Smart Catholics, Please the Syllabus of Errors

  • Thread starter Thread starter meat_spin_man
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Re: the Syllabus of Errors

It’s very easy to pull a quote from something like this and marvel at how weird it is. But unless you understand the reasoning behind what’s said, and its context, you are never going to understand this kind of terse listing. It was written up for people who did know what was going on, and not for us clueless folks walking in on the middle of a long discussion.
Per the Syllabus of Errors,

[It is error that]…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.

[It is error that] …78. Hence it has been wisely decided by law, in some Catholic countries, that persons coming to reside therein shall enjoy the public exercise of their own peculiar worship. – Allocution “Acerbissimum,” Sept. 27, 1852.

papalencyclicals.net/Pius09/p9syll.htm

I don’t think any of this is difficult to understand. Other than using the confusing format of “it is error” the Pope was pretty clear as to what he was condemning. Among other things, this included the public worship by faiths other than Catholic. Thank God nowadays that dog won’t hunt.
 
Re: burning heretics
Burning people was never a power of the Church as such. It was a civil penalty, imposed for many high crimes: murder of one’s husband, for instance. (Granted, in some places church officials were also the state government, as in the prince-bishops’ tiny kingdoms in the area today called Germany.) Heresy, or rather, deliberately teaching and spreading heresy, was seen by civil governments as a destabilizing thing, and therefore as a form of treason.
The Church cannot avoid complicity in the matter of execution of heretics. The Church found that you were an unrepentant heretic and turned you over to the State for punishment which, in most cases, was death.

As stated in the Catholic Encyclopedia with respect to the Spanish Inquisition,

“The Spanish Inquisition deserves neither the exaggerated praise nor the equally exaggerated vilification often bestowed on it… However, the predominant ecclesiastical nature of the institution can hardly be doubted. The Holy See sanctioned the institution, accorded to the grand inquisitor canonical installation and therewith judicial authority concerning matters of faith, while from the grand inquisitor jurisdiction passed down to the subsidiary tribunals under his control. Joseph de Maistre introduced the thesis that the Spanish Inquisition was mostly a civil tribunal; formerly, however, theologians never questioned its ecclesiastical nature. Only thus, indeed, can one explain how the Popes always admitted appeals from it to the Holy See, called to themselves entire trials and that at any stage of the proceedings, exempted whole classes of believers from its jurisdiction, intervened in the legislation, deposed grand inquisitors, and so on.”

newadvent.org/cathen/08026a.htm

Moreover, this same article states that if the secular authorities did not do what they were supposed to do with said heretics that the Church would declare the authorities themselves to be heretics…with all the theological and secular consequences that come with such a declaration.
 
Per the Syllabus of Errors,

[It is error that]…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.

[It is error that] …78. Hence it has been wisely decided by law, in some Catholic countries, that persons coming to reside therein shall enjoy the public exercise of their own peculiar worship. – Allocution “Acerbissimum,” Sept. 27, 1852.

papalencyclicals.net/Pius09/p9syll.htm

I don’t think any of this is difficult to understand. Other than using the confusing format of “it is error” the Pope was pretty clear as to what he was condemning. Among other things, this included the public worship by faiths other than Catholic. Thank God nowadays that dog won’t hunt.
It may not hunt but it certainly is true. Why should a seeker for truth settle for popular opinion. Settling is simply secular not holy.

CDL
 
It may not hunt but it certainly is true. Why should a seeker for truth settle for popular opinion. Settling is simply secular not holy.

CDL
Using the coercive powers of the state to preclude non-Catholics from practicing or professing their faith publicly is not an expression of either truth or love. God could have created robots who would love and serve Him without ever falling to sin…but he chose not to do that. Instead, He gave us free will, although we have corrupted that will with the Fall. If the Church wishes to act in love, it should evangelize non-Catholics, not preclude them from expressing their God-given free will under penalty of state imposed sanctions.
 
