Questions regarding the Syllabus of Errors by Bl. Pope Pius IX
#1
I'm reading through the Syllabus and I'm wondering about a couple of things.

1) Let's take this condemned belief:

"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. "

How do we reconcile this quote with this one:

"In addition, it comes within the meaning of religious freedom that religious communities should not be prohibited from freely undertaking to show the special value of their doctrine in what concerns the organization of society and the inspiration of the whole of human activity. Finally, the social nature of man and the very nature of religion afford the foundation of the right of men freely to hold meetings and to establish educational, cultural, charitable and social organizations, under the impulse of their own religious sense." 
- Pope St. Paul VI, Dignitatis Humanae

I mean, I've read through all of Dignitatis Humanae now and it primarily focuses on freedom from coercion, but some of it sounds vague. Bishop Athanasius Schneider is right. Vatican II needs to be clarified.

Also,

2) "16. Man may, in the observance of any religion whatever, find the way of eternal salvation, and arrive at eternal salvation.—Encyclical "Qui pluribus," Nov. 9, 1846. "

and 

"17. Good hope at least is to be entertained of the eternal salvation of all those who are not at all in the true Church of Christ.—Encyclical "Quanto conficiamur," Aug. 10, 1863, etc. "

I'm guessing 16 pertains to the belief that people are saved by, and not in spite of, their false religions, correct? And as for 17, where does invincible ignorance fit into all this? Is the key word "all" (in "all those")?

One more:

"23. Roman pontiffs and ecumenical councils have wandered outside the limits of their powers, have usurped the rights of princes, and have even erred in defining matters of faith and morals.—Damnatio "Multiplices inter," June 10, 1851. "

How is the first part with regard to Roman pontiffs and ecumenical councils to be understood? I mean, there are certain things the Pope doesn't have the power to do, like declaring a fourth person of the Holy Trinity, so surely this has to do with a different kind of belief when it comes to "...wandered outside the limits of their power." Does the part about erring in defining matters of faith and morals have to do with infallible declarations?
Reply
#2
how do you reconcile with what you perceive as errors, the same as everyone else who disagrees with me, the same way I do, you stop reading and ignore what you have read.

super easy.

I make it a point to ignore every pope and cardinal, and bishop, n monsignor and priest and deacon, and brothers and sisters.

Saints I will pay attention to, scripture to a point, nothing in the old testament for starters.

Anyhow if your goal is to " Correct " and bring that correction to a religious society, or others you want to enlighten, forget it. If you want to make peace with what you personally disagree with, ya just gotta let it go cause it doesn't matter what anyone says. The only thing that matters is the Eucharist and the sacraments. Trying to live ones life according to what self appointed self righteous power tripping people think, is a waste. If God couldn't take the time to address the problems at hand that humanity faces, it evidently is for a reason, and not because He " mystically lets religious interpret the bible ".
Reply
#3
(02-27-2019, 05:29 PM)In His Love Wrote: (snip)

How is the first part with regard to Roman pontiffs and ecumenical councils to be understood? I mean, there are certain things the Pope doesn't have the power to do, like declaring a fourth person of the Holy Trinity, so surely this has to do with a different kind of belief when it comes to "...wandered outside the limits of their power." Does the part about erring in defining matters of faith and morals have to do with infallible declarations?

Ummmm, I'm not an expert on papal encyclicals, but they are written so any ordinary man or woman can understand them easily so they won't fall into errors of faith or to correct errors that are known and proliferating.  It may help you to know that each statement made IS a particular error and if you need to preface each statement with "it is an error to believe....." then read the statement.  I've heard a well-known professor give a lecture and advise those who read this particular letter of the Pope's in such a way.  Looks like this:  "it is an error to believe that - "2. All action of God upon man and the world is to be denied. "    Or, it is an error to believe that" 46. Moreover, even in ecclesiastical seminaries, the method of studies to be adopted is subject to the civil authority."  Etc. to the end of it.  Sounds silly to add it, but it works.  God bless.  Ginnyfree.

