Quanta Cura+The Syllabus of Errors

  • Thread starter Thread starter starrs0
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
40.png
itsjustdave1988:
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.
Click to expand...
There is a difference, infants recieving communion is a matter of discipline, not faith and morals. The syllabus of errors is in regards to faith and morals.
 
Haggia Sophia wrote:
The “here” you mention is very interesting: The “here” provides the following information on its pages also:
Click to expand...
Unmasking New Mass
The Problems With the New Mass by John Vennari: etc.
Click to expand...
It is interesting to note the sources used by “traditionalists.” The webmaster of the cited link is John Brindle, with whom I dealt in
Of What A Web They Weave…

It is interesting to note the first footnote:

"Footnotes
Ecclesia Militans; URL geocities.com/Athens/Troy/6480/

Nota Bene as at 31 January 2001 - the Ecclesia Militans website is not presently viewable. No doubt it is undergoing “restructuring”! F.J.L.

Further note 5 March 2001: Brindle’s website is still “down”,

BUT as at this date one CAN still view one of his directories HERE and view the relevant files listed below at Footnote 6.

Don’t worry, John, a snapshot HAS been taken of the Directory and its files."

Now, perhaps John is employed elsewhere (such as in Iraq) - but his website still remains un-updated!

There is that old saying: “Lie down with dogs and your are sure to get up with fleas!” THAT is the problems of reliance on radical “traditionalist” meanderings.
 
Sean O L:
It is interesting to note the sources used by “traditionalists.” The webmaster of the cited link is John Brindle, with whom I dealt in
Of What A Web They Weave…
Click to expand...
Thank you for the link - I did have to smile a great deal as I read it. (Shaking head) - you have to wonder if this same effort were put into proper catechesis for some, what a difference it would make not simply for them, but for the entire church.
 
Gelsbern,
40.png
gelsbern:
There is a difference, infants recieving communion is a matter of discipline, not faith and morals. The syllabus of errors is in regards to faith and morals.
Click to expand...
Exactly! Thank your for repeating my point. The truths of the syllabus of error regarding faith and morals remain as true today as they were then. Some would rip such teachings from their intended context, however, which is an improper way of understanding Catholic doctrine.

My question remains: Does the Catholic Church today teach contrarily tot the truths taught in the Syllabus of Errors? If so, how, when, where?
 
I will let you decide. In fact I will show four condemned errors that are no longer taught as errors today.

**Condemned Error 1: ** 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.

Condemned Error 2: Every man is free to embrace and profess that religion which, guided by the light of reason, he shall consider true.

Condemned Error 3: Man may, in the observance of any religion whatever, find the way of eternal salvation, and arrive at eternal salvation.

Condmended Error 4: Protestantism is nothing more than another form of the same true Christian religion, in which form it is given to please God equally as in the Catholic Church.

What this used to mean: All other “religions” are heretical and that one cannot find salvation outside the Church. Baptism of desire is possible but only if one truly submits to all the teachings of the Church.
There is but one universal Church of the faithful, outside of which no one at all can be saved (Pope Innocent III, Fourth Lateran Council).
Click to expand...
We declare, say, define, and pronounce that it is absolutely necessary for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff (Pope Boniface VIII, Unam Sanctam).
Click to expand...
The most Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes, and preaches that none of those existing outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics, can have a share in life eternal; but that they will go into the eternal fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless before death they are joined with Her; and that so important is the unity of this ecclesiastical body that only those remaining within this unity can profit by the sacraments of the Church unto salvation, and they alone can receive an eternal recompense for their fasts, their almsgiving, their other works of Christian piety and the duties of a Christian soldier. No one, let his almsgiving be as great as it may, no one, even if he pour out his blood for the Name of Christ, can be saved, unless he remain within the bosom and the unity of the Catholic Church (Pope Eugene IV, Cantate Domino).
Click to expand...
What is taught today: There are slivers of truth in all religions, and that one can possibly find salvation without submitting to all of the teachings of the church.

From the document Lumen Gentum
ewtn.com/library/COUNCILS/V2CHURCH.HTM
“The Catholic Church professes that it is the one, holy catholic and apostolic Church of Christ; this it does not and could not deny. But in its Constitution the Church now solemnly acknowledges that the Holy Ghost is truly active in the churches and communities separated from itself. To these other Christian Churches the Catholic Church is bound in many ways: through reverence for God’s word in the Scriptures; through the fact of baptism; through other sacraments which they recognize.”
Click to expand...
The non-Christian may not be blamed for his ignorance of Christ and his Church; salvation is open to him also, if he seeks God sincerely and if he follows the commands of his conscience, for through this means the Holy Ghost acts upon all men; this divine action is not confined within the limited boundaries of the visible Church."
Click to expand...
So tell me what you think.
 
