FishEaters Traditional Catholic Forums

Full Version: Which of the points of the Syllabus of Errors are defunct because of Vatican II?
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Vatican II was held up as a counter-syllabus to the Syllabus of Errors of Pius IX. Can we nail down which points from the Syllabus have been uncondemned by Vatican II? The Vatican II constitutions are slippery snakes, so it's kind of difficult to be specific about how the Church's positions on social and political theory have changed.

Background: during the Reign of Piux IX. Free Masons and Italian Nationalists inspired by the European Enlightenment and its ideals invaded the Papal Estates which were gifted to the Church by the King of the Franks Pepin a very long time ago. After fleeing the nationalists, Pius IX promulgated an encyclical to set the record straight regarding the Church and her political and social rights. This encyclical was called Quanta Cura and it contained an appendix where Pius IX articulates specific philosophical beliefs about social and political affairs which are condemned by the teaching authority of the Church. This appendix was called 'The Syllabus of Errors'. Most of these condemnations are highly controversial by today's standards. Wikipedia:

"Quanta cura also condemns several other propositions, notably:

    That the will of the public is supreme and overrides any other law, human or divine
    That "in the political order accomplished facts, from the very circumstance that they are accomplished, have the force of right."
    That the outlawing of public begging and almsgiving is sound policy
    That parents have no rights with respect to their children's education, except what the civil law grants them
    That Catholics have no moral obligation to obey the church's laws unless they are ratified by the state
    That the state has a right to take the property of the church and the religious orders"
(05-16-2017, 05:41 AM)Pacman Wrote: [ -> ]Vatican II was held up as a counter-syllabus to the Syllabus of Errors of Pius IX. Can we nail down which points from the Syllabus have been uncondemned by Vatican II? The Vatican II constitutions are slippery snakes, so it's kind of difficult to be specific about how the Church's positions on social and political theory have changed.

In his 1987 book, Principles of Catholic Theology, "conservative" Cardinal Ratzinger wrote:

“If it is desirable to offer a diagnosis of the text as a whole, we might say that (in conjunction with the texts on religious liberty and world religions) it is a revision of the Syllabus of Pius IX, a kind of counter syllabus.”

“The text [Gaudium et Spes] serves as a counter syllabus and, as such, represents, on the part of the Church, an attempt at an official reconciliation with the new era inaugurated in 1789.” (the Masonic French Revolution)

Modernist Father Yves Congar, a V II Council peritus, stated:

“It cannot be denied that such a text [the Conciliar document on Religious Liberty] says anything but what the Syllabus of 1864 said, and even practically the contrary of propositions 15, 77 and 79 of that document.”

“The Church of Vatican II by the declaration on Religious Liberty, by Gaudium et spes – ‘The Church in the Modern World’: significant title! – has been clearly situated in a pluralistic world of today, and without injuring the greatness it has had, has cut the chains that kept it on the shores of the Middle Ages.” [They Have Uncrowned Him, Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, [Dickenson: Angelus, 1988], pp. 132-3.

Those specific propositions from the Syllabus mentioned by Yves Conger that have now been contradicted by Vatican II's New Church are:

15. Every man is free to embrace and profess that religion which, guided by the light of reason, he shall consider true. -- Allocution "Maxima quidem," June 9, 1862; Damnatio "Multiplices inter," June 10, 1851.

77. In the present day it is no longer expedient that the Catholic religion should be held as the only religion of the State, to the exclusion of all other forms of worship. -- Allocution "Nemo vestrum," July 26, 1855.

79. Moreover, it is false that the civil liberty of every form of worship, and the full power, given to all, of overtly and publicly manifesting any opinions whatsoever and thoughts, conduce more easily to corrupt the morals and minds of the people, and to propagate the pest of indifferentism. -- Allocution "Nunquam fore," Dec. 15, 1856.

Vatican II's Dignitatis humanae # 2 states :

"This Vatican synod declares that the human person has a right to religious freedom.  Such freedom consists in this, that all should have such immunity from coercion by individuals, or by groups, or by any human power, that no one should be forced to act against his conscience in religious matters, nor prevented from acting according to his conscience, whether in private or in public, within due limits."