Blessed Pius IX was denouncing secularism in his famous Syllabus of Errors. He is not saying that the institutions of Church and State must be one and the same, but that the State should govern by the morals and faith of the Church- that the state has a duty to it’s people and to God to uphold Catholic morality.

Democracy by it’s very nature cannot do this. Liberal Democracy has been a tragedy for the modern world. Rather then morals and faith, a democratic nation is governed by greed and lust for power.
I don’t understand this at all. You are saying that the State should govern according to the morals and faith of the Church, but then you say that democracy cannot do it? why not? Don’t you think the government of the United States was much more moral when it was created by believers? (allbeit protestant) Democracy does not necessarily translate to greed and lust for power. The individuals representing the people can be led astray into it, as can a catholic monarch. Not only that, it is important not to confuse democracy with the open market economy. Although the two often go together, they need not.
 
I don’t understand this at all. You are saying that the State should govern according to the morals and faith of the Church, but then you say that democracy cannot do it? why not? Don’t you think the government of the United States was much more moral when it was created by believers? (allbeit protestant) Democracy does not necessarily translate to greed and lust for power. The individuals representing the people can be led astray into it, as can a catholic monarch. Not only that, it is important not to confuse democracy with the open market economy. Although the two often go together, they need not.
The Church does not say what form of goverment a country should have, though I think the Church does favor a democracy, but I am not sure.
Code:
 The Church DOES teach that the goverments laws MUST be in conformity with God's laws.   Since men have a fallen nature, weakened wills, and a tendence to sin, then there must be a standard of right and wrong for men to follow.  Otherwise we get countries like Germany under Hitler,  Cambodia under Pol Pot, and China under Mao, Russia under Stalin.  These rulers killed millions of their own citizens.   Since they were athiests and had no standard of right and wrong, they simply did what they wanted to do.  Even if a country is run by Christians, they still have a are not infallible in their beliefs.  Thus, Christians in the United States accepted slavery, because they could interpret the bible to justify slavery.  Thus, even though the goverment accepted the teaching that this country's laws should be in conformity to God's laws, they could not agree exactly what was God's law when it came to slavery and many other issues.
This is why the Church says there should be a state religion and it should be the Catholic religion.  Since God created the world, then we must accept His method of guiding the world to the truth.  And He founded a Church to do that.    His Church has never taught error and never will.  Thus, only the Church He founded is capable of giving infallible guidence to the goverment.  
Now, that does not mean the country should have a theocracy.  The Catholic Church teaches their should be partial separation of Church and State.  The State should run the country, make civil laws, etc., but it must make its laws to conform to God's laws.  And  there should be freedom of religion to the extent that each person should be free to seek the truth, thus all other religions should be allowed, within reason.
Since this country has rejected that teaching that their should be a state religion, then many of it’s laws are inhuman, such as the law that allows 4,000 innocent babies to be slaughtered every DAY, in abortion. It just does not work to have a totally secular goverment.
Centuries ago, Europe advanced while the rest of the world was left behind when the Catholic religion became the state religion of the countries of Europe. There was still freedom of religion. It was not a state religion like the Protestants had in England and the Scandanavian countries, where all others were forbidden to practice. With the Catholic Church as the state religion there was freedom of religion. The Jews, for example, could still build there synagogues and worship freely, etc. But, because there was an infallible guide to the truth and someone with direction and a goal for people in the world, a goal to seek goodness and truth, Europe advanced. And the innocent and the oppressed had someone to defend them.
Now that Europe has rejected the Catholic faith, there is no one to defend the innocent babies killed in abortion. Almost all European countries allow the innocent to be killed. And of course, Europe is dying, fading away, as their population slowly disappears, they have no purpose in life, no goal to reach, nothing to live for exept pleasure, nothing to advance their civilization toward goodness, beauty and truth, because they have rejected God and His Church, the only sure guide to the truth about man.
 
