Errors of Pius IX

  • Thread starter Thread starter mshealy
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
M

mshealy

Guest
I realize everything the Pope says is not official dogma of the Church, that is, the Pope, even when he speaks sincerely, is not necessarily speaking ex cathedra. However, what do we make of Pius IX’s strident statements in *syllabus of Errors, Quanta Cura, *and other documents which condemn the right to freedom of conscience and religion (so eloquently defended by John Paul II), and clearly defend slavery. Pius IX’s claims in this regard clearly contradict Vatican II, which is official dogma. Help me resolve this. How can a Pope speak so forcefully and clearly and not only be wrong, but be rejected in his teaching by an ecumenical council? Isn’t this a real problem for papable infalibility and the whole concept of a teaching magisterium. When critics and Protestants claim, “Popes and Councils have always contradicted each other,” this is a tough one to overcome.

I would appreciate your help.
 
Vatican II defined no dogma, nor was it a dogmatic council. It was an Ecumenical Council with a pastoral spirit.
 
Thanks, but that’s not the real problem. Vatican II represents official teaching of the Church and we can’t split hairs to avoid that. How do we deal with the glaring contradictions between what VII says and what Pius IX says?
 
40.png
mshealy:
Thanks, but that’s not the real problem. Vatican II represents official teaching of the Church and we can’t split hairs to avoid that. How do we deal with the glaring contradictions between what VII says and what Pius IX says?
Click to expand...
List some examples.
 
40.png
mshealy:
I realize everything the Pope says is not official dogma of the Church, that is, the Pope, even when he speaks sincerely, is not necessarily speaking ex cathedra. However, what do we make of Pius IX’s strident statements in *syllabus of Errors, Quanta Cura, *and other documents which condemn the right to freedom of conscience and religion (so eloquently defended by John Paul II), and clearly defend slavery. Pius IX’s claims in this regard clearly contradict Vatican II, which is official dogma. Help me resolve this. How can a Pope speak so forcefully and clearly and not only be wrong, but be rejected in his teaching by an ecumenical council? Isn’t this a real problem for papable infalibility and the whole concept of a teaching magisterium. When critics and Protestants claim, “Popes and Councils have always contradicted each other,” this is a tough one to overcome.

I would appreciate your help.
Click to expand...
One way to resolve it is to admit that there was a church of 33ad, and another church of 1965ad. Both using the same name, but not the same dogmas… after all, one says it IS the Church of Christ, and the other says the Church of Christ SUBSISTS in it.
I may be oversimplifying, but that makes it easy anyway.
Then there is the encyclical on Ecumenism by Pius XI: Mortalium Animos which is never mentioned in UT UNUM SINT on Ecumenism. In fact I don’t know that this very comprehensive encyclical by Pius XI was ever mentioned by any pope or magisterial document since 1965.
I also believe that your PIUS IX Quanta Cura was unceremoniously and silently purged from Denzinger in 1967 or there abouts after being in it for about 100 years.
As the song says: “It’s a strange strange world we live in master Jack.”

Then on a more thoughtful note, we might say that Pius IX was directing his Encyclical toward the “threat of the day” which was Freemasonry and its promotion of religious freedom to the point of indifferentism.
VAT II was directing its writings toward the “threat of the day” which was atheistic communism which was denying the right to any religious excercise.
 
40.png
mshealy:
Thanks, but that’s not the real problem. Vatican II represents official teaching of the Church and we can’t split hairs to avoid that. How do we deal with the glaring contradictions between what VII says and what Pius IX says?
Click to expand...
Well… some people will actually try to reconcile the two by claming that they both teach the same thing.

Basically, we are to believe what the Church has always taught. Vatican II was EXTREMELY ambiguous in some places; and it sometimes appeared on the surface to say one thing, whereas in reality (when you read it very closely) it did not. The truth does not change. What was true for 1965 years is still true today, regardless of what Vatican II may appear to say. According to Pope Paul VI, Vatican II did not engage the infallible magesterium of the Church, which, of course, means it could have erred. Cardinal Ratzinger admitted that Vatican II did not define any new dogmas. Therefore, we are to simply believe what has always been taught by the Church and reject anything new that Vatican II may appear to teach.

