Consistency

[mcteague]

Much is made in this forum about the consistency of church positions and philosophy throughout the ages. But that sometimes strikes me as a double edged sword. And often a burden on its ability to reach a broader modern audience.
I just wonder what would happen if the Church were to change it’s position on, or to reinterprete, some significant issue.
I don’t mean something like " Pope announces God is dead. Resurrection done with mirrors". Which would obviously have a huge effect. But what if some writing of Thomas or some other foundational person was reinterpreted in broader and perhaps less rigid ways.
Would the Church just fall apart? Is complete consistency a requirement of the faithful. Could the Church ever say" we may not have been 100% correct about something.

 

[JamestheOlder]

Don’t think that will happen…at least as far as established doctrine. It hasn’t changed in 2,000 years; why now?

 

[ddarko]

The dogma and other truths taught by Scripture, and Tradition of the church will never change. The things the church uses for understanding of the truths, which is philosophy may change.

So to give you an example, take the Eucharist. The truths taught about the Eucharist by the church will be eternally true. But how we understand it, currently in terms of Thomism, may not be what the church would use in the future.

What we have in philosophy right now is ONE way of making sense of the truths we know. It is NOT the only way.

God Bless

 

[mcteague]

The question is not will it happen, or should it happen. The question is whether complete consistency is an essential element of Catholic teaching. Does the necessity of consistency drive the reasoning rather then the reasoning inevitably coming to consistent conclusions? What would be the result if the Church changed its teaching on some long held idea?

For example, what if the Church decided that contraception in a married relationship was actually acceptable? I don’t want to argue that it should or would. I am asking what would happen if it did? That is just an example.

Is the church so bound by precedent that some changes can not be considered because that change might threaten it’s authority or existence?

 

[nfreak141]

Remember when the Catholic Church was the one and only way to get through God?

Nowadays all you have to do is be good.

 

[Qoeleth]

Much is made in this forum about the consistency of church positions and philosophy throughout the ages. But that sometimes strikes me as a double edged sword. And often a burden on its ability to reach a broader modern audience.
I just wonder what would happen if the Church were to change it’s position on, or to reinterprete, some significant issue.
I don’t mean something like " Pope announces God is dead. Resurrection done with mirrors". Which would obviously have a huge effect. But what if some writing of Thomas or some other foundational person was reinterpreted in broader and perhaps less rigid ways.
Would the Church just fall apart? Is complete consistency a requirement of the faithful. Could the Church ever say" we may not have been 100% correct about something.

Of course, this consistency is a myth. For example, the Church used to approve of slavery and the death penalty. Now, it doesn’t.

The Church changes its teachings and interpretations quite often. But it will often then try to demonstrate that there was no change. Take for example “no salvation outside the Church”. This teaching has been changed, but it is claimed that it is simply re-interpreted.

 

[Spock]

Of course, this consistency is a myth. For example, the Church used to approve of slavery and the death penalty. Now, it doesn’t.

The Church changes its teachings and interpretations quite often. But it will often then try to demonstrate that there was no change. Take for example “no salvation outside the Church”. This teaching has been changed, but it is claimed that it is simply re-interpreted.

Very true. Also sometimes there is a nifty “trick” which is employed. When the change cannot be denied any more, the excuse is that the teaching was never an “infallible” teaching, and only the “infallible” teachings cannot be changed. Now, if only there would be an “infallible”, official listing of the “infallible” teachings… how nice that would be. But, of course there is none. (I am only aware of unofficial listings of the dogmas, but not aware of an offical one.) How conveeeeenient!

 

[tonyrey]

The question is not will it happen, or should it happen. The question is whether complete consistency is an essential element of Catholic teaching. Does the necessity of consistency drive the reasoning rather then the reasoning inevitably coming to consistent conclusions? What would be the result if the Church changed its teaching on some long held idea?

For example, what if the Church decided that contraception in a married relationship was actually acceptable? I don’t want to argue that it should or would. I am asking what would happen if it did? That is just an example.

Is the church so bound by precedent that some changes can not be considered because that change might threaten it’s authority or existence?

You are obviously unaware that doctrines have been developed in the light of scientific discoveries, theological discussions and philosophical analysis. The Church now accepts evolution that is not of the neoDarwinist variety and the Pope has recently stated that contraception is permissible to prevent the transmission of AIDS.

