Quanta Cura+The Syllabus of Errors

  • Thread starter Thread starter starrs0
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
40.png
HagiaSophia:
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.
Click to expand...
Which what they are teaching is in contradiction to the Syllabus itself, and therefore invalid.
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.
Click to expand...
Again it is more than just putting it into context, you cannot study scripture properly without finding out how the CHURCH has interepreted it. Even if you put it in context, you still could interpret it incorrectly, you must always measure your interpretations against the interpretations of the Magesterium.
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.
Click to expand...
A comment does not count as infallible teaching, a simple comment does not undo the teaching of the Syllabus.

Again, once a truth is revealed by the Magesterium it is ALWAYS a truth and does not change with time.

That means the errors are still errors whether you want to believe it or not.

(And I mean you as in others who share your line of thought, not just you specifically)
 
I am a bit confused by this thread. Does truth change according to the times that we live in or not. On the one hand, we have a Pope who condemns as an error that truth changes according to the times, but now on the other hand, we have highly distinguished Catholic theologians who say that truth depends on the context of what time it was issued in, so that at one p;oint in time Catholics are supposed to believe in one thing, whereas at another point in time, Catholics are supposed to believe in something else? And that truth can be expanded upon? What is the difference between expanding upon truth and changing what you said in the first place. It looks to me like Catholics do not agree on whether the truth changes according to the times or not.
 
The correct answer is no, the truth does not change because of the times, no matter what “theologians” who are not part of the Magesterium say.
 
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...
Newmann and Brownson seem to be saying that the Syllabus was some document of questionable origin tacked onto Quanta Cura. Most people attribute it to Pope Pius IX directly (Newman argues some of the statements were edited, etc.).

You mentioned Ratzinger. He appears to attribute the Syllabus to Pope Pius IX:
In his 1982 treatise on Catholic theology, Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger – currently the Cardinal Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith – made some astonishing statements. He suggested that the documents of Vatican II, and especially Gaudium et Spes (Vatican II’s Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the Modern World), were intended to “correct” what he called the one-sidedness of the position adopted by the Church under Pope Pius IX and Pope Saint Pius X, the Popes whose Syllabi of Errors and Encyclicals warned against the dangers of the heresy of Modernism, called by Saint Pius X “the synthesis of all heresies”. Cardinal Ratzinger’s statements began as follows:
Click to expand...
"If it is desirable to offer a diagnosis of the text [of *Gaudium et Spes
​
Click to expand...

] 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."

Ratzinger does not appear to be saying “…the Syllabus containing extracts and edited extracts from Pius IX former encyclicals…”

You can find the entire paper dealing with this here:

geocities.com/militantis/oathvatican2.html

​
MJW
 
No, they are not out of date nor invalid. Which if you read those, you will see why we have so many problems today within the Church.
 
40.png
rwoehmke:
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.
Click to expand...
This seems to say that truth does change with the times.
But now we read:
The correct answer is no, the truth does not change because of the times…
Click to expand...
From this I conclude that Catholics cannot make up their minds as to whether or not truth changes with the times. Some Catholics say yes, while others say no. Both claim to be correct and both claim to have respected theologians on their side. Neither side has been excommunicated from the Church, so I guess that the Catholic Church today does not have a definite opinion on whether or not truth changes with the times.
 
Alfredo,

The Catholic Church is more than the sum of its parts.

God bless,
Ryan
 
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...
It is certainly the position of Cardinal Newman as outlined in his Letter to the Duke of Norfolk - he explains that this is a list of propositions referring the bishops back to various documents which addressed the individual items in a more detailed way.
 
40.png
ServusChristi:
The Syllabus of Errors and Quanta Cura are statements of the magisterium. They never ceased to be true.
Click to expand...
They also are still what they are rather than what some “think” they are. A very important distinction which Cardinal Newman brings out.
 
40.png
trth_skr:
Are they out of date and not valid?

MJW
Click to expand...
Let’s look at it this way: what is an encyclical? - it is a letter.

Sometimes they address temporary situations, other times they address problems which are paramount in the time of the pope issuing them.

In the next 3-4 reigns these problems won’t be as paramount and
so the pope of that time will address the issues he sees as critical in his own time.

Others have been issued to the church at large but were aimed at specific nations with specific problems. As those problems change within a nation, the application of the principles or action urged or discouraged also changes.

