What is the Church's position on Creation/Evolution

[gzt]

We've been over this before, why must we rehearse it yet again?

 

[ArmyMatt]

seeing as how the issues of Nestorianism, Eutychianism, and monoenergism were all delt with in less time than the issue of evolution, the only way it would be premature to be consensus would be if there are saints who are for evolution.

 

[SingularityOne]

That's certainly one opinion, though I think it's premature to really call it a consensus.

That would be what "the Mind of the Church" means after all... So it is an "opinion" shared by the Holy Fathers and the Apostles... well... and Christ Himself, who established this foundation, I would say.

 

[ArmyMatt]

and I would add, if the only thing the saints have said is against evolution, that is by definition a consensus.

 

[gzt]

And they were dealt with by councils, orthodox opinions defined, dissenters corrected, there has been nothing so definitive at all. Rather, the Church has not taken up the issue and still discusses it now.

 

[gzt]

If you want to define your position as the sole Orthodox one, go right ahead, but I don't see a miter on your noggin.

 

[SingularityOne]

If you want to define your position as the sole Orthodox one, go right ahead, but I don't see a miter on your noggin.

I would like to point out that the position I stated was "The Mind of the Church", so I'm just "traditioning" the "opinion" along down to you and everyone else. On top of that, the Saints have purified nous' so they know much more than you or I on this topic. It's just more logical to abide by what St. Basil and St. John Chrysostom have written (among others) instead of going off on one's own without making the Holy Father's one's foundation.

Here is St. Basil's Hexameron if you are interested:
NPNF2-08. Basil: Letters and Select Works - Christian Classics Ethereal Library

 

[ArmyMatt]

And they were dealt with by councils, orthodox opinions defined, dissenters corrected, there has been nothing so definitive at all. Rather, the Church has not taken up the issue and still discusses it now.

except the consensus that was being talked about was that of the saints. that was what was brought up which you said is premature for consensus.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Wow...an oversimplification if I ever saw one. I never said there aren’t catechisms. We just don’t have one master universal catechism for all of Orthodoxy addressing evolution....

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

He knows that.

that's one catechism of many.

 

[ArmyMatt]

If you want to define your position as the sole Orthodox one, go right ahead, but I don't see a miter on your noggin.

it's not the opinion of what people without mitres on their heads say, it's what the guys with halos who adorn our walls say.

 

[ArmyMatt]

He knows that.

gotcha

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

I always love that question. The answer is, of course, there are none! And you would think that would give the pro-evolutionist pause.....but it doesn't. The usual mindset is that the poor Fathers or even modern saints just weren't enlightened enough in science to grasp it...

can you name some saints who are for evolution?

 

[gzt]

I would like to point out that the position I stated was "The Mind of the Church"

you're going far beyond your warrant there, my man.

 

[gzt]

So we're back at an impasse - what then to make of the many faithful bishops, priests, deacons, monks, nuns, theologians, and lay persons who disagree with you despite this apparent chorus (which isn't as airtight as it's made)? That the few recent people that have been canonized and spoken on this disagree with them isn't really determinative and it's abusing the text to read the ancients in this way.

 

[rusmeister]

So we're back at an impasse - what then to make of the many faithful bishops, priests, deacons, monks, nuns, theologians, and lay persons who disagree with you despite this apparent chorus (which isn't as airtight as it's made)? That the few recent people that have been canonized and spoken on this disagree with them isn't really determinative and it's abusing the text to read the ancients in this way.

The answer to your question is easy, as easy as it was in the fourth century, when many faithful bishops, priests, deacons, monks, nuns, theologians and lay persons followed Arius, or when the whole hierarchy of Constantinople condemned Maximus the Confessor a couple of centuries after that. It is that a given majority (even when it IS an actual majority) in a given time IN THE CHURCH can really be wrong, and only after all are safely dead can we look and see what the consensus over time is. That’s the only way we can really proclaim anything as true. Relying exclusively on the people of our time in regards to anything that really impacts our theology is a dreadful mistake, and a very probable path to heresy. There MUST be consensus with the past, across our history. And that consensus doesn’t favor your view. Your response is to reject that historical consensus of the saints and fathers and seek it in well-meaning modern believers who contradict that consensus. That’s where the moderns depart from historical Orthodoxy and start making up their own religion, adopting the name and trappings of the historical faith.

It is based on a fervent, dogmatic, unswavering and unquestioning faith in modern education, and the proclamations of the scientists of our day, one that is certain it “knows better” than that historical consensus, which was produced by backward and ignorant ancients who knew nothing of that Holy Science Tradition.

 

[ArmyMatt]

and to say relatively few saints have written against evolution as a reason it should be permissible is also not correct. more saints have written against evolution than many heresies while those heresies were being debated in their own time.

it's also not abusing the text to read the ancients that way, as the saints who have written against evolution used the arguments from the ancients that way. I don't think it's wise to say St Theophan the recluse was abusing patristic commentaries or Scripture.

 

[Platina]

it's also not abusing the text to read the ancients that way, as the saints who have written against evolution used the arguments from the ancients that way. I don't think it's wise to say St Theophan the recluse was abusing patristic commentaries or Scripture.

And yet, that's the position that being pro-evolution forces you into.

 

[gzt]

1. That's not quite the argument.

2. St Theophan was before modern scriptural scholarship and at the very beginning of this phase of scientific inquiry - I wouldn't judge somebody harshly based on the balance of evidence at the time.

 

[TheLostCoin]

and to say relatively few saints have written against evolution as a reason it should be permissible is also not correct. more saints have written against evolution than many heresies while those heresies were being debated in their own time.

But Evolution is a much more complex issue than even some of the greatest heresies which have affected the Church, because there is definitely some truth in Evolution regardless of how YEC you are; would you deny the fact that wolves and domesticated dogs are related, or that mice and rats are related - that these creatures changed based on adaptations to their environment or even domestication?
Is it heretical to believe that organisms adapt to their environment and physiologically change to some degree over time?


We aren't debating whether or not icons are idolatrous, or whether or not Christ had Two Wills or not - we are debating how we ought to interpret Genesis and the Creation of the World - something which can be so different on people's worldviews - a literal spectrum of worldviews - that defining what exactly "Evolution" is and what makes it heretical can be problematic, because if you define it, someone can come up with a slightly different idea and call it "Evolution."