Vatican II's Dignitatis humanae # 3:

"So the state, whose proper purpose it is to provide for the temporal common good, should certainly recognize and promote the religious life of its citizens.  With equal certainty it exceeds the limits of its authority, if it takes upon itself to direct or to prevent religious activity."

So basically, where

The Syllabus condemned unbridled freedom of the press and the so-called “liberty of worship” for all sects; Quanta Cura condemned the notion of “liberty of conscience” (the error that a man may have the moral right to believe and act according to what is objectively wrong). The Syllabus condemned the belief that man may find salvation in the practice of any religion (religious indifferentism), it condemned the false claim that Protestantism is just another form of the true Christian religion in which it is possible to serve God as well as in the Catholic Church (a principle that makes modern ecumenism possible). The Syllabus condemned the false idea of “separation of Church and State,” a tenet that effectively gives the State the “moral right” to act and make laws as if Our Lord Jesus Christ and the Ten Commandments do not exist (see page 15 for Archbishop Lefebvre’s proficient treatment of the topic).

Most pointedly, the Syllabus condemned the familiar-sounding claim that “The Roman Pontiff can, and ought to, reconcile himself, and come to terms with progress, liberalism and modern civilization.”
http://www.cfnews.org/page88/files/77809...2-311.html

Vatican II asserted the opposite, in textbook Modernist fashion, that everyone has a right from God to worship as they right and spread error and the Pope and Catholic Church should be reconciled to the modern, Enlightenment world.  Basically, what we have now is Vatican II accepting catholics accepting Americanism as Catholicism. 
(05-16-2017, 07:59 AM)BC Wrote: [ -> ]
(05-16-2017, 05:41 AM)Pacman Wrote: [ -> ]Vatican II was held up as a counter-syllabus to the Syllabus of Errors of Pius IX. Can we nail down which points from the Syllabus have been uncondemned by Vatican II? The Vatican II constitutions are slippery snakes, so it's kind of difficult to be specific about how the Church's positions on social and political theory have changed.

In his 1987 book, Principles of Catholic Theology, "conservative" Cardinal Ratzinger wrote:

“If it is desirable to offer a diagnosis of the text as a whole, we might say that (in conjunction with the texts on religious liberty and world religions) it is a revision of the Syllabus of Pius IX, a kind of counter syllabus.”

“The text [Gaudium et Spes] serves as a counter syllabus and, as such, represents, on the part of the Church, an attempt at an official reconciliation with the new era inaugurated in 1789.” (the Masonic French Revolution)

Modernist Father Yves Congar, a V II Council peritus, stated:

“It cannot be denied that such a text [the Conciliar document on Religious Liberty] says anything but what the Syllabus of 1864 said, and even practically the contrary of propositions 15, 77 and 79 of that document.”

“The Church of Vatican II by the declaration on Religious Liberty, by Gaudium et spes – ‘The Church in the Modern World’: significant title! – has been clearly situated in a pluralistic world of today, and without injuring the greatness it has had, has cut the chains that kept it on the shores of the Middle Ages.” [They Have Uncrowned Him, Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, [Dickenson: Angelus, 1988], pp. 132-3.

Those specific propositions from the Syllabus mentioned by Yves Conger that have now been contradicted by Vatican II's New Church are:

15. Every man is free to embrace and profess that religion which, guided by the light of reason, he shall consider true. -- Allocution "Maxima quidem," June 9, 1862; Damnatio "Multiplices inter," June 10, 1851.

77. In the present day it is no longer expedient that the Catholic religion should be held as the only religion of the State, to the exclusion of all other forms of worship. -- Allocution "Nemo vestrum," July 26, 1855.

79. Moreover, it is false that the civil liberty of every form of worship, and the full power, given to all, of overtly and publicly manifesting any opinions whatsoever and thoughts, conduce more easily to corrupt the morals and minds of the people, and to propagate the pest of indifferentism. -- Allocution "Nunquam fore," Dec. 15, 1856.