That’s what people mean here when they speak of context. For example here is a quote from one encyclical:

“…n this matter We advise you all in the dioceses and districts subject to your jurisdiction to proclaim three days of public prayers in churches and other holy places, as has previously been done in Rome. Do this in order to beseech God, the Father of mercies, to set the Irish people free from this great disaster, and to prevent such a misfortune befalling the other kingdoms and lands of Europe as well. …”

“In addition, We urge you to exhort the people under your jurisdiction to give alms for the relief of the Irish nation. You know the power of almsgiving and the rich fruits which proceed from it.”…

When was the last time you went to three days of prayer for the Irish nation? When was the last time you sent alms for the poor there?

What About: On the Morality of Dueling
On the Church in Hungary
On Schools in Manitoba

When was the last time you read up on those subjects?

Yet, I think we can all agree that in each document there are exhortations of Christian charity, of Christian concern, of an attitude or POV which attempt to remind all of our responsibilities.

So while I don’t mind discussing things, these are complex subjects and there is no point in playing coy and trying to pretend that someone here has claimed everything all popes ever said prior to Vatican II are now considered meaningless or passe.

But one does have to continue catechesis and the study of one’s faith beyond primary or secondary schooling. Unfortunately for many it stops there which is why we often see misunderstandings about what is currently being discussed or how it’s being taught in today’s church. About good and not so good sources of information, about people whe toss canon laws out with no understandig of implementation or who run to every page they can find on the internet which speaks against the Church and cut and paste without ever having read what the Church says, why she says it .

If you are really interested in the commentaries on the Syllabus there are two items I’d recommend to start with: one is the Newman reference offered, the other is a more contemporary one addressing Cardinal Ratzinger’s comments which may be viewed at:

matt1618.freeyellow.com/syllabus.html
The ‘Counter-Syllabus’ Canard
Written by I. Shawn McElhinney
 
40.png
trth_skr:
Newmann and Brownson seem to be saying that the Syllabus was some document of questionable origin tacked onto Quanta Cura. Most people attribute it to Pope Pius IX directly (Newman argues some of the statements were edited, etc.).
Click to expand...
No, - what is being explained is its origins in being issued and what it was - their contention is that it is a referral list to bishops noting that these issues had been addressed previously by the pope and they should refer to those documents for finer detail.
40.png
trth_skr:
You mentioned Ratzinger. He appears to attribute the Syllabus to Pope Pius IX:
Click to expand...
He does not go into the history of the document - he refers to it - what he is discussing is the supplemental information on material it contains via Gaudium.
40.png
trth_skr:
You can find the entire paper dealing with this here:
Click to expand...
The “here” you mention is very interesting: The “here” provides the following information on its pages also:

Unmasking New Mass
The Problems With the New Mass by John Vennari: Consequently, the new missal no longer propagates the lex credendi [law of belief] of the Church, but rather a doctrine that smacks of heterodoxy. That is why one cannot say that the reformed rite of Mass of 1969 is ‘orthodox’ in the etymological sense of the word: it does not offer ‘right praise’ to God. Equally, one cannot say that the rite of Mass resulting from the reform of 1969 is that of the Church, even if it was conceived by churchmen . . . “And lastly, one cannot say that the new missal is for the Faithful ‘the first and indispensable source of the true Christian spirit,’ [1] where the Church ‘communicates in abundance the treasures of the depositum fidei of the truth of Christ’ [2]. [3]”

Strong words? Perhaps. But The Problem of the Liturgical Reform buttresses this conclusion with nine chapters of solid argumentation. **These chapters demonstrate the New Mass to be the fruit of a new religion that favors Protestantism, smacks of modernism, and fails to convey the truths of the Catholic Faith on sin, redemption, and the propitiatory nature of the Mass. **

Part Three, the new theology on which the New Mass is based stands condemned by traditional Catholic doctrine, especially by the Council of Trent;** In summary, the New Mass is unacceptable because it is the fruit of a new religion. **
Code: 
The Great Sacrilege
This is, by far, the best book dealing withthe Novus Ordo available.* This book proves that the New Massdoes not involve Papal infallibility, that the Missale Romanum of PopePaul VI is null and void, that Quo Primum is still in effect, that theNovus Ordo is illegal, and that the Novus Ordo Missae is simply notCatholic. Powerful!*

I have no problem with reading what anti-Church people say and why they say it; but have you ever considered that these sources having the beliefs as outlined above, might not be either the sole or best source for understanding what it is the Church is saying or why? Wouldn’t it pay to read Brownson, McIlhenny and/or Newman as well? Just a thought.
 
Let’s move away from the abstract and deal in a more concrete fashion with this issue.

