Syllabus of Errors

  • Thread starter Thread starter jeff417
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
J

jeff417

Guest
I am in a discussion with a Sedevacantist. His latest assault includes a copy of the Syllabus of Errors of St.Pius IX. Is this document considered Catholic Dogma? Also, does any of Cardinal Ratzinger’s writings (specifically Principles of Catholic Theology) contradict this syllabus? I intend to do further research myself, but would like to hear what you guys can add to the discussion. Thanx.
 
You should point out the following errors to him:
  1. “Roman pontiffs and ecumenical councils have wandered outside the limits of their powers, have usurped the rights of princes, and have even erred in defining matters of faith and morals.”
  2. “There is nothing to prevent the decree of a general council, or the act of all peoples, from transferring the supreme pontificate from the bishop and city of Rome to another bishop and another city”
  3. “National churches, withdrawn from the authority of the Roman pontiff and altogether separated, can be established”
 
Also don’t ever argue with a sede. It’s less frustrating to argue with someone about whether the moon landing was faked.
 
Danquayle76 said:
Also don’t ever argue with a sede. It’s less frustrating to argue with someone about whether the moon landing was faked.
Click to expand...
Couldn’t agree more, Protestants in fiddle-backs who deign themselves more Catholic thank The Pope!
 
Banned Topics List said:
Blatantly disrespectful characterization of any faith, (“Rome is the Whore of Babylon”, “Nazarenes are Holy-Rollers”, “Jews are Christ-killers”, “Muslims are terrorists”) its tenets, practices, or adherents
Click to expand...

I think calling sedevacantists “Protestants in fiddle-backs” would fall under this rule. And aside from the topic itself being banned, sedevacantists couldn’t defend themselves even if they wanted to, because their arguments (contra-Vatican II, New Mass, etc.) are also against this forum’s rules. Let’s remember that.

It’s better to pray for others.

P.S. - Regarding the authority of the Syllabus of Modern Errors:

“The binding power of the Syllabus of Pius IX is differently explained by Catholic theologians. All are of the opinion that many of the propositions are condemned if not in the Syllabus, then certainly in other final decisions of the infallible teaching authority of the Church, for instance in the Encyclical “Quanta Cura”. There is no agreement, however, on the question whether each thesis condemned in the Syllabus is infallibly false, merely because it is condemned in the Syllabus. Many theologians are of the opinion that to the Syllabus as such an infallible teaching authority is to be ascribed, whether due to an ex-cathedra decision by the pope or to the subsequent acceptance by the Church. Others question this. So long as Rome has not decided the question, everyone is free to follow the opinion he chooses. Even should the condemnation of many propositions not possess that unchangeableness peculiar to infallible decisions, nevertheless the binding force of the condemnation in regard to all the propositions is beyond doubt. For the Syllabus, as appears from the official communication of Cardinal Antonelli, is a decision given by the pope speaking as universal teacher and judge to Catholics the world over. All Catholics, therefore, are bound to accept the Syllabus. Exteriorly they may neither in word nor in writing oppose its contents; they must also assent to it interiorly.” – newadvent.org/cathen/14368b.htm

I’d have to check my sources to comment on then-Fr. Ratzinger’s work, but even then, it might be best to keep it to PM.
 
My apologies if you found the term offensive or “blatantly disrespectful”, I wouldn’t wish to cause anyone any discomfort. However these are groups of faithful who have decided to pretty much erect their own hierarchy directly in opposition to the current hierachy and pope, so I believe it is a justified characterization.

Anyhow - banned topic so I shall zip it!

PS. I do pray for them, I really wish for their return to the church, as there are so many pious souls among them who could help at this time.

[SIGN]God Bless[/SIGN]
 
oratorymatt said:
My apologies if you found the term offensive or “blatantly disrespectful”, I wouldn’t wish to cause anyone any discomfort. However these are groups of faithful who have decided to pretty much erect their own hierarchy directly in opposition to the current hierachy and pope, so I believe it is a justified characterization.

Anyhow - banned topic so I shall zip it!

PS. I do pray for them, I really wish for their return to the church, as there are so many pious souls among them who could help at this time.