So basically, where

The Syllabus condemned unbridled freedom of the press and the so-called “liberty of worship” for all sects; Quanta Cura condemned the notion of “liberty of conscience” (the error that a man may have the moral right to believe and act according to what is objectively wrong). The Syllabus condemned the belief that man may find salvation in the practice of any religion (religious indifferentism), it condemned the false claim that Protestantism is just another form of the true Christian religion in which it is possible to serve God as well as in the Catholic Church (a principle that makes modern ecumenism possible). The Syllabus condemned the false idea of “separation of Church and State,” a tenet that effectively gives the State the “moral right” to act and make laws as if Our Lord Jesus Christ and the Ten Commandments do not exist (see page 15 for Archbishop Lefebvre’s proficient treatment of the topic).

Most pointedly, the Syllabus condemned the familiar-sounding claim that “The Roman Pontiff can, and ought to, reconcile himself, and come to terms with progress, liberalism and modern civilization.”
http://www.cfnews.org/page88/files/77809...2-311.html

Vatican II asserted the opposite, in textbook Modernist fashion, that everyone has a right from God to worship as they right and spread error and the Pope and Catholic Church should be reconciled to the modern, Enlightenment world.  Basically, what we have now is Vatican II accepting catholics accepting Americanism as Catholicism.

Thanks. Very informative.
It's interesting how what they called quite accurately Religious Indifferentism is basically indistinguishable from the contemporary Church's doctrine of Ecumenism.
(05-16-2017, 08:34 AM)Pacman Wrote: [ -> ]It's interesting how what they called quite accurately Religious Indifferentism is basically indistinguishable from the contemporary Church's doctrine of Ecumenism.
""Outside the Church there is no salvation"

846 How are we to understand this affirmation, often repeated by the Church Fathers?335 Re-formulated positively, it means that all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body:

    Basing itself on Scripture and Tradition, the Council teaches that the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation: the one Christ is the mediator and the way of salvation; he is present to us in his body which is the Church. He himself explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and Baptism, and thereby affirmed at the same time the necessity of the Church which men enter through Baptism as through a door. Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it.336"

Doesn't sound like religious indifferentism to me.

http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/ar...23a9p3.htm
(05-16-2017, 08:37 AM)In His Love Wrote: [ -> ]
(05-16-2017, 08:34 AM)Pacman Wrote: [ -> ]It's interesting how what they called quite accurately Religious Indifferentism is basically indistinguishable from the contemporary Church's doctrine of Ecumenism.
""Outside the Church there is no salvation"

846 How are we to understand this affirmation, often repeated by the Church Fathers?335 Re-formulated positively, it means that all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body:

    Basing itself on Scripture and Tradition, the Council teaches that the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation: the one Christ is the mediator and the way of salvation; he is present to us in his body which is the Church. He himself explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and Baptism, and thereby affirmed at the same time the necessity of the Church which men enter through Baptism as through a door. Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it.336"

Doesn't sound like religious indifferentism to me.

http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/ar...23a9p3.htm

The problem, in my opinion, with this "positive re-formulation" (how can dogmas be "reformulated"?)  is that the last sentence practically applies to no one.  It also implies that as long as one does not know, then he can be saved.

But in any case, what Pacman was referring to was a different document of Vatican II. 
(05-16-2017, 08:49 AM)BC Wrote: [ -> ]It also implies that as long as one does not know, then he can be saved.
It depends, and I'm sure it's in pretty rare circumstances, but invincible ignorance does apply. But that's for like...the hypothetical yogi out in India somewhere with no internet or missionaries nearby, etc.
(05-16-2017, 08:37 AM)In His Love Wrote: [ -> ]
(05-16-2017, 08:34 AM)Pacman Wrote: [ -> ]It's interesting how what they called quite accurately Religious Indifferentism is basically indistinguishable from the contemporary Church's doctrine of Ecumenism.
""Outside the Church there is no salvation"

846 How are we to understand this affirmation, often repeated by the Church Fathers?335 Re-formulated positively, it means that all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body:

    Basing itself on Scripture and Tradition, the Council teaches that the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation: the one Christ is the mediator and the way of salvation; he is present to us in his body which is the Church. He himself explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and Baptism, and thereby affirmed at the same time the necessity of the Church which men enter through Baptism as through a door. Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it.336"

Doesn't sound like religious indifferentism to me.

http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/ar...23a9p3.htm

That's a good point, but I'm not sure if 'no salvation outside the Church' has the same status canonically as Pius IX's encyclical Quanta Cura. Feel free to comment.
Pacman,

In a general sense, Vatican II's goal was to engage the established order of the time, while the Syllabus was a symbol of the Church resisting its establishment (it is in a macro sense what, say the difference between Pius IX's and Leo XIII's policies toward the French regime was in a micro sense).