The Church cannot avoid complicity in the matter of execution of heretics. The Church found that you were an unrepentant heretic and turned you over to the State for punishment which, in most cases, was death.

However, in colonial America, if you were a Papist, a Quaker or follower of Ann Seton, you were hung.

Priests caught in Elizabeth I and James II’s reign were summarily drawn and quartered (Rbt Southwell, for example) after months of torture.

And I hear that those paragons of virtue in New England followed Lutheran and Calvinistic guidance when burning ‘witches.’

Dang Christians! Always killing one another.

Pax Christi
 
Code:
  This is why the Church says there should be a state religion and it should be the Catholic religion.  Since God created the world, then we must accept His method of guiding the world to the truth.  And He founded a Church to do that.    His Church has never taught error and never will.  Thus, only the Church He founded is capable of giving infallible guidence to the goverment.
There was still freedom of religion. It was not a state religion like the Protestants had in England and the Scandanavian countries, where all others were forbidden to practice. With the Catholic Church as the state religion there was freedom of religion. But, because there was an infallible guide to the truth and someone with direction and a goal for people in the world, a goal to seek goodness and truth, Europe advanced. And the innocent and the oppressed had someone to defend them.
This version of history might be a hard sell to the victims of the Inquisiton!
 
This version of history might be a hard sell to the victims of the Inquisiton!
It was not the Catholic Church that persecuted heretics, it was the governments of France and Spain.
I think you are rather credulous to believe that the Church teachings which come down from Jesus mandated persecution, torture and death.

It is a long story, but in short, some heretical groups in France, including a lot of Catholic priests, began teaching that marriage was evil and suicide was good. Thus, men left their families, who then were brought to poverty and starvation. Then the men lived in fornication, since that that was not marriage, and it was not evil like marriage. They also promoted suicide. These were the Illuminati, the Albigensians and others.
The Pope urged the bishops to put a clamp on these teachings since they were gravely harming society, putting the ex-families, the women and children of these men into poverty and starvation and then the men were urged to commit suicide. While the Church in Europe, as always, allowed freedom of religion, within reason, these groups went outside of reason.
The bishops refused to do anything, and instead protected the heretics, of whom were many Catholic priests. After many years and inaction by the bishops, the Pope urged the goverment to force the heretics out the country, to protect familes and society. Finally after many years, the goverments began to do this. Naturally, the heretics rebelled, and in cities where they had their strongholds, they fought against the goverments. And since they looked just llike other citizens, they infiltrated the goverment and others became traitors. The govement responded by picking up the old pagan practice of torture, to find out who the traitors were. And if the traitors were found they would be put to death. Of course, the Church had always said the state had the right to use the death penalty for serious offenses, and the goverments thought being a traitor was certainly a serious offense. The Church NEVER permitted torture and never authorized such horrible methods.
Nevertheless, the goverment officials felt they did not have to listen to the Church, they could do what they wanted. So they tortured. But of course, those tortured said anything the govement wanted to hear and they implicated lots of innocent people, who would be put to death. So others thought of using Church scholars to find out who was really a heretic, or a traitor opposing the goverment, so that innocent people would not be put to death. That was the beginnings of the inquisition in France. The govement used Church theologians to see who was really a subversive traitor, then the goverment would put them to death or torture them. Many more people were set free this way when the vast majority of the accused were found innocent. The Church could not refuse to cooperate, because then more people were put to death. The Church opposed the torture, but she could not oppose the use of the death penalty for being a traitor, because she taught that the state does have the right to use the death penalty in certain situations. All the Popes could do was urge that it be used as the last resort, as little as possible. The Popes urged the rescue of many as possible from these government thugs.
But, of course, the enemies of the Church today, who are not exactly known as being bastions of the truth, simply shorted the whole story to that the Catholic Church, in an effort to discover heretics, tortured those who dissented and put them to death, simply because the heretics did not believe all Church teachings.

This is the version you believe and what others believe.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top