[SIGN]God Bless[/SIGN]
Click to expand...
It’s not that simple, but alas, it’s a banned topic. Just know that no one would go to such extreme measures if they didn’t have zeal for the Catholic Faith.

God bless!
 
You’re right, I agree it’s not that simple, but I genuinely believe people need to bear with Peter.
 
Is the Syllabus of Errors considered Catholic Dogma? Is it an infallible pronouncement from the Church? Can it be amended?
 
jeff417 said:
Is the Syllabus of Errors considered Catholic Dogma? Is it an infallible pronouncement from the Church? Can it be amended?
Click to expand...
As I quoted at some length here, the view expressed by Bl. Cardinal Newman is that it obviously is not dogmatic, and “is to be received from the Pope by an act of obedience, not of faith.”
 
Why would this be a banned topic? Talk all day about your love for VII and the spirit unleashed by the council but do not dare bring up controversial independents? Such dangerous discussions are beneficial to the faith. Where else would one be able to find out information on such groups without the biased opinions presented by the presenters themselves? If the topic gets too offensive then the moderators could simply intervene.
 
Incidently, my intention in the OP was not to discuss Sedevacantism, but rather, the level of authority of the Syllabus. I am sorry if this was not clear. My discussion with a sede. is simply grounds for the question, thanx.
 
Morgan_Hiver said:
Why would this be a banned topic? Talk all day about your love for VII and the spirit unleashed by the council but do not dare bring up controversial independents? Such dangerous discussions are beneficial to the faith. Where else would one be able to find out information on such groups without the biased opinions presented by the presenters themselves? If the topic gets too offensive then the moderators could simply intervene.
Click to expand...
Second that! Hiding ones head in the sand only leads to getting shot in the buttocks.
 
MarkThompson said:
As I quoted at some length here, the view expressed by Bl. Cardinal Newman is that it obviously is not dogmatic, and “is to be received from the Pope by an act of obedience, not of faith.”
Click to expand...
That is of course merely his opinion and nothing more. Am I correct in that? Merely his opinion?
 
Bigcat71 said:
That is of course merely his opinion and nothing more. Am I correct in that? Merely his opinion?
Click to expand...
Well, yes and no. It’s not “merely his opinion” in the sense of “If you didn’t like Avatar, hey, I guess you’re entitled to your opinion.” It’s the reasoned view and argument expressed by a cardinal (and beatus) of the Church. Did you have any comments about his reasoning?
 
Danquayle76 said:
You should point out the following errors to him:
  1. “Roman pontiffs and ecumenical councils have wandered outside the limits of their powers, have usurped the rights of princes, and have even erred in defining matters of faith and morals.”
Click to expand...
This in itself is a perfect rejoinder. This is what the OP’s friend is asserting.
 
=jeff417;8042828]by the way, my counterpart specifically mentions points 15-18 in the syllabus…
papalencyclicals.net/Pius09/p9syll.htm
Click to expand...
I researched these.

I was able to find 'Dammatio Multiplicis at

http://www.papalencycliclicalsine/Pius09/p9interm.htm

I read it twice and could not find this attributed quotation in it.

And could not find the complete text of – Encyclical Noscitis, Dec. 8, 1849.

#15 is either true or darn close to it. What is missing is ones GRAVE Mral obligation to HAVE a correctly informed conscience.

#18 is FALSE

God Bless,
Pat
 
jeff417 said:
I am in a discussion with a Sedevacantist. His latest assault includes a copy of the Syllabus of Errors of St.Pius IX. Is this document considered Catholic Dogma? ** Also, does any of Cardinal Ratzinger’s writings (specifically Principles of Catholic Theology) contradict this syllabus?** I intend to do further research myself, but would like to hear what you guys can add to the discussion. Thanx.
Click to expand...
At_Trent said:
See post # 5
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=486782

sedevacantism is a banned topic
Click to expand...
I may be wrong and will gladly be corrected but just because he mentions talking to a Sedevacantist doesn’t make it the topic.
The topic I believe is Syllabus of Errors.
The error I see is that it isn’t the Syllabus of Errors OF ST. PIUS IX but the Syllabus of Errors CONDEMNED BY PIUS IX.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top