 

[ddarko]

You are obviously unaware that doctrines have been developed in the light of scientific discoveries… variety and the Pope has recently stated that contraception is permissible to prevent the transmission of AIDS.

Um … I think you might be unaware of the Church teaching and doctrine.

The Pope HAS NOT approved contraception to prevent transmission of AIDS. That is false. I think you might be referring to the media misinterpretation circus that happened couple of months about a comment the Pope made for an interview.

There are good threads on that subject on this forum and I advice you to read them to proper understand what the church’s position is and what the good Pope stated on that day.

HINT: The teachings are still the same.

Also just so you understand, church’s doctrine does not change in light of science. The case with evolution is that the church merely deems Theistic Evolution as compatible. This version of evolution is by no means the same evolution that the church opposed in the form as presented by Darwin (Naturalistic Evolution). But more importantly, the church is not making doctrine here with respect to scientific discoveries. It is simply advising the faithful as to what is compatible with their faith. Doctrine of God creating man and subsequent fall of man is still the same and forever will be the same.

God Bless

 

[ddarko]

Remember when the Catholic Church was the one and only way to get through God?

Nowadays all you have to do is be good.

Read up on the church fathers. The position of the church with respect to salvation has always been the same.

catholic.com/library/Salvation_Outside_the_Church.asp

It is a common misconception of many who are unaware of church fathers writings to think the doctrines on salvation have changed etc. But as you can clearly see, it has always been the same.

God Bless

 

[tonyrey]

Um … I think you might be unaware of the Church teaching and doctrine.

The Pope HAS NOT approved contraception to prevent transmission of AIDS. That is false. I think you might be referring to the media misinterpretation circus that happened couple of months about a comment the Pope made for an interview.

There are good threads on that subject on this forum and I advice you to read them to proper understand what the church’s position is and what the good Pope stated on that day.

HINT: The teachings are still the same.

Also just so you understand, church’s doctrine does not change in light of science. The case with evolution is that the church merely deems Theistic Evolution as compatible. This version of evolution is by no means the same evolution that the church opposed in the form as presented by Darwin (Naturalistic Evolution). But more importantly, the church is not making doctrine here with respect to scientific discoveries. It is simply advising the faithful as to what is compatible with their faith. Doctrine of God creating man and subsequent fall of man is still the same and forever will be the same.

God Bless

I think you might be unaware of the statement by Cardinal Elio Sgreccia, the Vatican’s longtime top official on bioethics and sexuality:

.

…elaborated on the pontiff’s comments, stressing that it was imperative to “make certain that this is the only way to save a life.” Sgreccia told the Italian news agency ANSA that that is why the pope on the condom issue “dealt with it in the realm of the exceptional.” The condom question was one that “needed an answer for a long time,” Sgreccia said. “If Benedict XVI raised the question of exceptions, this exception must be accepted … and it must be verified that this is the only way to save life. This must be demonstrated,” Sgreccia said.

The Church now accepts evolution that is not of the neoDarwinist variety and therefore not every statement in Genesis should be interpreted literally.

 

[ddarko]

I think you might be unaware of the statement by Cardinal Elio Sgreccia, the Vatican’s longtime top official on bioethics and sexuality:

Also show some integrity. First you say the statements of the POPE, and now you say the statements of a CARDINAL. What is it?

With all due respect Tony, lets provide some more detailed information shall we? As far as I know Elio Sgreccia has no said anything of the sort that you are talking about here.

It also does not make logical sense for the church to approve contraception to fight aids since its already against pre-marital sex. If we are talking about a marriage where one spouse is infected, it contradicts the meaning of LOVE to knowingly put ones spouse in even in a 1% chance of contracting AIDS. So the right thing to do is to abstain from sex. The only 100% preventative way we know is abstaining from sex. That has always been the rationale of the church. Then there is also the moral aspect of the requirement that spouses must give themselves completely to the other. With contraception, that is not possible.

So Tony, you should either be prepared to back up your arguments or not make erroneous claims and then try to back track.

I hope that you won’t say next that maybe you are unaware that ‘Bishop so and so said this’. You are saying a lot of things but with nothing to back it up with.

The Church now accepts evolution that is not of the neoDarwinist variety and therefore not every statement in Genesis should be interpreted literally.

