Quanta Cura+The Syllabus of Errors

  • Thread starter Thread starter starrs0
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
S

starrs0

Guest
Are the condemnations listed in Quanta Cura and The Syllabus of Errors still in effect today?
 
No. Some are disciplinary and some are contingent on the circumstances.
 
Hi Star__,

The syllabus of errors is a series of quotes from various documents. The most serious error one can commit is to interpret these statements out of the context in which they were originally written or said.

Verbum
 
The Syllabus of Errors and Quanta Cura are statements of the magisterium. They never ceased to be true.
 
40.png
Verbum:
Hi Star__,

The syllabus of errors is a series of quotes from various documents. The most serious error one can commit is to interpret these statements out of the context in which they were originally written or said.

Verbum
Click to expand...
Verbum has spoken wisely. Sufficient time has passed since the syllabus was issued that some of the words and concepts have shifted in meaning. One has to read in the context of time to be able to understand what is being condemned. Without the surrounding history the document can be misleading.
 
Would you care to tell us which words and contexts specifically have changed in meaning?
 
40.png
Apolonio:
No. Some are disciplinary and some are contingent on the circumstances.
Click to expand...
WOW!

I did not know thruth changed.

This sounds a bit like modernism to me!

The idea of disciplanary action? Is canon law promulgated through encyclicals? Even if so, where does the current canon law explicitly reverse these errors?

As far as the idea that since the Syllabus of Errors were extracted from other documents, and therefor are limited in applicibility to the constraints set by those external documents, I do not believe that holds. The encycical presented the errors in a general way. Therefor, they are teaching them as general errors.

I WOULD SAY THAT THE REASON WE HAVE SO MUCH DISUNITY, CONFUSION, AND ERROR IN THE CHURCH AND WORLD TODAY IS BECAUSE CATHOLICS BELIEVE THE ERRORS PRESENTED ARE NO LONGER VALID. THIS IS THE EFFECT OF MODERNISM REJECTING THE WARNINGS ABOUT MODERNISM IN AN AGE DOMINATED BY MODERNISM.

WAKE UP!!!

MJW
 
MJW,

The doctrinal contents are unchangeable of course. But there were disciplinary contents that were contingent on the circumstances. That’s the position of Newman, Brownson, and Ratzinger.
 
40.png
Apolonio:
MJW,

The doctrinal contents are unchangeable of course. But there were disciplinary contents that were contingent on the circumstances. That’s the position of Newman, Brownson, and Ratzinger.
Click to expand...
Those would be opinions, but worth looking at. Do you have a link by chance?

MJW
 
If you think the Syllabus no longer applies, please list specific errors which you do not believe to be errors anymore.
 
40.png
Apolonio:
Yes, those are opinions, but so are yours.

newmanreader.org/works/anglicans/volume2/gladstone/section7.html

orestesbrownson.com/index.php?id=72

As for Ratzinger, see The Principles of Catholic Theology. So before you accuse anyone of modernism, I suggest you actually know your facts.
Click to expand...
The two sites you posted are not part of the Magesterium.

I don’t even think they are catholic, the first link is Anglican and the other is a literary society. Hardly teachers of the Faith.

Remember when you read anything in regards to the Catholic faith, you MUST compare it to the teachings of the Magesterium, in this case, the syllabus of errors was a teaching of the Magesterium, the links you posted are not and are so far off base that it’s not even funny.
 
40.png
gelsbern:
The two sites you posted are not part of the Magesterium.

I don’t even think they are catholic, the first link is Anglican and the other is a literary society. Hardly teachers of the Faith.

Remember when you read anything in regards to the Catholic faith, you MUST compare it to the teachings of the Magesterium, in this case, the syllabus of errors was a teaching of the Magesterium, the links you posted are not and are so far off base that it’s not even funny.
Click to expand...
May I respectfully suggest that the writings of Cardinal John Henry Newman and Orestes Brownson, both of whom were considered leading intellectual lights of their times and writers who are studied yet today on the subject of faith and religion might be a worthwhile read or reference for you sometime. Millions of readers have found them to be not only insightful but illuminating.

As to your warning may I further suggest that John Henry Newman understood the magesterial teachings of the church dare I say better than most here, particularly since he was a cardinal and thus was part of it. And as for Brownson, his defense of the faith was so brilliant he was praised by Pius IX and an honored speaker at the Plenary Council of Baltimore.
 
40.png
HagiaSophia:
May I respectfully suggest that the writings of Cardinal John Henry Newman and Orestes Brownson, both of whom were considered leading intellectual lights of their times and writers who are studied yet today on the subject of faith and religion might be a worthwhhie read or reference for you sometime. Millions of readers have found them to be not only insightful but illuminating.

As to your warning may I further suggest that John Henry Newman understood the magesterial teachings of the church dare I say better than most here.
Click to expand...
Better than the Magesterium? I doubt it.

Let’s just go ahead with this line of thought.

Here we have a Pope that releases the Syllabus of Errors, and we have a writer who later contradicts it by saying that because of changing times those aren’t errors anymore. People cling to what the writer says instead of what the pope said and are able to justify it.

Then we have another group of people who cling to what a past pope says, and ignore a council that contratdicts that pope and are schismatic.

What a wonderful double standard we have here.
 
40.png
gelsbern:
Better than the Magesterium? I doubt it.

Let’s just go ahead with this line of thought.

Here we have a Pope that releases the Syllabus of Errors, and we have a writer who later contradicts it by saying that because of changing times those aren’t errors anymore. People cling to what the writer says instead of what the pope said and are able to justify it.

Then we have another group of people who cling to what a past pope says, and ignore a council that contratdicts that pope and are schismatic.

What a wonderful double standard we have here.
Click to expand...
Unfortunately, since your thesis is incorrect, so are your conclusions. What we have are two brilliant minds, expressing Catholic thought and putting the syllabus into its proper context, which is how to “understand it” and what they are saying.

It works almost the same as studying scripture. We see people “scripture tossing” as I call it all the time, to understand it, you have to put Scripture into its context to grasp its fuller meaning.

So too with church documents, you need a context for things to obtain an understanding. And as the OP pointed out to you Cardinal Ratzinger has also commented on it. That’s why we are encouraged to do Catholic reading, it enlightens us - it gives us insights, it broadens our thoughts about specific documents.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top