What is the Church's position on Creation/Evolution

[TheLostCoin]

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.

Let's assume that YEC is absolutely True, a dogma of the Church. In fact, let's assume that it is absolutely true that modern scientists with all the measurements, archaeological findings, numerous dating systems, the fossil record, the record of geology, etc., are all completely fraudulent. We can maybe even put forward that there's some massive conspiracy of Freemasons who are funding all these universities to intentionally propagate lies they know are lies, as well as funding all the peer-reviewed journals that analyze this data.

As of today, is it really wise to clamp down on this issue, when there are SO many other issues, such that this particular issue only makes handling those harder issues more difficult? We live in a society that constantly promotes pornography, materialism, atheism, hedonism, liberalism, even the public openly endorsing blasphemy and sacrilege (Heavenly Bodies fashion show), with so much people who have lost God and have lost any semblence of a relationship of Christ, I think that to have this attitude of "you are excluded from the Saints" for not holding a very narrow and specific view of the Creation of the world, that the Saints aren't all specifically clear on (my question to you of how exactly creation worked, what was the Earth like before the fall, what does "death" mean, where Eden is located haven't been answered by you as dogma of what the Church believes in), is at best, unwise for reasons of Economia, at worst, Pharisaical.

I hate the Pharisaical argument, the "do not judge" argument by the way, I believe that a good way of understanding it (sorry if it's a touch bit scholastic) is differentiating between objective judgment and subjective judgment - objective when you point out directly what they are doing is wrong, and what that objective attitude can lead to, subjective when you judge an individual person's soul out of elitism.

After all, the Church in the 4th Ecumenical Council said that Theodoret wasn't condemned, and he did give an apology and subscribed to the Tome of Leo. Do you KNOW if he's a Saint or not? What about Acacius of Constantinople? He led the Church of Constantinople to spit on Chalcedon, and his objective actions confirm him as a Judas and a traitor - but do YOU KNOW if he's in hell or not? He may have saw Chalcedon as not that big of a divide between the OO and the EO, and wanted to solve an issue which was heavily perpetuated by nationalism and politics. Who knows what his intentions were? He convinced a good portion of the Eastern Churches with the support of the Emperor to endorse the OO interpretation of Miaphysitism, and he's considered a Saint in the OO communion.


I think this idea that the suggestion of "you won't have a halo if you don't subscribe to my very specific worldview" is what can be interpreted as Pharisaical, a Subjective Judgment, especially when you don't try to help explain your view in light of all of the evidence of Anthropology, Paleontology, Geology, and Archaeology which contradict your worldview.

This is different than moral actions which cannot be interpreted in any other way - for example, the Saints make it clear, as well as the Tradition of the Church, even to the old document of the Apocryphal Apocalypse of Peter [which Saint Clement of Alexandria saw as canonical], that abortion IS murder and people who do it will be tormented for eternity if they are unrepentant.

Same with indifferent ecumenism - the Council of Elvira explicitly says that if someone goes to a Pagan temple to pray, they should be forbidden from Communion even unto death.

But these are theories of how exactly Creation worked, which the Church Fathers aren't completely clear on except for some very specific points (like that human beings are nothing more than super-intelligent monkeys), and as I've said, I told you there are extremes of the views which I explicitly reject (I believe that humanity, man and woman, was in perfect communion with God until they sinned against Him, and now live in a fallen world)

Didn't Christ say:
"Woe to you lawyers also, because you load men with burdens which they cannot bear, and you yourselves touch not the packs with one of your fingers. "

 

[gzt]

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.

What?

 

[ArmyMatt]

Let's assume that YEC is absolutely True, a dogma of the Church. In fact, let's assume that it is absolutely true that modern scientists with all the measurements, archaeological findings, numerous dating systems, the fossil record, the record of geology, etc., are all completely fraudulent. We can maybe even put forward that there's some massive conspiracy of Freemasons who are funding all these universities to intentionally propagate lies they know are lies, as well as funding all the peer-reviewed journals that analyze this data.

