Syllabus of Errors Condemned by Pius IX

  • Thread starter Thread starter CollegeKid
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
40.png
USMC:
Lazer,

Read through this debate forum.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=38132

Unfortunately, one of the people in the dabated was suspended before the discussion was completed, but it has some very good information. I think you would benefit from it.
Click to expand...
In what way do you intend to mean that I would be benefited? If you mean that is to convince me in some way that Vatican II is wrong or contradicted the Syllabus, then I will not waste my time. That proposition comes with the absolute necessity of sedevacantism. On the other hand, if you think there is something else I can gain from it, I’d be more than hapy to.
 
40.png
Lazerlike42:
In what way do you intend to mean that I would be benefited? If you mean that is to convince me in some way that Vatican II is wrong or contradicted the Syllabus, then I will not waste my time. That proposition comes with the absolute necessity of sedevacantism. On the other hand, if you think there is something else I can gain from it, I’d be more than hapy to.
Click to expand...
I just thought you would benefit from it, since it has some good information.
 
40.png
USMC:
I just thought you would benefit from it, since it has some good information.
Click to expand...
As long as you’re not trying to get me to become a sedevacantist I’ll check it out 👍
 
40.png
Lazerlike42:
As long as you’re not trying to get me to become a sedevacantist I’ll check it out 👍
Click to expand...
Don’t worry I will never try to make you a sedevacantists.

Just curious: Do you think I am a Sedevacantists? :eek:
 
40.png
USMC:
Don’t worry I will never try to make you a sedevacantists.

Just curious: Do you think I am a Sedevacantists? :eek:
Click to expand...
No I didn’t think so. I was only trying to be sure because I have found that when dealing with the Syllabus of Errors, there tend to be the people who think Vatican II is invalid and that it contradicted the Syllabus, and there tend to be the people who think Vatican II is valid and did not contradict it. I haven’t seen anyone who has accepted VII and also made a big deal about the Syllabus.
 
Lazerlike42, JOE OBERR,

I trust you’re not saying that the only infallible statments are those made ex cathedra.
 
40.png
banjo:
Lazerlike42, JOE OBERR,

I trust you’re not saying that the only infallible statments are those made ex cathedra.
Click to expand...
CORRECTION: USMC, JOE OBERR…sorry Lazer.
 
40.png
banjo:
Lazerlike42, JOE OBERR,

I trust you’re not saying that the only infallible statments are those made ex cathedra.
Click to expand...
CORRECTION: USMC, JOE OBERR…sorry Lazer.
 
USMC said:
Lazer,

That is not correct. The Syllabus is a magesterial condemnation of errors: many theological manuals prior to Vatican II even taught that the document was infallible, and it does seem to meet the 4 necessary conditions.

We should also realize that the errors condemned in the Syllabus had already been condemned previously. All Pius IX did was to organize these already-condemned-errors and condemned them once agains because they were still spreading.

Many people today adhere to these errors, and as such, seek to find a way to justify it. They do so by giving the argument you gave above. But this is completely false. The syllabus is at least part of the ordinary magisterium which is considered infallible, even if it was not explicitly ex-cathedra.

The following is take from “Quanta Cura”, the encyclical that accompanied by the Syllabus of Errors:
  • “…Amid so great a perversity of depraved opinions, We, remembering Our Apostolic duty, and solicitous before all things for Our most holy Religion, for sound doctrine, for the salvation of the souls confided to Us, and for the welfare of human Society itself, have considered the moment opportune to raise anew Our Apostolic voice. Therefore do We, by our Apostolic authority, reprobate denounce and condemn, in general and in particular all the evil opinions and doctrines specially mentioned in this Letter, and We will and We command that they may be held as reprobated, denounced, and condemned by all the children of the Catholic Church…”*
Sounds like an ex-cathedra document to me.

Anyone who adheres to any of these errors in under the codemnation of the Church.