Only Theistic Evolution is accepted. Naturalistic Evolution is NOT accepted by the church. The term Neo-Darwinist etc are pretty vague at best and I have no clue what you mean by it.

In any case, the church has no doctrine on evolution. The Church is not in the scientific business.

God Bless

 

[tonyrey]

Also show some integrity. First you say the statements of the POPE, and now you say the statements of a CARDINAL. What is it?

With all due respect Tony, lets provide some more detailed information shall we? As far as I know Elio Sgreccia has no said anything of the sort that you are talking about here.

It also does not make logical sense for the church to approve contraception to fight aids since its already against pre-marital sex. If we are talking about a marriage where one spouse is infected, it contradicts the meaning of LOVE to knowingly put ones spouse in even in a 1% chance of contracting AIDS. So the right thing to do is to abstain from sex. The only 100% preventative way we know is abstaining from sex. That has always been the rationale of the church. Then there is also the moral aspect of the requirement that spouses must give themselves completely to the other. With contraception, that is not possible.

So Tony, you should either be prepared to back up your arguments or not make erroneous claims and then try to back track.

I hope that you won’t say next that maybe you are unaware that ‘Bishop so and so said this’. You are saying a lot of things but with nothing to back it up with.

Only Theistic Evolution is accepted. Naturalistic Evolution is NOT accepted by the church. The term Neo-Darwinist etc are pretty vague at best and I have no clue what you mean by it.

In any case, the church has no doctrine on evolution. The Church is not in the scientific business.

"Cardinal Elio Sgreccia, the Vatican’s longtime top official on bioethics and sexuality, elaborated on the pontiff’s comments, stressing that it was imperative to “make certain that this is the only way to save a life.”
msnbc.msn.com/id/40289256/ns/world_news-europe/t/pope-condoms-stop-aids-may-be-ok-some-cases/

Neo-Darwinism is a technical term you can Google.

 

[ddarko]

"Cardinal Elio Sgreccia, the Vatican’s longtime top official on bioethics and sexuality, elaborated on the pontiff’s comments, stressing that it was imperative to “make certain that this is the only way to save a life.”
msnbc.msn.com/id/40289256/ns/world_news-europe/t/pope-condoms-stop-aids-may-be-ok-some-cases/

Alright Tony, perhaps you really are unable to make sense of what it means. The Cardinal was simply stating that contraception will be permissible ONLY if it is the sole means available to save life.

As you might have missed, its NOT. Abstinence is always an option that is available. Also, keep in mind that he said this in reply to what the media asked. The Pope and the Church have made it very clear after wards that the POSITION OF THE CHURCH HAS NOT CHANGED.

You are leading the faithful astray by making bold claims like this when you seem to have minimal understanding of the issue.

So try to stay up-to-date or refrain from making such extravagant claims for the sake of others who you might lead astray.

Neo-Darwinism is a technical term you can Google.

So are the terms naturalistic evolution and theistic evolution. If Neo-Darwinism is compatible with Theistic Evolution, it can be considered compatible. Other wise it is rejected by the church. That has always been the church position.

In either case, it is not doctrine. So please understand the difference between stating something is compatible with doctrine and something IS doctrine.

It will help you to better understand what the church is saying so that you may better proclaim the teachings of the church without errors.

God Bless

 

[tonyrey]

Alright Tony, perhaps you really are unable to make sense of what it means. The Cardinal was simply stating that contraception will be permissible ONLY if it is the sole means available to save life.

As you might have missed, its NOT. Abstinence is always an option that is available. Also, keep in mind that he said this in reply to what the media asked. The Pope and the Church have made it very clear after wards that the POSITION OF THE CHURCH HAS NOT CHANGED.

You are leading the faithful astray by making bold claims like this when you seem to have minimal understanding of the issue.

So try to stay up-to-date or refrain from making such extravagant claims for the sake of others who you might lead astray.

So are the terms naturalistic evolution and theistic evolution. If Neo-Darwinism is compatible with Theistic Evolution, it can be considered compatible. Other wise it is rejected by the church. That has always been the church position.

In either case, it is not doctrine. So please understand the difference between stating something is compatible with doctrine and something IS doctrine.

It will help you to better understand what the church is saying so that you may better proclaim the teachings of the church without errors.

I respect the authority of the Pope and Cardinal on this matter. Non-Catholics are **not **bound by the teaching of the Church.

Neo-Darwinism is definitely incompatible with theism because it claims to be the **sole **explanation of human development.

