Previous post November 2017: https://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/1...hlight=nohands

Above is a link to my post a bit over a year ago after been brand new to god and the Bible. I didn't end up looking at the thread until just today because I was reflecting on my journey in Christianity in 2018.

I feel like I made great strides theologically and spiritually since that point. I also have went from having no direction testing out Protestant denominations Baptist, Fellowship Alliance, non denominational to coming back to my roots of the Catholic Church.

I feel like Catholicism is misunderstood by many (including Catholics) and happy to answer any questions about my journey or theology in general.

How do you resolve the contradiction that the CC has always claimed to be an authoratitive source and yet has been shown to be wrong on some subjects, such as Evolution, which is a hugely significant error, and has admitted those errors and simply changed it's teachings to reflect that?

How can you trust anything they teach?

A bit out of my element here, but Church doctrine can "develop" over time. Fundamental principals of the doctrine does not change, but the teachings that come from that principle can change as we learn more.

Here's an example that I found:

Another well-known example of a Church teaching changing is slavery. The Church came to a gradual understanding that slavery was immoral, and moved from a stance of condoning to condemning slavery. In this case, the foundational principle was the idea that humanity is made in imago Dei, the image and likeness of God. That principle never changed; it was expanded to include enslaved peoples once it was understood that they were entirely human.



We trust what the Catholic Church teaches because of the below Bible verse. This verse is where Jesus founds HIS church (the Catholic Church) and gives Peter (the pope) the Authority.

Because Jesus Christ is the head of the Catholic Church the teachings cannot be wrong.

Matthew 16: 18-19

"And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”

A better tact would be to challenge the question a bit. The Catholic Church has never claimed to be the authoritative source of all types of knowledge. It is true that for a period of time, the church was the authoritative source of knowledge because it had the resources to invest in people to try to ascertain that knowledge, but at no point were those scientific pursuits considered infallible or perfect. It was just the best knowledge that was available at the time.

How can anyone trust anything that arises from the scientific community?

Ok, so you accept that anything they tell you authoritatively, could 'evolve'.. i.e. be wrong, and be changed at some point in the future. The original claim was 'god made us exactly as we are' and when Evolution was proposed the CC vigorously rejected the idea, but in the face of overwhelming evidence (and the realisation that it's not actually in conflict with god's existence) that changed to 'we evolved'. That's not a small error, or a gradual realisation, it's a huge u-turn.


We're not talking about Jesus, we're talking about mortal men claiming divine authority for their knowledge and then turning out to be wrong. If they were wrong about something as huge as evolution, what else are they wrong about? It would be rational to approach what they teach with extreme skepticism, no?

I don't think the Catholic doctrine is "we evolved", it's fairly detailed because it separates biological and human evolution.

This from the link below: "Methodical research in all branches of knowledge, provided it is carried out in a truly scientific manner and does not override moral laws, can never conflict with the faith, because the things of the world and the things the of the faith derive from the same God. The humble and persevering investigator of the secrets of nature is being led, as it were, by the hand of God in spite of himself, for it is God, the conserver of all things, who made them what they are" (CCC 159). The Catholic Church has no fear of science or scientific discovery.

Link to Catholic position on Evolution: https://www.catholic.com/tract/adam-eve-and-evolution

It's the Holy Spirit flowing down through the Pope and clergy and the teaching is divinely inspired. Teachings of the Catholic Church are from god and uses mortal men as instruments for HIS church.

Let's say, hypothetically, you're right and the Catholic Church completely wrong about a certain fact about science.

That doesn't take away from God being able to pull good from it and it being part of God's plan.

are you an apologist?

When did the CC say evolution wasn't true?

What made them think that slaves are not entirely human?

no idea man

Is there any scriptural basis for your claim that they didn’t think of slaves as human?

No i saw the example online and posted it because it illustrated the concept of how a Catholic teaching can develop and align with science. I didn't look into the actual claim that the Church ever thought that.

Examples you don‘t understand or can’t explain aren‘t convincing.

Sure it is, the CC agrees that the human body could have evolved from previous biological forms, but that the soul was created by god and is unchanging in it's form.




But why would any of that information need to be 'refined', if it's directly from god, it's gotta be right first time every time, right? Except that we know that is not the case, and if even one claim needs to be 'refined', then perhaps they all do, and it's reasonable to treat them all with skepticism.

I haven't claimed that they ever did. However, even the CC itself would agree that their view on evolution has been 'refined' over the years.

I wouldn't really consider myself that, no.

You claimed the CC was wrong about evolution. What exactly was the error the CC made concerning evolution? What teaching did they have to change?

If the RCC at one time rejected evolution, and now they accept evolution, then IMO they went from being right to being wrong..

I know you said you're out of your element but where the heck are you getting this from? The Church never taught that slaves weren't entirely human. Many early Christians were slaves and they had the same access to the sacraments that the free did. Even one of the early popes was a former slave (Callistus I).

In Medieval Europe (Christendom), slavery was almost non-existent. Feudalism made it basically unnecessary.

During the fifteenth century, discovery of the New World opened Europe back up to widespread slavery. There were many popes who issued condemnations of it starting in the 1400's.

And no, pointing to people who identified as Catholic yet owned slaves is not a good argument. The immoral behavior of certain individuals is not the same as official Catholic teaching.

Methinks you backed off a bit after doing some research.

What do you mean by refined?

If you mean that the average Catholic has become more accepting of evolution since Darwin first wrote about it than I'm sure that's correct.

But that's not the same thing as the Church changing its teaching. The Church has never produced a dogmatic document refuting or denying evolution.

Based on your previous posts, it seems like you have a misunderstanding of what the Church claims with regards to infallibility and/or the difference between doctrine and dogma etc. When a theologian, Church Father or even a pope muses about a certain matter such as evolution that does not reflect official Church teaching or doctrine/dogma.

If the Magisterium produced something or if the pope spoke ex cathedra (which has only happened twice in history btw) regarding this, then you'd have much more of a case.

I'm sure that Darwin's theories elicited a major reaction from Catholics when they were first introduced but that doesn't mean that the Church officially denied evolution. Unfortunately the average Catholic know very little about his/her own faith.

The discovery of the New World is really helpful to increase the land area and population adhering to the Catholic Church. Brazil and Mexico have the most Catholic populations

Presumably you would accept this as 'ex cathedra'.

The Pope Would Like You to Accept Evolution and the Big Bang

Naturally there's a caveat, the CC might accept ToE but it's still divine, and they avoid all the problems by using a 'first cause' type argument, which, as a digression, further supports my view that god is being pushed further and further back as we explain things using the scientific paradigm. Eventually, god's only hiding place will be pre-big bang.

On what basis would you presume this?

So you know for a fact that evolution is 100% true?

In Darwin’s origins of species he claims that we would find transitory fossils to back up all of his claims. But he also said that if we didn’t find those fossils that we should disregard his claims.

So Seeing as how we have found 0 transitory fossils I’ve taken that to mean evolution is a complete hoax and he was most likely pressured into formulations these ideas.

How do you reconcile the fact we should have millions of in between stages of all species yet we have none.

Maybe the original teachings of the church are right and evolution isn’t real. Maybe just maybe the church was infiltrated by jesuits and other scholars and powerful factions to pervert the entire message of God through education of false teachings.

Your top guy believes all dogs go to heaven, is part of an organization that has systematically and deliberately covered up institutionalized pedophilia, is sitting on a mountain of wealth, and routinely engages in ritual that looks more Luciferian than Christian.

What exactly was it about Protestantism in general that seemed more wrong than that?