As of today, is it really wise to clamp down on this issue, when there are SO many other issues, such that this particular issue only makes handling those harder issues more difficult? We live in a society that constantly promotes pornography, materialism, atheism, hedonism, liberalism, even the public openly endorsing blasphemy and sacrilege (Heavenly Bodies fashion show), with so much people who have lost God and have lost any semblence of a relationship of Christ, I think that to have this attitude of "you are excluded from the Saints" for not holding a very narrow and specific view of the Creation of the world, that the Saints aren't all specifically clear on (my question to you of how exactly creation worked, what was the Earth like before the fall, what does "death" mean, where Eden is located haven't been answered by you as dogma of what the Church believes in), is at best, unwise for reasons of Economia, at worst, Pharisaical.

I hate the Pharisaical argument, the "do not judge" argument by the way, I believe that a good way of understanding it (sorry if it's a touch bit scholastic) is differentiating between objective judgment and subjective judgment - objective when you point out directly what they are doing is wrong, and what that objective attitude can lead to, subjective when you judge an individual person's soul out of elitism.

After all, the Church in the 4th Ecumenical Council said that Theodoret wasn't condemned, and he did give an apology and subscribed to the Tome of Leo. Do you KNOW if he's a Saint or not? What about Acacius of Constantinople? He led the Church of Constantinople to spit on Chalcedon, and his objective actions confirm him as a Judas and a traitor - but do YOU KNOW if he's in hell or not? He may have saw Chalcedon as not that big of a divide between the OO and the EO, and wanted to solve an issue which was heavily perpetuated by nationalism and politics. Who knows what his intentions were? He convinced a good portion of the Eastern Churches with the support of the Emperor to endorse the OO interpretation of Miaphysitism, and he's considered a Saint in the OO communion.


I think this idea that the suggestion of "you won't have a halo if you don't subscribe to my very specific worldview" is what can be interpreted as Pharisaical, a Subjective Judgment, especially when you don't try to help explain your view in light of all of the evidence of Anthropology, Paleontology, Geology, and Archaeology which contradict your worldview.

This is different than moral actions which cannot be interpreted in any other way - for example, the Saints make it clear, as well as the Tradition of the Church, even to the old document of the Apocryphal Apocalypse of Peter [which Saint Clement of Alexandria saw as canonical], that abortion IS murder and people who do it will be tormented for eternity if they are unrepentant.

Same with indifferent ecumenism - the Council of Elvira explicitly says that if someone goes to a Pagan temple to pray, they should be forbidden from Communion even unto death.

But these are theories of how exactly Creation worked, which the Church Fathers aren't completely clear on except for some very specific points (like that human beings are nothing more than super-intelligent monkeys), and as I've said, I told you there are extremes of the views which I explicitly reject (I believe that humanity, man and woman, was in perfect communion with God until they sinned against Him, and now live in a fallen world)

Didn't Christ say:
"Woe to you lawyers also, because you load men with burdens which they cannot bear, and you yourselves touch not the packs with one of your fingers. "

okay, so making all of your assumptions, why is this the one heresy that gets a pass? why didn't the Church have the same attitude when Arianism dominated? why did the Church respond in the opposite than you are suggesting?

as for your quote from Christ, maintaining what the Church teaches is not the same as loading men with burdens they cannot bear. Christ also allowed people to fall away when they rejected they need to eat His flesh and drink His blood in John 6. He didn't water down the Truth for fear of laying heavy burdens men cannot bear.

and no one has ever called for the excommunication of anyone who believes in evolution, so I am not sure of any burden anyone is laying here.

 

[ArmyMatt]

What?

in the quote by Fr Georges, Fr Georges said the saints' consensus is binding. but for some reason the consensus of the saints concerning evolution is not binding.

 

[gzt]

No, but thanks for playing.

