What is the Church's position on Creation/Evolution

[SingularityOne]

Citation needed.

Are you implying that the consensus of the saints (the mind of the church in the Holy Spirit) changes?

 

[ArmyMatt]

"We will not remove the age-old landmarks which our Fathers have set, but we keep the tradition we have received. For if we begin to erode the foundations of the Church even a little, in no time at all the whole edifice will fall to the ground." -St John of Damascus, On the Divine Images

"Sacred Tradition, as the eternal and immutable dwelling of the Holy Spirit in the Church, lies at the very root of her being, and so encompasses her entire life." -Elder Sophrony, St Silouan of Mt Athos

 

[gzt]

"Consensus of the saints" brings about an odd kind of historiographic question - it's not as easy as that, and the easy equation of that with the mind of the Church brushes a lot of things under the rug. I'm reminded of something Fr Florovsky once said, but not having the book on hand, I'll go with something else that is at least searchable:

Just yesterday the question was put to me, in my Patristic seminar, by one of the participants: we enjoy immensely, he said, the reading of the Fathers, but what is their “authority”? Are we supposed to accept from them even that in which they obviously were “situation-conditioned” and probably inaccurate, inadequate, and even wrong? My answer was obviously, No. Not only because, as it is persistently urged, only the consensus patrum [consensus of the Fathers] is binding—and, as to myself, I do not like this phrase. The “authority” of the Fathers is not a dictatus papae [dictate of the pope]. They are guides and witnesses, no more. Their vision is “of authority”, not necessarily their words. By studying the Fathers we are compelled to face the problems, and then we can follow them but creatively, not in the mood of repetition. I mentioned this already in the brief preface to my Eastern Fathers of the IV Century, and provoked a fiery indignation of the late Dom Clement Lialine. So many in our time are still looking for authoritative answers, even before they have encountered any problem. I am fortunate to have in my seminars students who are studying Fathers because they are interested in creative theology, and not just in history or archaeology.

But to go back directly to what the previous person said: do we really think that modern (I do emphasize modern here) YEC after the mold of Father Seraphim Rose believe precisely what Moses did about Genesis 1? (And also that it's useless to consider the work of scholars like Walton on the "lost world of Genesis 1")

 

[gzt]

"Sacred Tradition, as the eternal and immutable dwelling of the Holy Spirit in the Church, lies at the very root of her being, and so encompasses her entire life." -Elder Sophrony, St Silouan of Mt Athos

Ah, but it's quite something to equate that to what is being asserted.

 

[ArmyMatt]

Ah, but it's quite something to equate that to what is being asserted.

except that it's not, you asked for a citation about tradition being unchanging.

 

[ArmyMatt]

"Consensus of the saints" brings about an odd kind of historiographic question - it's not as easy as that, and the easy equation of that with the mind of the Church brushes a lot of things under the rug. I'm reminded of something Fr Florovsky once said, but not having the book on hand, I'll go with something else that is at least searchable:

But to go back directly to what the previous person said: do we really think that modern (I do emphasize modern here) YEC after the mold of Father Seraphim Rose believe precisely what Moses did about Genesis 1? (And also that it's useless to consider the work of scholars like Walton on the "lost world of Genesis 1")

Elder Joseph of Vatopedi had a vision and said creation happened exactly as Moses accounted.

and Fr Seraphim's view was the mold of St John Maximovitch.

 

[gzt]

Citation needed for the whole argument (less of an argument than two bald assertions).

 

[ArmyMatt]

the whole argument? what citations are you lacking? jckstraw would cite the ancient Fathers, I have cited more modern ones, then there are academics who are also Young Earthers, what exact citations are you missing?

 

[ArmyMatt]

and the Fr Georges Florovsky quote doesn't support your position in this issue. you are saying their consensus is not binding and they are not guides when it comes to this, even the Fathers of our time. your position is actually the opposite of the quote you made.

 

[gzt]

Let's back up to what the poster argued that I said "citation needed" to:

>And the Church's understanding of Genesis has not changed since day 1, glory to God!

>It's a pretty basic statement. Tradition is unchanging.

The "two bald assertions" - there's quite a bit to unpack and cite, by the way, in the link between the two statements. It's hardly trivial.

 

[gzt]

and the Fr Georges Florovsky quote doesn't support your position in this issue. you are saying their consensus is not binding and they are not guides when it comes to this, even the Fathers of our time. your position is actually the opposite of the quote you made.

That's your position on it, but not mine.

 

[ArmyMatt]

That's your position on it, but not mine.

Fr Georges says the consensus is binding, you have argued it isn't. modern Fathers refute evolution, which proves Fr Georges' point that the rejection of evolution isn't just history and archaeology. what in what he says actually supports your view?

 

[ArmyMatt]

Let's back up to what the poster argued that I said "citation needed" to:

>And the Church's understanding of Genesis has not changed since day 1, glory to God!

>It's a pretty basic statement. Tradition is unchanging.

The "two bald assertions" - there's quite a bit to unpack and cite, by the way, in the link between the two statements. It's hardly trivial.

I quoted two who say tradition is unchanging and provided the works that say it. as for Genesis, every time we have these discussions, jckstraw would give you the references.

 

[gzt]

Fr Georges says the consensus is binding, you have argued it isn't. modern Fathers refute evolution, which proves Fr Georges' point that the rejection of evolution isn't just history and archaeology. what in what he says actually supports your view?

I haven't argued the first.

 

[ArmyMatt]

I haven't argued the first.

you have argued at every turn as to why we should not listen to the Fathers when it comes to evolution. just earlier in this thread, you gave reason as to why St Theophan the recluse's objections were forgivable, because he lived not long after Darwin.

 

[gzt]

We shouldn't listen to a handful of modern saints on a couple specific questions.

 

[prodromos]

We shouldn't listen to a handful of modern saints on a couple specific questions.

Why ever not?

 

[gzt]

Because they happen to be wrong on a couple specific, narrowly defined questions. Being a saint isn't a proof of infallibility or a stamp of approval of all their views.

 

[prodromos]

Because they happen to be wrong on a couple specific, narrowly defined questions.

Which are?

 

[ArmyMatt]

We shouldn't listen to a handful of modern saints on a couple specific questions.

you mean like how it was only a handful of then modern saints who opposed Arius in the 4th century?

by the way, you just said opposite of what Fr Florovsky said. he said consensus of the saints is binding, but not for evolution according to you for some reason.