Syllabus of Errors

  • Thread starter Thread starter FireFromHeaven
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
F

FireFromHeaven

Guest
I was reading an essay on the recent Hobby Lobby decision. The author quoted a part of the Syllabus of Errors that worried me somewhat. Here is the quoted text.
  1. Every man is free to embrace and profess that religion which, guided by the light of reason, he shall consider true. – Allocution “Maxima quidem,” June 9, 1862; Damnatio “Multiplices inter,” June 10, 1851.
  2. Man may, in the observance of any religion whatever, find the way of eternal salvation, and arrive at eternal salvation. – Encyclical “Qui pluribus,” Nov. 9, 1846.
  3. Good hope at least is to be entertained of the eternal salvation of all those who are not at all in the true Church of Christ. – Encyclical “Quanto conficiamur,” Aug. 10, 1863, etc.
Aren’t some of these ideas that the syllabus condemns taught among catholic circles? Is the Syllabus an authoritative document?
 
Freedom of religion is one of the things the Church condemned up until Vatican 2 where she made a 180 degree turn on the issue.

The last proposition, could be referring to Universalism, meaning that nobody really goes to hell, which is still heresy.
 
Sedevacantists often use the Syllabus to attempt to refute Vatican II. But Vatican II does not endorse universalism or religious relativism. It merely says that no person can be coerced into believing a religion, Catholicism included. The state has a duty to uphold Catholicism as the one true religion.

Let me put Vatican II’s position this way: we cannot do to non-Catholics what Diocletian and Henry VIII did to Catholics. People don’t have a “right to be wrong” (as all rights come from God), but they do have the right to not be killed or marginalized for being wrong. They must embrace the Catholic faith of their own accord.
 
Freedom of religion is one of the things the Church condemned up until Vatican 2 where she made a 180 degree turn on the issue.

The last proposition, could be referring to Universalism, meaning that nobody really goes to hell, which is still heresy.
It truly would help if you would actually read a document instead of repeating the falsehoods which have been said about it. I suggest you read the document, and then reference the next post after yours (# 4).
 
There are a couple of key things to remember on the issue of “religious freedom.” First, no man has a right to error. Which means a man cannot adopt something he knowingly deems to be a falsity, which includes false religions. Even if a man has a doubt as to what he is doing could be wrong and he ignores this doubt, imputes a moral responsibility to investigate for the truth. However all men are expected by God to follow their conscience. Which means they have a moral obligation to follow what they truly believe to be right action. This includes the action of worship. This teaching not only deals with religious coercion, but deals with a man’s right and obligation to follow one’s conscience.

This does not mean that a man is not obligated to inform his conscience, which is often the case nowadays where everyone thinks one opinion or religion is as good as another. Anyone in the Church making such statements would be in error. With all of this being said, it is the expectation of the Body of Christ, the Church, to inform everyone of the truth so that they may follow the truth in good conscience. It is also true that the state should implement laws promoting the Catholic Church and its moral teaching, at least in an ideal situation. The teaching on man’s obligation to follow one’s conscience is not an invention of Vatican II. It is in all of the old scholastic manuals. What we have lost in the Church today is our effectiveness to communicate the truth of the Gospel to enlighten those who are darkened by their fallen natures.
 
As has been mentioned, you have to go to the original documents. These deal with religious indifferentism. #15 deals with those who said faith was unnecessary and not obligatory, and reason alone should govern religious decisions. On the contrary, faith is necessary (see the Catechism pars. 161, 2104, 2105, 2087, etc., etc. ).

Continued…
 
continued…

St. John Paul II explained how the idea that those not explicitly Catholic at the moment may indeed be saved–he rules out both the errors in 16 and 17, by noting how such individuals are brought to faith and are not severed from the Church:
St. John Paul II:
However, as I wrote in the Encyclical Redemptoris Missio, the gift of salvation cannot be limited “to those who explicitly believe in Christ and have entered the Church. Since salvation is offered to all, it must be made concretely available to all.” And, in admitting that it is concretely impossible for many people to have access to the Gospel message, I added: “Many people do not have the opportunity to come to know or accept the Gospel revelation or to enter the Church. The social and cultural conditions in which they live do not permit this, and frequently they have been brought up in other religious traditions” (RM 10).

We must acknowledge that, as far as human beings can know and foresee, this practical impossibility would seem destined to last a long time, perhaps until the work of evangelization is finally completed. Jesus himself warned that only the Father knows “the exact time” set by him for the establishment of his kingdom in the world (cf. Acts 1:7).

What I have said above, however, does not justify the relativistic position of those who maintain that a way of salvation can be found in any religion, even independently of faith in Christ the Redeemer, and that interreligious dialogue must be based on this ambiguous idea. That solution to the problem of the salvation of those who do not profess the Christian creed is not in conformity with the Gospel. Rather, we must maintain that the way of salvation always passes through Christ, and therefore the Church and her missionaries have the task of making him known and loved in every time, place and culture. Apart from Christ “there is no salvation.” As Peter proclaimed before the Sanhedrin at the very start of the apostolic preaching: “There is no other name in the whole world given to men by which we are to be saved” (Acts 4:12).