I personally believe that Vatican II was the second “robber council” and will eventually be declared such by the Church. Several yeas ago I was in a discussion with a priest who actually admitted to being a liberal (that surprised be because up to that point I had never had a priest actually admit he was liberal). He was an older priest, and said the following to me: “We liberals had a great victory at Vatican II”. I believe he was correct. The liberal Catholics (who Pope Pius IX called “the worst enemies of the faith”) had a great victory at Vatican II. Their “victory” has left the Church in the worst crisis in its history. In only 40 years since the close of Vatican II the Church has been almost destroyed.

Hold fast to what the Church has always taught, for the truth does not change. The errors that Pope Pius IX condemned are still errors today. And those condemned errors are not just errors that Pius IX made up. He compiled those errors from previous magesterial documents and published them in one encyclical. The errors, however, had already been condemned by the Church by previous Pontiffs.
 
40.png
mshealy:
Thanks, but that’s not the real problem. Vatican II represents official teaching of the Church and we can’t split hairs to avoid that. How do we deal with the glaring contradictions between what VII says and what Pius IX says?
Click to expand...
Are there not “glaring contradictions” in scripture?

I don’t find apparent contradictions a problem. I consider confusion as my failure in understanding, not a failure of my superiors.
 
For those interested:

ewtn.com/library/encyc/p9quanta.htm

ewtn.com/library/papaldoc/p9syll.htm

I’m curious. Could anyone name one thing said
in either of these documents that directly contradicts
the documents of Vatican II.

ewtn.com/library/COUNCILS/V2ALL.HTM

Examples, please, from* both* sets of documents.

I don’t even hold to Catholicism any longer, but I
am curious. Is it a matter of emphases, rather
than contradiction? A matter of difference in
tone, rather than content?
I’ll follow this thread, with interest, :tiphat:

Best regards to all,

reen12
 
Dear adnauseum

quote: adnauseum [bottom of post]
heresia solae scripturae delenda est
Click to expand...
“heresia solae scripturae delenda est” - an interesting

point of view.:tiphat:

The RCC better get busy. Evangelicalism is…growing.

[It’s fascinating, to watch all of this, from the sidelines.]

I wish a vendor would come by with hot coffee, and
some kind of pennant to wave :o I could get into the
spirit of the thing, better.

Best,

reen12
 
The RCC better get busy. Evangelicalism is…growing.
Click to expand...
Another good point that proves their is nothing new under the sun. This has happened before, and it is no suprise that it happens today.

Heresies (such as Arianism) grew great in number, it even looked at times that the Church would be swamped by them-but it never happens. Truth has always and will always prevail.

Heresies of new are often revamped manifestations of the heresies of old, and they will suffer the same fate.
 
reen12 said:
“heresia solae scripturae delenda est” - an interesting point of view. The RCC better get busy. Evangelicalism is…growing.
Click to expand...

Just a bit of fun with my motto. Surely someone with your intellect (I’ve seen your posts, you’re no slouch) surely you know of Cato’s famous quote: Carthago delenda est.

As to Evangelicalism, no worries here. Arianism was a real threat. Evangelicalism isn’t a developed doctrine. It’s sort of a wiggly, gelatinous substance, if you could call it a substance.
 
Hello, ComradeAndrei,
Another good point that proves their is nothing new under the sun.
Click to expand...
Heresies of new are often revamped manifestations of the heresies of old, and they will suffer the same fate.
Click to expand...
The appearance of the Son of God on earth, struck me as “something new.” :hmmm:

As to heresies, 3 Persons in one God, strikes me as
a departure from:

Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is one.

But then, heresy to one group, is termed “fulfillment of
prophecy” by another.

quote: ComradeAndrei
Heresies of new are often revamped manifestations of the heresies of old, and they will suffer the same fate
Click to expand...
.

You know, it just occured to me. I’ve often pondered,
on why, after 2000 years, Christians of all denominations
comprise 20% of the world’s population, after they
were told, clearly, to go out and preach the good news.
And this, after almost a century of spectacular
improvements in transportation and communication.