40.png
gelsbern:
I will let you decide. In fact I will show four condemned errors that are no longer taught as errors today.
…
Condemned Error 3: Man may, in the observance of any religion whatever, find the way of eternal salvation, and arrive at eternal salvation.
…
So tell me what you think.
Click to expand...
I don’t see where the Church teaches that #3 is true. In a dumb enough religion, salvation would not be possible* if one observed* the religion. The thing is, lots of people fail to observe the religion they are in. All you need for a silly example is a religion whose adherents want to go to hell, and they stick to their guns.

Are you saying the Church teaches #3 to be true, or are you saying that they are not saying it is false (if there is a difference between these, please elaborate).
 
gelsbern,
So tell me what you think.
Click to expand...
The late MSgr. Marcel Lefebvre (excommunicated schismatic) and Fr. Charles Curran (de facto heretic) share your opinion that Vatican II contradict pre-Vatican II Catholic doctrine with regard to religious freedom. Ironic that these two should agree, huh? Warning bells out to go off, however, when both Lefebvre and Curran come to agreement on a doctrinal matter contrary to what the Roman Pontiff teaches on doctrinal matters.

What I think is that you’ve made a non-critical review of the Syllabus and I disagree with your hasty conclusions. Just as I disagree with the conclusions drawn by others who place themselves in opposition to the doctrines of the Vicar of Christ, like Lefebvre and Curran.

I instead agree with Fr. Brian Harrison, who gives a detailed explanation in the following article:

**Vatican II and Religious Liberty: Contradiction or Continuity? **
by Fr. Brian W. Harrison, O.S.
catholic.net/rcc/Periodicals/Dossier/00MarApr/continuity.html

I tend, instead, to agree with Pope St. Pius X:
If one loves the Pope, one does not stop to ask the precise limits to which this duty of obedience extends… one does not seek to restrict the domain within which he can or should make his wishes felt; one does not oppose to the Pope’s authority that of others, however learned they may be, who differ from him. For however great their learning, they must be lacking in holiness, for there can be no holiness in dissension from the Pope. (Pope St. Pius X, allocution of 18 November, 1912, AAS vol. 4 (1912), 693-695. Selection from p. 695)
Click to expand...
Ironically, MSgr Lefebvre signed Vatican II’s Dignitatis Humanae, the very doctrine he later said was heretical.

See also these articles…

Marcel Lefebvre: Signatory to Dignitatis Humanae by Fr Brian Harrison OS. An article that shows that the late Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre signed Dignitatis Humanae despite subsequently denouncing it as irreconcilable with Catholic doctrine. (from Fidelity, March 1994)

Consistent Doctrine on Religious Liberty Fr William Most responds to those who state that Vatican II’s Declaration on Religious Liberty changed the teaching of the Church on this issue.
 
40.png
Pug:
I don’t see where the Church teaches that #3 is true. In a dumb enough religion, salvation would not be possible* if one observed* the religion. The thing is, lots of people fail to observe the religion they are in. All you need for a silly example is a religion whose adherents want to go to hell, and they stick to their guns.

Are you saying the Church teaches #3 to be true, or are you saying that they are not saying it is false (if there is a difference between these, please elaborate).
Click to expand...
The church now teaches that #3 is no longer an error. It teaches that it is possible one can find eternal salvation in whateverreligion they choose. EVEN in Islam, Judaism, Hindu and Budhism.
Dignitatis Humanae
NOSTRA AETATE

And finally someone who has done some of the research and made a webpage of it

aloha.net/~mikesch/non-christians-saved.htm

This is completely opposite of what the church used to teach.
 
The church now teaches that #3 is no longer an error. It teaches that it is possible one can find eternal salvation in **whatever **religion they choose.
Click to expand...
Rubbish. Prove it.
 
Yes, I thought it was rather odd that a professed Catholic would quote from Michael Schiefler, a professed enemy of the Catholic Church, as if it were a reliable source of information. Geeeeezzzzzz have some scholastic rigor and integrity, Gelsbern!!!
 