Edited by Vox to remove extraneous quoting.
Reply
#4
(02-27-2019, 06:05 PM)Ginnyfree Wrote: Ummmm, I'm not an expert on papal encyclicals, but they are written so any ordinary man or woman can understand them easily so they won't fall into errors of faith or to correct errors that are known and proliferating.  It may help you to know that each statement made IS a particular error and if you need to preface each statement with "it is an error to believe....." then read the statement.  I've heard a well-known professor give a lecture and advise those who read this particular letter of the Pope's in such a way.  Looks like this:  "it is an error to believe that - "2. All action of God upon man and the world is to be denied. "    Or, it is an error to believe that" 46. Moreover, even in ecclesiastical seminaries, the method of studies to be adopted is subject to the civil authority."  Etc. to the end of it.  Sounds silly to add it, but it works.  God bless.  Ginnyfree.
I'm sorry, I might have been unclear in my original post. I know that Bl. Pope Pius IX's statements in the Syllabus are condemned beliefs. I'm just wondering how to interpret some of the statements in terms of what they are referring to, and how to properly interpret Dignitatis Humanae's above passage in light of the Syllabus.

Edited by Vox to remove extraneous quoting.
Reply
#5
There's a lot that could be said here, and perhaps at some point I can chime in with some thoughts. 

Personally, I do not think that those ideas can be reconciled. Like the SSPX, I would assert that the statements in Vatican II's Dignitatis Humanæ which seem to contradict the Syllabus are either ambiguous or erroneous. The latter is possible since the council did not seek to define anything and imprudently substituted well-studied orthodox schemas with one drawn up by Modernists, therefore did not employ the normal natural means to protect it from error and thus did not enjoy the supernatural protection of the Holy Ghost to protect it from error. That is why, I do not see a problem with infallibility in this. The council was not trying to speak infallibly, so it did not and could err.

Either way, whether it be error or need clarification (a la Bishop Schneider) the solution is the same : Magisterially teach the Truth with clarity. The council's errors need not be condemned if there is an infallible document or official declaration stating the correct Catholic teaching, they would be implicitly condemned, which would suffice.

It should be noted also that logically when a proposition is condemned by the Church, She is implicitly asserting the contradictory is true.

This is easy for a simple statement like : If anyone says X is Y, let him be condemned. = The Church says that X is not Y.

With more complex propositions, it become a bit more difficult because one has to understand categorical propositions : If anyone says that All Ps are Qs, let him be condemned. = The Church says that some Ps are not Qs.

That's a primer.
Reply
#6
Thank you for the in-depth feedback, MM. Admittedly, even the simply worded entries are sometimes confusing to me, like this one:

"63. It is lawful to refuse obedience to legitimate princes, and even to rebel against them.—Encyclical "Qui pluribus," Nov. 9, 1864; Allocution "Quibusque vestrum," Oct. 4, 1847; "Noscitis et Nobiscum," Dec. 8, 1849; Apostolic Letter "Cum Catholica." "

Is it referring to earthly princes? What if they enact something unlawful or try to make the citizens obey something evil?

I know that these are all good and holy entries from Bl. Pope Pius IX. I just don't understand all of them at face value.
Reply
#7
(02-27-2019, 10:34 PM)In His Love Wrote: Thank you for the in-depth feedback, MM. Admittedly, even the simply worded entries are sometimes confusing to me, like this one:

"63. It is lawful to refuse obedience to legitimate princes, and even to rebel against them.—Encyclical "Qui pluribus," Nov. 9, 1864; Allocution "Quibusque vestrum," Oct. 4, 1847; "Noscitis et Nobiscum," Dec. 8, 1849; Apostolic Letter "Cum Catholica." "

Is it referring to earthly princes? What if they enact something unlawful or try to make the citizens obey something evil?