Could it be that those who were tasked, with introducing
monotheism to the world, were…right, and that that
work still has to be accomplished? Hmmm. 🤓

Best,
reen12
 
My goodness. Did you honestly read the Syllabus of Errors? Those things do not change. I think that the world today shows that all of those teachings are absolutely true. You must certainly realize that the church could never have changed teachings. You can not honestly believe that from Pope Peter the First to Pope Pius XII, since they were not studied showmen or politically correct that anything that the things that they taught especially the Sullabus were wrong. We have gone from actively pursuing conversions amoung heretics, (YES HERETICS!!) to stating that religions founded by man for the express purpose of undermining Holy Mother Church could ever bear good fruit A religion gounded my man is no religion at all. Give me the only TRUE faith founded by the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity every time.
 
40.png
cathmonarchmom:
My goodness. Did you honestly read the Syllabus of Errors? Those things do not change. I think that the world today shows that all of those teachings are absolutely true. You must certainly realize that the church could never have changed teachings. You can not honestly believe that from Pope Peter the First to Pope Pius XII, since they were not studied showmen or politically correct that anything that the things that they taught especially the Sullabus were wrong. We have gone from actively pursuing conversions amoung heretics, (YES HERETICS!!) to stating that religions founded by man for the express purpose of undermining Holy Mother Church could ever bear good fruit A religion gounded my man is no religion at all. Give me the only TRUE faith founded by the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity every time.
Click to expand...
I think the Jews would like to have a word with you. The Jewish faith traces it’s founding to the First Person of the BT.
 
quote: MikeinSD
I think the Jews would like to have a word with you. The Jewish faith traces it’s founding to the First Person of the BT.
Click to expand...
😃

reen12
 
Dear cathmonarchmom,

quote:cathmonarchmom
We have gone from actively pursuing conversions amoung heretics, (YES HERETICS!!) to stating that religions founded by man for the express purpose of undermining Holy Mother Church could ever bear good fruit A religion gounded my man is no religion at all. Give me the only TRUE faith founded by the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity every time
Click to expand...
A religion gounded my man is no religion at all.
Click to expand...
I wonder how many understand, that the word
“religion” means to “bind” - to “tie to.”

*All *who love God are “tied” to Him by bonds of
love and worship, often called “religion.”

That one group claims to be the True religion, is
interesting, but I’ll leave it to God to decide that
which constitutes “true religion.”

reen12 :tiphat:
 
Just a bit of fun with my motto. Surely someone with your intellect (I’ve seen your posts, you’re no slouch) surely you know of Cato’s famous quote: Carthago delenda est.
Click to expand...
Actually, in the post, as I originally wrote it, I said:

Is that like Carthago, delenda est? 😃

but I didn’t want to get in too deep. 🙂
I thought better of that, too.

quote: adnauseum
As to Evangelicalism, no worries here. Arianism was a real threat. Evangelicalism isn’t a developed doctrine. It’s sort of a wiggly, gelatinous substance, if you could call it a substance
Click to expand...
.

All kidding aside, you’re absolutely right, on Arianism.
It’s one of the few points in Church history, where
a doctrinal statement was called for, IMHO.

quote: adnauseum
Surely someone with your intellect (I’ve seen your posts, you’re no slouch…
Click to expand...
I appreciate that, adnauseum. I have a reallllllly high IQ,
buttressed by 40 years of study. I’m also quite ill,
mentally, so I appreciate the outlet that the forums
provide, for social interaction.
As to Evangelicalism, however one describes it, it truely
is growing, by leaps and bounds.
For those who wish “meat and potatoes”, intellectually,
Roman Catholicism provides a feast!

Best regards,

reen12*
 
I think the Jews would like to have a word with you. The Jewish faith traces it’s founding to the First Person of the BT.

That would be fine with me. You see the fact is that you must accept Christ as the Saviour. They do not accept the Son of God as the Messiah and as a matter of fact are recovening the Sanhedrin (remember them?) to look for the Messiah ( not Jesus). So, what we know as Catholics is that the old covenants are no longer valid. The sacrament of the Holy Eucharist is the new convenant . All of the sacrifices that they ( the Jews) do are considered not worthy now according to Jesus and his new Church. I have no problem in keeping with the teachings handed down by the Church and that has always been “No Salvation Outside the Chruch.” Please don’t get started with persons in the jungle who have never heard. The pre-VII Vicars of Christ already answered that.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top