 

[TheLostCoin]

okay, so making all of your assumptions, why is this the one heresy that gets a pass? why didn't the Church have the same attitude when Arianism dominated? why did the Church respond in the opposite than you are suggesting?

as for your quote from Christ, maintaining what the Church teaches is not the same as loading men with burdens they cannot bear. Christ also allowed people to fall away when they rejected they need to eat His flesh and drink His blood in John 6. He didn't water down the Truth for fear of laying heavy burdens men cannot bear.

Because unlike heresies such as Nestorianism or Arianism, which came in the form of strawberries or perhaps grapes, Evolution comes in the form of a slice of jello fruit cake. You can pin down the fruits by themselves rather easily, but the composition of what Evolution is complicated and does involve some strawberries and grapes in them, that trying to pin down the jello fruit cake in order to pin down the strawberries and the grapes is something that's rather difficult to do.

If the jello itself isn't heretical, and doesn't have a consensus of Saints, then it's an unnecessary burden to try to pin it down, when there are clearly other fruits that can more easily be pinned down without jello (like abortion and homosexuality).

If the jello is heretical in of itself, I think it would be wiser to pin it away piece by piece with a pin rather than slam it immediately with a pin, in order to pin the whole slice down.

Another analogy: If someone's hands are frostbitten, I think it's better to at the very least to put it under warmer and warmer water rather than turn the dial to very hot and burn the person's hands.

 

[ArmyMatt]

all of the saints since Darwin who have commented on evolution have rejected evolution. there is not a saint prior to Darwin who has a theology about creation open to evolution. that is a consensus. according to the quote you posted, the consensus of the saints is binding. but you are arguing for evolution, which means the consensus of the saints concerning evolution is not binding.

thanks for letting me play.

 

[ArmyMatt]

Because unlike heresies such as Nestorianism or Arianism, which came in the form of strawberries or perhaps grapes, Evolution comes in the form of a slice of jello fruit cake. You can pin down the fruits by themselves rather easily, but the composition of what Evolution is so complicated and does involve some strawberries and grapes in them, that trying to pin down the jello fruit cake in order to pin down the strawberries and the grapes is something that's difficult to do.

If the jello itself isn't heretical, and doesn't have a consensus of Saints, then it's an unnecessary burden to try to pin it down, when there are clearly other fruits that can more easily be pinned down without jello (like abortion and homosexuality).

If the jello is heretical in of itself, I think it would be wiser to pin it away piece by piece with a pin rather than slam it immediately with a pin, in order to pin the whole slice down.

Another analogy: If someone's hands are frostbitten, I think it's better to at the very least to put it under warmer and warmer water rather than turn the dial to very hot and burn the person's hands.

which is what is happening. for the sake of your previous point, if I am right and the jello is heretical, all I have done is shown from history that the arguments for evolution have no historical support.

again, I have never called for the excommunication of anyone who affirms evolution. no scalding water for the frostbite.

 

[prodromos]

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

I asked what these were but you still haven't answered. If you've posted it before can you link to there?
Thank you.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Don’t hold your breath.

I asked what these were but you still haven't answered. If you've posted it before can you link to there?
Thank you.

 

[rusmeister]

gz, you never responded to my post, either. But then, I guess you are committed to “creative theology”, rather than receiving, preserving and passing down truth established once and for all time. It seems to me that no thoughtful answers that deal with our objections and observations will be forthcoming, only more advice to “read modern books”.

 

[gzt]

I asked what these were but you still haven't answered. If you've posted it before can you link to there?
Thank you.

Sorry, that got lost in the shuffle, there are so many posts. I agree with almost all of what they say about theology - the sticking point is whether this theological vision must then be interpreted as implying that the earth is then not billions of years old.

 

[gzt]

there is not a saint prior to Darwin who has a theology about creation open to evolution.

This is an overstatement - while certainly every system would have assented on some level to the proposition that the earth is some thousands of years old, it's not the cornerstone by any means and several are quite amenable - besides, matters of the beginning and end are by their nature speculative and somewhat uncertain (as many of those writers admit) and this evidence weighed accordingly.

that is a consensus. according to the quote you posted

Read more carefully his whole statement.