For those too who through no fault of their own do not know Christ and are not recognized as Christians, the divine plan has provided a way of salvation. As we read in the Council’s Decree Ad Gentes, we believe that “God in ways known to himself can lead those inculpably ignorant of the Gospel” to the faith necessary for salvation (AG 7). Certainly, the condition “inculpably ignorant” cannot be verified nor weighed by human evaluation, but must be left to the divine judgment alone. For this reason, the Council states in the Constitution Gaudium et Spes that in the heart of every man of good will, “Grace works in an unseen way… The Holy Spirit in a manner known only to God offers to every man the possibility of being associated with this paschal mystery” (GS 22).

It is important to stress that the way of salvation taken by those who do not know the Gospel is not a way apart from Christ and the Church. The universal salvific will is linked to the one mediation of Christ. “God our Savior…wants all men to be saved and come to know the truth. And the truth is this: God is one. One also is the mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, who gave himself as a ransom for all” (1 Tim 2:3-6). Peter proclaimed this when he said: “There is no salvation in anyone else” and called Jesus the “cornerstone” (Acts 4:11-12), emphasizing Christ’s necessary role at the basis of the Church.

This affirmation of the Savior’s “uniqueness” derives from the Lord’s own words. He stated that he came “to give his own life in ransom for the many” (Mk 10:45), that is, for humanity, as St. Paul explains when he writes: “One died for all” (2 Cor 5:14; cf. Rom 5:18). Christ won universal salvation with the gift of his own life. No other mediator has been established by God as Savior. The unique value of the sacrifice of the cross must always be acknowledged in the destiny of every man.

Since Christ brings about salvation through his Mystical Body, which is the Church, the way of salvation is connected essentially with the Church. The axiom extra ecclesiam nulla salus"–“outside the Church there is no salvation”–stated by St. Cyprian (Epist. 73, 21; PL 1123 AB), belongs to the Christian tradition. It was included in the Fourth Lateran Council (DS 802), in the Bull Unam Sanctam of Boniface VIII (DS 870) and the Council of Florence (Decretum pro Jacobitis, DS 1351). The axiom means that for those who are not ignorant of the fact that the Church has been established as necessary by God through Jesus Christ, there is an obligation to enter the Church and remain in her in order to attain salvation (cf. LG 14). For those, however, who have not received the Gospel proclamation, as I wrote in the Encyclical Redemptoris Missio, salvation is accessible in mysterious ways, inasmuch as divine grace is granted to them by virtue of Christ’s redeeming sacrifice, without external membership in the Church, but nonetheless always in relation to her (cf. RM 10). It is a mysterious relationship. It is mysterious for those who receive the grace, because they do not know the Church and sometimes even outwardly reject her. It is also mysterious in itself, because it is linked to the saving mystery of grace, which includes an essential reference to the Church the Savior founded.

In order to take effect, saving grace requires acceptance, cooperation, a yes to the divine gift. This acceptance is, at least implicitly, oriented to Christ and the Church. Thus it can also be said that sine ecclesia nulla salus–“without the Church there is no salvation.” Belonging to the Church, the Mystical Body of Christ, however implicitly and indeed mysteriously, is an essential condition for salvation.
vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/audiences/alpha/data/aud19950531en.html
 
Freedom of religion is one of the things the Church condemned up until Vatican 2 where she made a 180 degree turn on the issue.
Not really. It needs to be understood what was actually being condemned in the 19th century and what is actually being promoted in the 20th by the Church.

In the 19th century, the Pope intervened on this issue as the Church was concerned with two things being promoted. One was the idea that reason trumped faith and therefore faith had no binding force on conscience. Man was therefore free before God and Church to believe whatever he decided to simply be most reasonable. This is false and is religious indifferentism, as the true doctrine is man has a duty to embrace and follow the true religion. Man does not have a right before God to commit any sin, or to profess a false religion (cf. CCC 2104, 2108).

Second, as a fruit of this erroneous thought, some argued that the state could not put any limits whatsoever on any activity deemed religions. They argued man had a a right to an absolute freedom to do whatever he deemed acceptable. This was called “insanity” because it would lead to the destruction of any well-ordered society and could be used to justify all sorts of terrible things.

These things were condemned and still are. The other side of this erroneous coin cropped up with the Communist states that did the opposite–they restricted all religious activity for no good reason.

The Catholic doctrine on religious liberty is more balanced. The Church has always acknowledged that man has a duty to believe and act according to the true religion, but that such faith must be a matter of free and uncoerced determination, otherwise it is not true faith. In addition, the state has a duty to protect the common good and defend the natural law. Where false religious activity harms these things, the state may intervene (cf. CCC 2109).

The Catholic doctrine on religious liberty can therefore be summed up like this: man has the right to be free from coercion by the state in religious matters, within the limits of the common good and the objective moral order. To say that this freedom must be absolute and unlimited was condemned in the 19th century and to say that the state could suppress religious activity when the common good and objective moral order was not harmed was condemned in the 20th.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top