The question you ask doesn't really make sense with regard to what the Syllabus and the Vatican II documents intended to do.  Ths Syllabus is not a list dogmatic condemnations of theological propositons (like, says Innocent XI's Coelestis Pastor), but rather points back to important documents.  Pius IX was petitioned to actually formally condemn a list of propositions, but he specifically chose not  too.  The Catholic Encyclopia article on the Syllabus has a nice summary of the process that ultimately produced the Syllabus.  You have to refer to the actual documents to see what they actually dealt with and how they did so. 

Take for example, #77 of the Syllabus. 

77. In the present day it is no longer expedient that the Catholic religion should be held as the only religion of the State, to the exclusion of all other forms of worship. -- Allocution "Nemo vestrum," July 26, 1855.

Here's Cardinal Newman's analysis (the whole thing is a good read):

Newman Wrote:For instance, take the 77th of the "erroneous Propositions", that, "It is no longer expedient that the Catholic Religion should be established to the exclusion of all others." When we turn to the Allocution, which is the ground of its being put into the Syllabus, what do we find there? First, that the Pope was speaking, not of States universally, but of one particular State, Spain, definitely Spain; secondly, that he was not noting the erroneous proposition directly, or categorically, but was protesting against the breach in many ways of the Concordat on the part of the Spanish government; further, that he was not referring to any work containing the said proposition, nor contemplating any proposition at all; nor, on the other hand, using any word of condemnation whatever, nor using any harsher terms of the Government in question than an expression of "his wonder and distress."

That's why Leo XIII was not contradicting the Syllabus when he taught more generally the following:

Leo XIII, Immortale Dei Wrote:The Church, indeed, deems it unlawful to place the various forms of divine worship on the same footing as the true religion, but does not, on that account, condemn those rulers who, for the sake of securing some great good or of hindering some great evil, allow patiently custom or usage to be a kind of sanction for each kind of religion having its place in the State.

In other words, while religious indifferentism is wrong in principle for all people (ie true and false religions cannot be considered equally true), there’s nothing wrong with giving all a place in the state if it is conducive to the common good.

Vatican II or say, the CCC which summarizes the Church's doctrine, nowhere teach that one religion is as good as another or that man has no obligation toward the truth--quite the opposite.  Vatican II did propose giving other religions their place in society as conducive to the common good given the circumstances, but that does not violate the principles above.

Now take #15  Every man is free to embrace and profess that religion which, guided by the light of reason, he shall consider true. -- Allocution "Maxima quidem," June 9, 1862; Damnatio "Multiplices inter," June 10, 1851.

The CE article I linked to above gives a nice explanation of this one:
CE Wrote:Moreover, should a thesis, according to the papal references, be taken from a condemned book, the meaning of the thesis is to be determined according to that which it has in the condemned book. For the thesis has been condemned in this particular meaning and not in any other which might possibly be read into its wording. For instance the fifteenth thesis, "Everyone is free to adopt and profess that religion which he, guided by the light of reason, holds to be true", admits in itself of a right interpretation. For man can and must be led to the knowledge of the true religion through the light of reason. However, on consulting the Apostolic Letter "Multiplices inter", dated 10 June, 1851, from which this thesis is taken, it will be found that not every possible meaning is rejected, but only that particular meaning which, in 1848, Vigil, a Peruvian priest, attached to it in his "Defensa". Influenced by Indifferentism and Rationalism, Vigil maintained that man is to trust to his own human reason only and not to a Divine reason, i.e. to the truthful and omniscient God Who in supernatural revelation vouches for the truth of a religion. In the sense in which Vigil's book understands the fifteenth thesis, and in this sense alone does the Syllabus understand and condemn the proposition.

Nowhere does Vatican II or the CCC teach that man is to be only guided by reason (as the Naturalists and Rationalists taught) and not the supernatural light of faith.