I know that these are all good and holy entries from Bl. Pope Pius IX. I just don't understand all of them at face value.
In the example, those circumstances are not mentioned.  "Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's and unto God that which is God's," Matt. 22:21.  "Let every person be subordinate to the higher authorities, for there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been established by God.  Therefore, whoever resists authority opposes what God has appointed, and those who oppose it will bring judgment upon themselves."  Romans 13:1-2.  There is much more good stuff to explain the correct position we are to take and thus the properly condemned error in the example you give there.  Read the rest in Romans.  CCC 1900 states this: "The duty of obedience requires all to give due honor to authority and to treat those who are charged to exercise it with respect, and, insofar as it is deserved, with gratitude and good-will. 'Pope St. Clement of Rome provides the Church's most ancient prayer for political authorities:18 "Grant to them, Lord, health, peace, concord, and stability, so that they may exercise without offense the sovereignty that you have given them. Master, heavenly King of the ages, you give glory, honor, and power over the things of earth to the sons of men. Direct, Lord, their counsel, following what is pleasing and acceptable in your sight, so that by exercising with devotion and in peace and gentleness the power that you have given to them, they may find favor with you.'" http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/ar...s1c2a2.htm 
However, a few words to your confusion about the "what if's" you mention.  The examples of the Martyrs who earned their crowns by giving up there lives rather than render to Caesar what belonged to God, that is they were expected to worship the Caesar as a deity and burn incense at a statue of him to prove their worship of him.  That would be the opposite of what Jesus said to do.  So, they were killed as if they were atheists; ie the example of St. Polycarp!  The Romans said of the Christians, "Down with the atheists!" because we worshiped one God only and not their gods nor the Caesar.  So, St. Polycarp replied to them the same thing: "Down with the atheists!"  I love the story of his Martyrdom.  
If a leader asks you to do something against religion, you'd be just to resist even unto death if necessary.  But that isn't mentioned in the example, is it?  Hope this helps.  God bless.  Ginnyfree.
[-] The following 1 user Likes Ginnyfree's post:
  • In His Love
Reply
#8
First, you need to understand what the Syllabus is. Originally, it was planned to be actual propositions directly condemned by the Pope and affixed with a specific theological censure like other famous papal documents.  Ultimately, however, the Pope discarded that plan and chose to merely have it published as a kind of digest or summary of past documents and allocutions by topic.  The true meaning of each condemnation is therefore found in those sources. If your Latin is good, everything the Syllabus points to can be found here:

https://books.google.com/books?id=dgwtAAAAYAAJ&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false

 So let's look at the first one:

Quote:"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. "

This error came from a work of a Peruvian priest who embraced the doctrine of the naturalists and rationalists that denied any moral obligation to believe what God the revealer has revealed with faith. The naturalists stated that faith was subordinate to reason and even excluded faith outright.  The quoted error is not referring to civil or ecclesiastical coercion one way or the other, and ultimately not relevant to the quote from Dignitatus Humanae you provided (there are certainly things to be said about that quote in relation to other texts, no doubt, but this entry in the Syllabus is not really relevant to that discussion).  It is the Church's constant doctrine that the act of faith must be free as , for example, Leo XIII notes:

Leo XIII, Immortale Dei:

Quote:And, in fact, the Church is wont to take earnest heed that no one shall be forced to embrace the Catholic faith against his will, for, as St. Augustine wisely reminds us, "Man cannot believe otherwise than of his own will."

This does not contradict what was condemned in the texts cited by the Syllabus for #15.  

#s 16 and 17 are similar to #15--they deny the obligation of faith or the necessity of the Church for salvation again reducing religion to mere human opinion.

#23 is focused on the error that said civil princes had certain prerogatives in the area of religion that the Church shouldn't interfere with.  It is not intended to say no Pope had ever done anything politically wrong.

The error in #63 denied the principle that civil authority comes from God, instead making it contingent solely on the will and consent of the people--who could therefore remove their consent at any time.  There was no intent to deny obedience to God, rather than men, when a civil ruler ordered something outside his authority.

The Catholic Encyclopedia article on the Syllabus gives some history and context for some of the entries (including #15):

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14368b.htm

Another very helpful read is Bl. John Henry Newman's explanation--it includes some good summaries of some of the underlying documents.

http://www.newmanreader.org/works/anglic...tion7.html
[Image: catherinesiena-1.jpg]
[-] The following 2 users Like SaintSebastian's post:
  • Ginnyfree, In His Love
Reply
#9
Some 20 years ago, a Roman trained Priest friend and I were discussing this matter. He was convinced that the Syllabus could be reconciled with V II, especially Dignitatis Humanae. I asked him how? He said give him a bit and he'd let me know. Twenty years later, I'm still waiting. :D
Jovan-Marya of the Immaculate Conception Weismiller, T.O.Carm.

Vive le Christ-roi! Vive le roi, Louis XX!
Deum timete, regem honorificate.
Kansan by birth! Albertan by choice! Jayhawk by the Grace of God!
  “Qui me amat, amet et canem meum. (Who loves me will love my dog also.)” 
St Bernard of Clairvaux

My Blog 'Musings of an Old Curmudgeon'


[-] The following 2 users Like jovan66102's post:
  • dahveed, HailGilbert
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)