Science + Creation

[Aiza]

Those six reasons to become a Carmelite should be considered "sick" reasons. How sad to use such a rationale to throw one's life away. She was sick in more than body.

How so, Epi?

-ToEbNS, The Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection is an issue that very neatly summarizes the churches ability to change it's mind. Either the See has been convinced by evidence or their interpretation of Genesis has changed over time (it's actually both of the above).

Hmm? The Church's position on evolution by natural selection is the same as it has always been, and there's never been a dogmatic interpretation of Genesis. In fact, the first metaphorical interpretations (afaik) go all the way back to St. Augustine of Hippo and possibly earlier.

Which, if tken as the only example of the Vatican changing it's mind (which it is not) would lead me to ask why you felt that it didn't? Why you felt so strongly that it didn't that you're next response was "No it doesn't".

Its a huge huge point when people even think that the Church may have "changed Her mind" to where there is extensive explanations for even the slightest deviations in practice (small t tradition, not big T Tradition). Evolution is not amongst them, because the Church has always noted it as an acceptable belief.

Well, Aiza, what do you think all of those councils and decrees were all about?

A variety of issues, none of which were changing one position of the Church to another position of the Church.

Yeah, the catholic encyclopedia is a great resource for catholic beliefs,

And Catholic history.

Sure sure, Saints aren't demi-gods at all, they just do things demi-gods might do, they share names with demi-gods, and gods, and are venerated in the same places that those pagan gods were venerated

On occasion some might share a name, though that doesn't make them demigods anymore than sharing a name with a Saint makes me a Saint. But no, no, not really. They certainly don't "do the same things".

That's not how the early church viewed the bishop of Rome, and the importance of the bishop of Rome is tied to the importance of the city of Rome itself, not some magical story about a demi-god and his demi-god..er, saintly buddies.

A "magical story" which just so happens to be part of the Christian canon, using a figure who is universally regarded in both Catholic and Orthodox traditions to be the founder of the Church in Rome. We don't have to choose between "important city" or "important figure" because the Pope has both.

Yeah..speaking of, hows about those rumblings about the Petrine forgery btw, are we still pretending that they don't exist?

They don't. I have googled it, and you still don't know what you are on about.

You didn't know that saints had magical powers, and that magic followed them everywhere they went, even after their deaths? Hell, it's a requirement...from your very own link on cannonization.

They don't have "magic powers".

If you meant to ask why so no recent Popes are Saints, we actually have quite a few in the making (along the canonization process)

Within the last 100 years
Servant of God: John Paul I, Paul VI
Venerable: Pius XII
Blessed: John Paul II, John XXIII
Saint: Pius X

It takes a while to be formally canonized. The process you describe, having at least 2 miracles post-death, is, as you note, for post-1983 canonizations only. The earliest Saints venerated were either martyrs or lead exemplary lives. Most of the earliest Popes died martyrs, and those that we don't know for sure--well, we assume they died martyrs too . (St. Peter being famously crucified upside down, from which we get the Petrine cross).

So if anything our Church has many more "wizards" now than it did before.