 

[gzt]

If it's such a slam dunk, I'm just puzzled and perplexed that there are so many bishops, priest, deacons, theologians, monks, nuns, learned laity, etc who think it's still an open issue and disagree. Fr Lawrence Farley recently wrote a book on this, you might find it enlightening.

 

[ArmyMatt]

This is an overstatement - while certainly every system would have assented on some level to the proposition that the earth is some thousands of years old, it's not the cornerstone by any means and several are quite amenable - besides, matters of the beginning and end are by their nature speculative and somewhat uncertain (as many of those writers admit) and this evidence weighed accordingly.


Read more carefully his whole statement.

except the exact age of the earth is not the main issue, it's how death fits in, which does impact our view of theological anthropology (especially looking at St Maximos the confessor).

and I did read the statement a few times. the fact that saints to this day reject evolution shows it's not just holding on to history or archaeology.

and the fact that their vision still rejects evolution shows where their guidance leads. so it's not simply "situation condition" of the saints (like St John of Damascus understanding of fluids in the human body) because they reject it to this day. the quote would work if the Fathers prior to Darwin rejected it, and then afterwards the Fathers accepted it. because then rejecting evolution would not be binding.

so I did read the quote.

 

[ArmyMatt]

If it's such a slam dunk, I'm just puzzled and perplexed that there are so many bishops, priest, deacons, theologians, monks, nuns, learned laity, etc who think it's still an open issue and disagree. Fr Lawrence Farley recently wrote a book on this, you might find it enlightening.

if being an iconodule was such a slam dunk, one would just be puzzled why so many bishops, priests, deacons, theologians, monks, nuns, learned laity, etc would have thought it was an open issue....

replace evolution with iconoclasm and you have the same points you are making, and iconoclasts even called an iconoclast "Ecumenical Council." you are not making a strong argument if you look at Church history.

and I did read Fr Lawrence's book, and spoke to him when he came to St Tikhon's a few weeks ago.

and for the sake of full disclosure, I have also read Dr Bouteneff's book and spoke to him, have listened to Abp Lazar Puhalo's talks, etc.

 

[gzt]

We had a council which resolved that question eventually, fortunately.

 

[ArmyMatt]

We had a council which resolved that question eventually, fortunately.

except it wasn't the actual council that resolved the issue. the resolution happened 50ish years later.

be that as it may, during iconoclasm when it was the issue, your earlier points could be used to defend that heresy. simply pointing out that a lot of prominent people believe it is not a good argument, especially before any Synod is held.

 

[rusmeister]

If it's such a slam dunk, I'm just puzzled and perplexed that there are so many bishops, priest, deacons, theologians, monks, nuns, learned laity, etc who think it's still an open issue and disagree. Fr Lawrence Farley recently wrote a book on this, you might find it enlightening.

In addition to what Fr Matt has said, your comment here indicates that you really have not grasped the point that any number of people living today could have an opinion that contradicts that “slam-dunk”, but that the determining voice of truth is not the number of people living in one particular era, above all, the present one, who think a certain way, but the very large number of dead and declared saints.
You have to decide whether you are so fully committed to the idea of evolution that you would abandon everything else for it. It matters not that you think you can synthesize them and don’t have to abandon anything. What matters is that IF what we are saying really IS the case, would you deny the historic consensus for the sake of your faith in modern science and modern education? Which would you choose in such an event?
My own choice is not difficult. Having seen the disastrous failures of said education, I have no trouble accepting a consensus that contradicts that education, not being bound to it as an article of faith.

 

[gzt]

I'll certainly acknowledge that that isn't a positive case for it. It's easy, of course, retrospective to a Synodal pronouncement, to say what the right answer is and not as easy in advance. However I'd let the people with more time and expertise make the positive case, you may easily find many such resources (such as Fr Farley's book) if you care to.