 

[ddarko]

I respect the authority of the Pope and Cardinal on this matter. Non-Catholics are **not **bound by the teaching of the Church

Neo-Darwinism is definitely incompatible with theism because it claims to be the **sole **explanation of human development.

Claiming something is the explanation does not make it incompatible with Christianity. Claiming the only valid explanation is a naturalistic one is incompatible with Christianity.

So try to understand issues. Not blurt out what you read in news paper articles.

The last time we talked, you had views close to Pelagianism. Now you are spreading more errors. Whats the deal here?

These things you state are not just for debate. They are things other people will read and might be mislead. So it is your duty as a Catholic to first investigate your claims beyond a newspaper article and some theories.

God Bless

 

[tonyrey]

??? The Pope and Cardinal have made it very clear ever since that the Church is against contraception. If you live under a rock my friend, that is your problem.

Are you denying the Pope made a statement that contraception is permissible in certain circumstances?

Claiming something is the explanation does not make it incompatible with Christianity. Claiming the only valid explanation is a naturalistic one is incompatible with Christianity. So try to understand issues. Not blurt out what you read in news paper articles.

The last time we talked, you had views close to Pelagianism. Now you are spreading more errors. Whats the deal here?

These things you state are not just for debate. They are things other people will read and might be mislead. So it is your duty as a Catholic to first investigate your claims beyond a newspaper article and some theories.

Your tone, attitude and insulting language are undistinctly unChristian - in addition to infringing the first Forum rule of conduct and making a false allegation you have failed to substantiate…

 

[ddarko]

Are you denying the Pope made a statement that contraception is permissible in certain circumstances?

YES YES AND YES.

The Pope was talking about how for someone with HIV, even feeling the need to wear a condom might be an awakening towards moral obligations. But he never said it was morally permissible.

You are claiming the same thing the media tried to claim. Please read below where I discuss more about this.

Your tone, attitude and insulting language are undistinctly unChristian - in addition to infringing the first Forum rule of conduct and making a false allegation you have failed to substantiate…

Actually its not a false allegation. I reported your post to the forum master. It is only my hope that they do something about it.

Don’t get me wrong, I am ok with people presenting their own theories or misread views. BUT, it has to be presented as what they are with admittance that one is not entirely sure about it. It has to be done with humility. One must be willing to change ones position when the error is pointed out.

In your case, it has always been an attempt to express your misconceived views as those of the Church.

Take this contraception issue. First, you seem to be very much unaware of what was actually said by the pope. Secondly, you seem to be unaware of the theology behind what was said.

This is what the Pope actually said

There may be a basis in the case of some individuals, as perhaps when a male prostitute uses a condom, where this can be a first step in the direction of a moralization, a first assumption of responsibility, on the way toward recovering an awareness that not everything is allowed and that one cannot do whatever one wants. But it is not really the way to deal with the evil of HIV infection. That can really lie only in a humanization of sexuality.

Also read the following:-

catholicculture.org/commentary/articles.cfm?ID=474

Now I am sympathetic to your misconceptions since you probably were mislead by the mass media on the Pope’s words. But what confuses me is your determination to try and still spread error with certitude even when pointed out you might be missing something. It would at least be your responsibility, not to me, but as a Catholic to do some research to see if you might actually have been mislead.

About the question on evolution, it is again problematic. You are talking as if the church has DOCTRINE on evolution. It doesn’t. The Church merely states whether evolution or any other scientific theory is compatible or incompatible with Church doctrine. Naturalistic Evolution in this sense is **Incompatible **while Theistic Evolution is Compatible. This has always been the church position implicitly in the past and now more explicitly.

catholicculture.org/culture/what_you_need_to_know/index.cfm?id=65&repos=6&subrepos=3&searchid=762231

And I took the time to see what the church actually says on Neo-Darwinism since it was not something I looked in to before and did not know what it was. So you should find this interesting as well.

catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?id=6528

So it appears that the church rejects Neo-darwinism because its views are in the category of Naturalistic Evolution.

God Bless

 

[tonyrey]

Actually its not a false allegation. I reported your post to the forum master. It is only my hope that they do something about it.

I have also reported your post to the moderators.

 

[Spock]

"ddarko:

I reported your post to the forum master.

I have also reported your post to the moderators.

My irony-meter just broke