I. PANTHEISM, NATURALISM AND ABSOLUTE RATIONALISM
  1. There exists no Supreme, all-wise, all-provident Divine Being, distinct from the universe, and God is identical with the nature of things, and is, therefore, subject to changes. In effect, God is produced in man and in the world, and all things are God and have the very substance of God, and God is one and the same thing with the world, and, therefore, spirit with matter, necessity with liberty, good with evil, justice with injustice. – Allocution “Maxima quidem,” June 9, 1862.
  2. All action of God upon man and the world is to be denied. – Ibid.
  3. Human reason, without any reference whatsoever to God, is the sole arbiter of truth and falsehood, and of good and evil; it is law to itself, and suffices, by its natural force, to secure the welfare of men and of nations. – Ibid.
  4. All the truths of religion proceed from the innate strength of human reason; hence reason is the ultimate standard by which man can and ought to arrive at the knowledge of all truths of every kind. – Ibid. and Encyclical “Qui pluribus,” Nov. 9, 1846, etc.
  5. Divine revelation is imperfect, and therefore subject to a continual and indefinite progress, corresponding with the advancement of human reason. – Ibid.
  6. The faith of Christ is in opposition to human reason and divine revelation not only is not useful, but is even hurtful to the perfection of man. – Ibid.
  7. The prophecies and miracles set forth and recorded in the Sacred Scriptures are the fiction of poets, and the mysteries of the Christian faith the result of philosophical investigations. In the books of the Old and the New Testament there are contained mythical inventions, and Jesus Christ is Himself a myth. END
This is a sampling from the first section of the Syllabus. These are straightforward errors that are always errors. I don’t see a lot of room for interpretation. Have any of these things changed?

Help me out here.
 
40.png
alfredo:
so I guess that the Catholic Church today does not have a definite opinion on whether or not truth changes with the times.
Click to expand...
Then you would be in error; try Dominus Iesus or the Credo for starters. There are also numerous sttements by the pope about “truth”.
 
40.png
gelsbern:
Better than the Magesterium? I doubt it.
Click to expand...
Actually I would say that based on some of your posts the perception that you do not understand what the magesterium is, and how it applies and in particular what is being said is becoming evident.
40.png
gelsbern:
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.
Click to expand...
It would really be more helpful to you if you insist on discussing statements to read them prior to critiquing. The facts are you didn’t appear to even know it was Newman that you were referred to or who Brownson was and that their commentaries on the documents are important ones. It does help to have a working knowledge of what one is “against” and why you disagree with it, which as far as I can tell, can only really be obtained by reading something about it.
40.png
gelsbern:
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...
The standard we have here is a thread where posters are discussing how a document came to be, what others in the Church have said about it, and its relevance and meaning to the church today. It is not helpful to simply run to trad pages and cut and paste what they say. It is necessary if you’re going to critique something to have a basic knowledge of what the subject is in the thread and why people are posting what they are.

Everyone is not born knowing, we all have to learn and heaven knows with 2,000 years of Church we all have a lot to talk about.
It’s one thing to ask, it’s one thing to become aware of additional information which others provide, it’s something else to make assertions which are obtained fromn sources anti church and take them as the “final word”.
 
I’d say they are true and remain true in their proper context.

For the comments above regarding “truth that changes” …

It was true since apostolic times and for the next 12 centuries in the Latin Church that infants could receive Holy Communion. It was an immemorial custom since apostolic times. Yet today, this practice is illicit, proscribed by canon law in the Latin Rite. Did truth change? Or did an immemorial custom pertaining to ecclesiastical discipline change? Is there a difference? How many of you only eat kosher meats, as was prescribed in the Book of Acts? Did truth change, or did discipline change? Can ecclesiastical discipline change without attacking the truth? It seems so.
 
Can someone point out for me what the Catholic Church today teaches that contradicts the truths of Quanta Cura?
 
ServusChristi said:
papalencyclicals.net/Pius09/p9syll.htm

Someone want to tell me which errors are no longer errors.
Click to expand...

It looks to me like the follwoing two are no longer errors. At one point in time, before Vatican II, they were perhaps errors, but after Vatican II, it looks to me like they are not consdiered to be errors any more.The following propositions were condemned and (I am not sure of course but) I don’t think that they are condemned any more:
"
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.
  1. The Roman Pontiff can, and ought to, reconcile himself, and come to terms with progress, liberalism and modern civilization.- -Allocution “Jamdudum cernimus,” March 18, 1861.
"
My impression is that mostly all American Catholics today believe that 77 and 80 are true in some sense?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top