In #79, Nunquam fore, addresses a similar situation as #77 in Mexico.  There the claim was made for an unlimited and absolute freedom in matters of religion and speech based on anticlericalism.  This caused much harm and ended up leading to persecution of Catholics who tried to profess the uniqueness and necessity of the Catholic faith (ironically, pastoral letters of bishops were forbidden to be published—so much for freedom of religion and speech!).  This is the same absolute liberty definitively (and therefore infallibly) condemned in the encyclical Quanta Cura.

But again, the Church does not teach such an absolute liberty based on indiffernetism toward the truth (or hostility toward religion).  Rather the Church teaches that the state can restrict man's freedom when it is harmful to the common good--and the common good must be understood not based on rationalist or naturalistic principles or on positivism (the law is determined soley by the will of the people or ruler, with no reference to God or truth), but objective truth that takes into account man's supernatural end.  The CCC sums up nicely the Church's doctrine, drawing on both Quanta Cura and Vatican II:

CCC Wrote:2109 The right to religious liberty can of itself be neither unlimited nor limited only by a "public order" conceived in a positivist or naturalist manner.39 The "due limits" which are inherent in it must be determined for each social situation by political prudence, according to the requirements of the common good, and ratified by the civil authority in accordance with "legal principles which are in conformity with the objective moral order."40
39 Cf. Pius VI, Quod aliquantum (1791) 10; Pius IX, Quanta cura 3.
40 DH 7 § 3.

As for your comment about the Church's doctrine on ecumenism and religious indifferentism, they are very different. First, ecumenism is not a "doctrine," but rather refers to the range of activities employed in effecting corporate unity with separated Christian groups (it is explained to be distinct from reconciling individuals).  If all that matters is reason, and there is no obligation of faith toward revealed truth, then ecumenism is nonsensical because there is no need for unity in faith--but such unity is the whole point of ecumenism as put forth by the Church in her decrees and declarations on the subject.
(05-16-2017, 09:05 AM)Pacman Wrote: [ -> ]That's a good point, but I'm not sure if 'no salvation outside the Church' has the same status canonically as Pius IX's encyclical Quanta Cura. Feel free to comment.

"No salvation outside the Church" is a revealed truth--a dogma that is to be believed with divine and Catholic faith.  Quanta Cura definitively condemns certain quoted errors (ie the errors in quotation marks, which means they have to be understood in the sense of their original authors)  as "sententia definitive tenenda" (propositions to be definitively held or believed with ecclesiastical faith).

Here's the definitional language from Quanta Cura:

"Therefore, by our Apostolic authority, we reprobate, proscribe, and condemn all the singular and evil opinions and doctrines severally mentioned in this letter, and will and command that they be thoroughly held by all children of the Catholic Church as reprobated, proscribed and condemned."

The word "held" is the key there.

The recent commentary on the Profesio Fidei explains this category well:

CDF Commentary Wrote:6. The second proposition of the Professio fidei states: "I also firmly accept and hold each and everything definitively proposed by the Church regarding teaching on faith and morals." The object taught by this formula includes all those teachings belonging to the dogmatic or moral area,13 which are necessary for faithfully keeping and expounding the deposit of faith, even if they have not been proposed by the Magisterium of the Church as formally revealed.

Such doctrines can be defined solemnly by the Roman Pontiff when he speaks 'ex cathedra' or by the College of Bishops gathered in council, or they can be taught infallibly by the ordinary and universal Magisterium of the Church as a "sententia definitive tenenda".14 Every believer, therefore, is required to give firm and definitive assent to these truths, based on faith in the Holy Spirit's assistance to the Church's Magisterium, and on the Catholic doctrine of the infallibility of the Magisterium in these matters.15 Whoever denies these truths would be in a position of rejecting a truth of Catholic doctrine16 and would therefore no longer be in full communion with the Catholic Church.

7. The truths belonging to this second paragraph can be of various natures, thus giving different qualities to their relationship with revelation. There are truths which are necessarily connected with revelation by virtue of an historical relationship; while other truths evince a logical connection that expresses a stage in the maturation of understanding of revelation which the Church is called to undertake. The fact that these doctrines may not be proposed as formally revealed, insofar as they add to the data of faith elements that are not revealed or which are not yet expressly recognized as such, in no way diminishes their definitive character, which is required at least by their intrinsic connection with revealed truth.
https://www.ewtn.com/library/CURIA/CDFADTU.HTM
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7