Recent Posts

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
I wonder why the article says supposed relic.  She died in 1914.  A relic would not be at all hard to obtain.

My guess would be the usual press assumption that the Catholic Church is full of fraud and chicanery.

Ver. 15. "So then, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye were taught, whether by word, or by Epistle of ours."

There's nothing in that verse about an infallible body of Bishops or unwritten teachings. That is one of the earliest writings of the New Testament. What did Paul tell the Corinthians at a later date?

1 Corinthians 4:6 - I have applied all these things to myself and Apollos for your benefit, brothers, that you may learn by us not to go beyond what is written, that none of you may be puffed up in favor of one against another.

Luke 1:1-4 - Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile a narrative of the things that have been accomplished among us, just as those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word have delivered them to us, it seemed good to me also, having followed all things closely for some time past, to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, that you may have certainty concerning the things you have been taught.
That doesn't follow from those passages either. How do you know that the unwritten teachings of St. Paul were later written down?

Also, the bishops are only infallible to the extent that they hew to the truth of tradition which includes Scripture but is by no means limited to it. Infallibility is in the Church as a whole, clergy and lay.

Basically this prooftext war is just going to go around in circles as long as you're talking about it in generalities. This needs to be discussed in terms of concrete examples.
Religious Topics / Re: Do you believe in theory of human evolution?
« Last post by Pellegrino on Today at 10:17:07 AM »
No, you are correct.  I tend to get sarcastic at times, but only to drive the point harder, but never to intend to get you riled up or angry.

I'm not denying there is a philosophy, but there is not "one unifying philosophy" all evolutionists, let alone atheist scientists, share.  Neither do all evolutionists derive a philosophy based on the science of evolution.  I personally at times allegorize evolution only for a Christian teaching.  Perhaps this may be an "evolution philosophy" being theologized on my part.  Some have taken the science of evolution and extends it in a hypothetical manner in all fields, including psychology, chemistry, astronomy, etc.  It's a very enticing belief, and a model that seems to have a huge impact on the thoughts of many today.  I must admit, it impacted my thought as well.

However, when it comes to Fr. Seraphim Rose, I get the impression he uses literal meanings of Genesis as is interpreted by the Church fathers to disprove not just the philosophy, but even the science of biological evolution itself.  The prose from Michener is not something that would be published in a scientific journal, or tested from by students in a classroom (on this latter part, ideally speaking).  What is tested is the basic knowledge of the science itself, and what is required is the methods and results of a hypothesis to see if it confirms a theory or weakens it so that it can be publishable in a peer-reviewed and well-respected journal.  It's not just passion Fr. Seraphim is against.  He is against science itself! 

Fr. Seraphim uses quotes from St. Basil to dogmatize the idea that there can never be any speciation, only a development within species.  Fr. Seraphim goes on to even reject geological data, not just evolution, but even "science which does not bind itself to the philosophical theory of evolution", commenting on how science, in general, does not support the idea that plants were not created before the revealing of the Sun.  Fr. Seraphim goes on to believe that we should never learn the "how" of creation, and rather take the Church fathers and the Scriptures' words for it, replacing whatever "other non-evolutionary" science there is.  This is a profound fundamentalist view.  I am not sure how it conforms with your interpretation that he is mostly against philosophy.  He then goes through pain quoting the Church fathers not just to disprove philosophy, but even the science.

If we are dealing strictly with science, it is on a peer-based review of challenges to a theory that could not debunk the theory.  And the more one is unable to disprove something, and make predictions with it that strengthens it, it solidifies the theory more and more into a fact of life.  And this goes with "probability" in that the probability it gets debunked becomes very small.  There is still that small probability, but it is still small.  This is how ANY science works, even the most non-controversial ones, like engineering.  You draw out plans of a model, you then test it out by creating it and seeing if it works, and if it does not, it either disproves your plan completely or perhaps you needed some tweaking of the plan.  If the plan did not fail, then you build upon that plan to see if the model can be stronger.  The lesser fails you have, the better and more tenable the model.  That model is a "theory", and that's how any theory is tested.

Genesis is not a model, but a contemplation, a spiritual truth of creation.  St. Basil when commenting on Genesis, he expanded with great beauty this contemplation, and with great passion wrote something similar to Michener's style, but his intention was not a passion of science, but a passion of spirituality, along with the understanding of the world as he knew it in the 4th century.  Fr. Seraphim didn't seem to get that, and this is where many Orthodox Christians disagree with Fr. Seraphim's approach.

This significant and well-thought out post raises several very important points.  I am not going to comment on it right now, but reflect and do further reading.  It may be some time before I get around to responding.
Christian News / Re: Student Wearing Rosary, Gets arrested
« Last post by Yurysprudentsiya on Today at 10:09:47 AM »
Thread unlocked and warnings issued.  No debate/politics, please.

Other Topics / Re: W.A.G.-word association game
« Last post by Gamliel on Today at 10:08:17 AM »
Religious Topics / Re: Women’s Headcoverings
« Last post by NanaDeborah on Today at 09:59:59 AM »
I would love to see this more in our western churches :)
Do young women in your churches wear head coverings?

"What is the Scriptural and Patristic evidence for this tradition, and why is it important?"
I like prefer when women wear head scarves in a Church.
When I go to Russian Orthodox here in England almost all women wear a head scarf, it is Biblically correct.

1 Corinthians 11:3–16
"3 But I want you to understand that the head of every man is Christ, the head of a wife1 is her husband, and the head of Christ is God. 4 Every man who prays or prophesies with his head covered dishonors his head, 5 but every wife2 who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head, since it is the same as if her head were shaven. 6"

1 Cor. 11:15 But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her for a covering
Other Topics / Re: W.A.G.-word association game
« Last post by NanaDeborah on Today at 09:49:52 AM »
Other Topics / Re: W.A.G.-word association game
« Last post by hecma925 on Today at 09:48:23 AM »
Religious Topics / Re: Women’s Headcoverings
« Last post by hecma925 on Today at 09:46:06 AM »
I don't get how angels can't handle a woman's hair.  If you believe in them, guardian angels put up with a lot more than that.
I wonder why the article says supposed relic.  She died in 1914.  A relic would not be at all hard to obtain.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10