The only thing that can be changed are disciplinary matters; not truth and error.
Click to expand...
Bull’s eye, could not have said it better.
 
going further (or is it farther?) 1983 code of canon law book 1, canon 6, "when this code comes into force the following are abogated: 1. code of canon law promulgated in 1917.
to my understanding the condemnations listed in the "syllabas of errors was incorporated into the code of canon law of 1917.
next, apostolic letter given motu propio april 30, 2001 "our predecessors already provided for the sanctity of the sacraments …through apostolic constitutions…like wise codex iuris promulgated in 1917 with their fontes by which canonical sanctions had been establishe. s/s pope john paul ii.
after reading these documents, one may form their own conclusions as to what they mean , to whom they applied and at what time was it applicable. brrrr. have a good year.(alih):rolleyes:
 
The syllabus is not the same as the usual condemnations of errors done by popes. While Quanta Cura itself may contain solemn teaching, the brief sentences of the syllabus in the appendix do not. It is more of a table of contents. One must go to the original documents cited and see what they say. The Syllabus was hotly debated at the time it came out and it caused a lot of confusion. The Swiss bishops produced a pamphlet explaining them in the above way and what they actually referred to (not what many folks who style themselves as traditional seem to want them to mean). This pamphlet was highly praised by Bl. Pius IX himself.
 
from the motu proprio “praestantia scripturae sacrae” by pope st. pius x, (in part) “in order to check the daily increasing audacity of many modernists who are endeavoring by all kinds of sophistry and devices to detract from the force and efficacy not only of the decree “lamentabili sane exitu” (the so called syllabus) issued by our order by the holy roman and universal inquisition on july 3 of thepresentyear but also our encyclical letters “pascendi dominici gregis”…we do by our apostolic authority repeat and confirm that decree of the supreme sacred congregation…adding the penalty of excommunication against their contradictors,” etc.
this document can be viewed in its entirety using the search engine provided by the vatican website. have a good year. (alih)👍
 
CollegeKid said:
So does this mean, for example, that Catholics can never send their children to public schools? If so I find it troubling that I’ve never heard a priest say that public schools are as forbidden as contraception.
Click to expand...
There was a time before Vatican II when Catholics were expected to send their kids ton a Catholic School if one was available. One of the past Pastors in my town would threaten non-compliance with ex-communication. Not many would risk that.
 
JOE_OBERR said:
There is no church teaching that there have been only 2 ex-cath. pronouncements in 2,000 years. This is their mere opinion, and a very popular one, I may add. It is not Church teaching.

When one looks at the three critera indicating a teaching has been proclaimed ex-cath., i.e., when the Pope, as the supreme pastor and teacher of all the faithful, proclaims in an absolute decision a doctrine pertaining to faith or morals, it is apparent the Popes thru the years have exercised their infallible teaching authority thousands of times. The teachings contained within encyclicals, concilior documents, catechisms, e.g., The Roman Catechism, the Cat. of the Cath. Churc., The General Directory of Catechesis, moto proprios etc are all irreformable and without error.

Joe
Click to expand...
ex-cath was not a term bandied about until Vatican I defined Papal Infallibility. That does not mean that all previous teaching was not infallible. Encyclicals , etc. are often ordinary teaching and must be adhered to, but the are not ir-reformable by a succeeding Pope unless the subject matter is infallible by definition.
 
it might be of interest if some forum participants would, available through the vatican website, acccess the “catholic encylopaedia” look up the definition of “modernist” and see how close the definition might fit. have a good year. (alih)👍
 
liberalism is heresy. “Liberalism is a heresy in the doctrinal order because heresy is the formal and obstinate denial of all Christian dogmas in general. It repudiates dogma altogether and substitutes opinion, whether that opinion be doctrinal or the negation of doctrine. Consequently, it denies every doctrine in particular. If we were to examine in detail all the doctrines or dogmas which, within the range of Liberalism, have been denied, we would find every Christian dogma in one way or another rejected–from the dogma of the Incarnation to that of Infallibility.” (Liberalism is a Sin, Ch. 3)
 
The Syllabus of Errors reffered to other documents, without which it is impossible to understand what Pius IX was teaching.
 
Syllabus is a great document for the current catholics, the Catholic Church defended not a theocracy but a confesional state where the christian moral laws were the state laws, but none has to be obligued to go to the mass or these things, but things like abortion, divorces or anti-conception would be forbidden.
And the social doctrine of the Church would be the term in economical things.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top