Allweather-
In the words of Jerry Porath, the Catholic Church is in a constant state of Doctrinal Development. I do not understand how doctrine can develop without revelation from God.
I’m just ruminating here… but maybe we’re defining “revelation” differently. I know that this is a common source of confusion between Mormons and Christians… the fact that we don’t have the same definitions for various key words. BTW who is Jerry Porath?
The Catholic Encyclopedia says, "5. Finally, it is objected that the acceptance of ecclesiastical infallibility is incompatible with the theory of doctrinal development which Catholics commonly admit. But so far is this from being true that it is impossible to frame any theory of development, consistent with Catholic principles, in which authority is not recognized as a guiding and controlling factor… etc
Sounds good to me.
Ok, great. As a Catholic I would appreciate this. After all, when it proven that the Earth is not the center of the Universe, it is a good idea to make belief in this not penalized by being burned at the stake. I would also prefer to have a Church that has the huavos to do this.
I may not be clearly following you on the last paragraph, but I won’t let that stop me from commenting, LOL. Are you referring to Galileo? He wasn’t burnt at the stake. I’m not aware of anyone who was, strictly for believing that the Earth is not the center of the universe, but, then, I’m not an expert. PBS had a great series, or at least a program, about Galileo, very well done, that went into mucho detail about the controversy of his time. The details help to explain the Pope’s reaction to Galileo, especially in view of writings of Galileo’s that the Pope found personally insulting. So there must’ve been a personality clash, even between former friends, which they were. Personally, I try to put myself into the day and imagine what “proof” must be for men of that time. There were some theories, and a guy with a new technology (telescope) which purported to prove the theories, or at least add data. The Pope asked that it not be advanced as proof, and I think that that was a reasonable request given the implications. Further study was adviseable. For the most part, Galileo, being a good Catholic, obeyed, and therein, I think, is the lesson. Obedience. The Pope was right. There wasn’t sufficient evidence at that time. Galileo was far better off to do his work, and to share data with other scientists, but not to write books about it that would serve mainly to upset the faithful unnecessarily. After all, the geocentricity (or not) of the planet was hardly going to have an impact on daily piety, was it? In time, Galileo was proven correct, and it is worth noting that the Church, far from being the enemy of science and pure research, did make the situation right, albeit years later.
I’m presently reading Simon Southerton’s book about the Book of Mormon. In a later chapter (I tend to skip around), he talks about the difference between the Catholic Church, and the Mormon church with respect to being open to pure science. He says that BYU, which is owned by the LDS church, is populated by nearly 100% Mormons, and that no study is tolerated there that does not hew to the doctrinal line, whatever that happens to be. OTOH, in Rome there is a Pontifical Academy of Science (I hope I got that name right) which is composed of some 90 international scholars, about 1/3 of them Nobel laureates, of all faiths (not just Christian, not just Catholic). The creme de la creme, in other words. They are free to write and speak as they see fit, and though they are expected to pay proper respect to the Church, in view of the fact that the Church is paying the bills for their biannual confabs, there is no thumb pressed against them to cause them to toe a doctrinal line. So, when we are talking about stake burnings, if Southerton’s writings are true, it might be more to the point to take a look at Salt Lake City, and see if there be any plumes of smoke arising.