40.png
itsjustdave1988:
This link provided for this article…

Marcel Lefebvre: Signatory to Dignitatis Humanae by Fr Brian Harrison OS. An article that shows that the late Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre signed Dignitatis Humanae despite subsequently denouncing it as irreconcilable with Catholic doctrine. (from Fidelity, March 1994)

Didn’t work. Try this link instead…

catholicculture.org/docs/doc_view.cfm?recnum=857
Click to expand...
What does what LaFebvre did have to do with this thread. He signed it, did he do it freely or was he forced to?

The question of this thread which you are attempting to hijack is are the errors still errors?

I have proposed and supported with relevant links that according to the modernists who currently run the church, that no they are not considered errors anymore.

However as a faithful Catholic who is weathering this tumultous time not seen since the Arian heresy, where even the Pope taught error, it is imperitive that I persist in my stance that an error doesn’t become a “non-error” because of changing times. I wholeheartedly will defend the premise of “Once a Truth, Always a Truth” and will refuse to submit that just because times have changed that the truth has changed. Therefore under certain circumstances a faitful Catholic is duty bound to resist the Pope at time where it is in opposition to traditional Catholic teachings.

Saint Robert Bellarmine put it this way: Although it clearly follows from the circumstances that the Pope can err at times and command things which must not be done, that we are not to be simply obedient to him in all things, that does not show that he must not be obeyed by all when his commands are good. To know in what cases he is to be obeyed and in what not … it is said in the Acts of the Apostles. “One ought to obey God rather than man:” therefore, were the Pope to command anything against Holy Scripture, or the articles of faith, or the truths of the Sacraments, or the commands of natural or divine law, he ought not to be obeyed, but in such commands, to be passed over (despiciendus). [as quoted in Turrencremata’s Summa de Eccles.]

It is lawful to resist him (the Pope) if he assaulted souls, or troubled the state, and much more if he strove to destroy the Church. It is lawful, I say, to resist him by not doing what he commands and hindering the execution of his will. [Cardinal Saint Robert Bellarmine (de Rom. Pont.)]

If everyone blindly obeyed the Pope just because he was Pope, we would be neck deep in Arianism, we would still have the inquistions, and all the writings of Galilleo would still be banned reading for Catholics.

catholicism.org/pages/infal.htm
 
40.png
starrs0:
That is a Blasphemous Webstie :mad: created/maintained by Seventh Day Adventist’s That’s not a very reliable source.
Click to expand...
I used it to prove a point, that the Holy Father is watched by EVERYONE and that even people like the Seventh Day Adventists are now able use his own words to justify their religion.

One must ask, if the Pope says that ALL religions can find salvation, then why not the SDA’s? Or is it possibly an error to think that ALL religions can find salvation.

If you don’t think the SDA’s can find salvation within their religon, then you are against what the Pope teaches.
 
But the fact remains that these people are taking what the Holy Father said OUT OF CONTEXT and are using them/twisting them to show that what they say about the Catholic Church that it is Apostate and therfore the Pope is Antichrist! ONly those People who are Invinsibly Ignorant and through no fault of their own have no knowledge or suspection that the Catholic Church is true have the possibility of Salvation.
 
gelsbern,
I have proposed and supported with relevant links that according to the modernists who currently run the church, that no they are not considered errors anymore.
Click to expand...
Errrrr… no you haven’t. You simply reiterated your poor thesis without supporting it at all with any shred of evidence.

You gave links to councilar documents, this much is true. I agree with these councilar documents and have provided links which explain why these documents do not contradict pre-Vatican II doctrines regarding faith and morals.

You have yet to respond with any substantive evidence whatsoever.

Then you gave a link to an article written by an enemy of the Catholic Church, whose “research” you seemed to praise, yet Michael Schiefler is notorious for the asserting the Catholic Church is the beast of Daniel ch. 7, and the Vicar of Christ is the antichrist. Is this the “relevant links” you were speaking of?

Seems Michael Schiefler and you have more in common that you even realize.
 
gelsbern,

Instead of just thrusting out accusations, perhaps you can give use a cogent argument for your thesis? You are the one making claims that the Church teaches contrary to the Syllabus. Can your prove it, or are you just spouting off?

I challenge you to take the time to read Fr. William Most’s article and Fr. Brian Harrison’s article which I linked to above which covers the issue from a scholarly perspective. Or, you can stick with Michael Schieffler … your choice.

