Science + Creation

[The Grand Nudger]

So...basically the Church Fathers taught a variety of things, none of which ever became dogma, and creationism was taken for granted until new geological discoveries were made introducing new ideas which are also allowed and also none of which ever became dogma? You don't say.

I mean, seriously, nothing you said here contradicts me in any way, and the fact that different Church Fathers thought different things sort of solidifies that fact, doesn't it?

Yes, Aiza, basically, at different points in time the church and its leaders have had different party lines, these have changed with time, some being codified, some not, and this would directly contradict your hilarious (and at this point I'm willing to say knowingly false) claim that the church did not have a habit of changing it's mind, its teachings, it's policies, it's canon, etc. It did, and does to this very day.

No, they never swapped one Tradition for another. Sacred Tradition is integral to the Faith and held in common by the universal church. Small-t traditions can and do vary from place to place and are sometimes swapped out.

You've already been made aware of at least once instance where a Pope reversed the rulings of a previous Pope in another thread. So apparently they are infallible, unless the next Pope is even more infallible. I'd say that's a problem with big t traditions (of which the infallibility of the pope is one, though it was not always, again, see the above)

Church councils firstly clarify and discuss matters of dogma. For example, when the pill came out, some people argued that it should be allowed for Catholics based on the fact that it was an extension of a humans hormonal cycle. The Pope stepped in and ruled otherwise, that it divorced sex from its procreative aspect like any other artificial birth control. New issues and new discoveries create new implications for dogma.

Not if the church can't change it's mind or reverse itself, no.

Sometimes it defines dogma, turning common theological beliefs and recognizing them as established parts of the Faith. For example, it is a required belief of all Catholics that the Blessed Virgin Mary was conceived without sin and was totally sinless throughout her whole life. This doctrine was not formally defined until relatively recently, but was always present in Tradition and the Church certainly never made a proclamation that the Blessed Virgin Mary was born with original sin, so its not at all a "change". This can also be done in response to a specific heresy: the rise of Arianism prompted the Church to formally define the Trinity.

Wait, you mean they brought down an unfavorable religious ruling against a competing religious provider? You don't say.......

Even more often they revise tradition. Such as Vatican II having more Holy Masses said in the language of the people. This is a small t tradition, as Latin wasn't actually an integral part of dogma: indeed, Eastern Catholics always preached in their own languages and earlier Christians did as well.

No they don't, you can't revise something without changing it, and they don't change things

We are talking about Christianity here. To you I am sure it is all ~fairy tales~ but to Christians its literal Scripture.

Fairy tales remain fairy tales whether it is a hindu, a christian, a muslim, or an atheist reading them.

The "Petrine passage" is present in every single known manuscript of Matthew always in the same place as well. When a verse is added in later, we end up with some early books not having it in, and when its a larger passage you often see it move around as different people inserted it in different areas. So its not a forgery by any legitimate opinion.

So you keep claiming, but I think I'll just hold out for that opus of yours.

As for "authoriship" and "dating" I am not sure what you are even on about. The Gospel of Matthew has an unknown author and is commonly dated to around 80-90 or so. None of this is at all relevant to "the Petrine passage" or your imaginary "rumblings".

Yes you are, but you don't actually have anything to offer.

Because magic, in the religious sense, refers to appeals to the metadivine realm. Monotheists don't really believe in any power higher than God, making "magic", as it is religiously defined, impossible (indeed, even attempts at "magic" are seen as sin and trying to subvert the laws of nature/God). The Saints have no power on their own.

So, again, "our magic isn't magical"? Channelers aren't limited to catholic superstition (and in fact the idea that a person with magical powers is merely channeling said power is quite common worldwide), it's still magic Aiza.