coming from Aquinas and I see people like Ed Feser who dissect those proofs and explain them but have there been modern proofs of God? Sorry for yet another question.
On the plus side I found Eucharistic adoration and will be attending today!
Click to expand...
There’s no need to fix what isn’t broken.

The Church develops, and it comes up with new ways to explain things. It applies moral theology to new advancements, and clarifies misunderstandings that pop up over time. It does not change though, not in substance. We can read the Early Church Fathers and see that. The Church from 2000 years ago is substantially the same as the Church today.

As for why we still use Aqunias, it’s because he’s still right. His proofs are still valid, despite attempts to undermine them. They still do a good job of explaining things for people who are willing to study them. Why shouldn’t we use them? You don’t reinvent addition every time you want to teach someone multiplication.
 
Christianity is like the fixing of the false religions. We don’t say a chariot pulls the sun across the sky.
Our God is greater than some immaterial alien or something, He is the cause of all, all existence is through Him, and He has given is reason to be able to contemplate at least somewhat Him.

Pray for me and the world, if you could!
 
Last edited:
A Benedictine monk, who was my philosophy mentor for many years, described truth as objective, yet being as a limit concept or asymptotic in nature. The truths of God we can merely approach. But we will never grasp them in their entirety. Indeed, we will be approaching them for all eternity. This, perhaps is another way to describe the beatific vision.
 
Struggling1 said:
True but a thousand years ago we philosophized it was a dude in a chariot pulling it across the sky and we know that now to be 100% false. I guess maybe that’s moreso the question we can prove many religions false by objective standards how can we know what we believe isn’t false or misunderstandings now that science will figure out in 500 years?
Click to expand...
Mainly because our religion isn’t scientific. It’s certainly historic, but it makes no claims to science. The Greek / Roman believers attributed physical occurrences to their deities. They explained away physical phenomena with them. Judaism and Christianity never did this. We don’t say “God pulls the sun up every day.” We say, “God created the sun.” How it works is something we can figure out, it’s not a religious principle like, say, the Hindu belief that the world is pulled on the back of a giant turtle.

Even more encouraging, the more we learn about history, the more discoveries we make, the more our historical claims are proven true. For instance, prior to the last century, most “critical historians” wrote Pontious Pilate off as a fictional character. Then we discovered documents bearing his signature. That’s just one example of an ever-growing body of evidence in support of the historicity of the Gospels.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top