If you are truly interested in understanding versus merely thrusting accusations, I also recommend the book by Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger called *Truth and Tolerance - Christian Belief and World Religions. *In it, Cardinal Ratzinger refutes indifferentism and relativism and the “freedom to error” as incompatible with the Christianity.

Dignitatis Humanae, if you bothered to read it, teaches against the use of force or coersion to physically compel another to worship in a manner against their free will. Is see nothing contradictory in this compared to pre-Vatican II doctrine, do you? If so, if this contradicts pre-Vaticn II doctrine on faith and morals, please point out the encyclical. Trent taught that the cooperation of the free will is required as a condition for justification, right? How is being against physical coersion and being for free will cooperation incompatible?
 
He signed it, did he do it freely or was he forced to?
Click to expand...
He signed it freely. Some freely chose not to sign it. He wasnt’ among them. After years of denying that he signed it, actual proof from the Vatican archives were published to show that his memory of events were incorrect. It was rather embarassing for the Lefebvrist schismatic movement.
 
Here’s another related article…

Pius IX, Vatican II and Religious Liberty
by Fr. Brian W. Harrison
rtforum.org/lt/lt9.html#II

The article above describes the background context, the error that prompted Pius IX to promulgate *Quanta Cura, *namely, the proposition "by French philosopher-journalist H.F. de Lamennais, whose newspaper, L’Avenir, was demanding from the State, as a matter of universal principle, a liberty for the diffusion of error."

“Freedom to error” without recourse to the truth is still condemned by the Catholic Church. What the Church means by “religous freedom” according to Vatican II documents is freedom to worship in accord with the truth, which is “*necessary to fulfill their duty to worship God, has to do with immunity from coercion in civil society. Therefore it leaves untouched traditional Catholic doctrine on the moral duty of men and societies toward the true religion and toward the one Church of Christ.” *(*Dignitatis Humanae, *1). In other words, humanity ought to have free will to worship God in the true religion of Christ, without being physically forced or coerced by the government to worship against their will. Catholicism still maintains the moral duty of all men and societies toward the true religion and the one Church of Christ.

Far from contradicting *Quanta Cura *and it’s condemnation of “freedom to error,” the Catechism of the Catholic Church asserts:

“CCC **2108 **The right to religious liberty is neither a moral license to adhere to error, nor a supposed right to error, but rather a natural right of the human person to civil liberty, i.e., immunity, within just limits, from external constraint in religious matters by political authorities. This natural right ought to be acknowledged in the juridical order of society in such a way that it constitutes a civil right.”

Quanta Cura also condemned “the most fatal error of ‘Communism and Socialism,’” where such “salutary teaching and influence of the Catholic Church may be entirely banished.”

If by “religious freedom” it is meant the kind refuted in *Quanta Cura, *the kind manifest in Communist governments, where it means “freedom from religion” than it is still condemned.

But if “religious freedom” is meant as was defined in Dignitatis Humanae, the freedom from coersion, of being forced by governments and societies which attempt to make men to worship in a manner against their free will, than this kind of religious freedom from external coersion in religious matters is laudable.

“This Vatican Council declares that the human person has a right to religious freedom. This freedom means that all men are to be immune from coercion on the part of individuals or of social groups and of any human power, in such wise that no one is to be forced to act in a manner contrary to his own beliefs, whether privately or publicly, whether alone or in association with others, within due limits.” (Dignitatis Humanae, 2)

Vatican II, nevertheless, remained untouched the “traditional Catholic doctrine on the moral duty of men and societies toward the true religion and toward the one Church of Christ.” (Dignitatis Humanae, 1)

Catholic teaching on religious liberty consists in this:

“All men are bound to seek the truth, especially in what concerns God and his Church, and to embrace it and hold on to it as they come to know it." This duty derives from “the very dignity of the human person.” It does not contradict a “sincere respect” for different religions which frequently “reflect a ray of that truth which enlightens all men,” nor the requirement of charity, which urges Christians "to treat with love, prudence and patience those who are in error or ignorance with regard to the faith*.*” (CCC 2104)

“The deliberate intention of leading a neighbor into error by saying things contrary to the truth constitutes a failure in justice and charity.” (CCC 2485)

Treating those with love and prudence and patience who are in error requires evangelization, “Church still has the obligation and also the sacred right to evangelize all men”. (CCC 848)

“Freedom to error” or “freedom from religion” is condemned by Catholicism, AND I CHALLENGE ANYONE TO PROVE OTHERWISE.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top