Syllabus of Errors Condemned by Pius IX

Had a few questions about the following errors condemned by Pius IX (was the syllabus an infallible document?). My main question for each of the statements cited below: Does the Church still maintain that these are errors and act/teach in defiance of these attitudes?

*55. The Church ought to be separated from the .State, and the State from the Church. – Allocution “Acerbissimum,” Sept. 27, 1852. *

Does the Church still try to be directly intertwined with any governments?

*48. Catholics may approve of the system of educating youth unconnected with Catholic faith and the power of the Church, and which regards the knowledge of merely natural things, and only, or at least primarily, the ends of earthly social life. – Ibid. *

Why don’t we hear more preaching against public education?

*24. The Church has not the power of using force, nor has she any temporal power, direct or indirect. – Apostolic Letter “Ad Apostolicae,” Aug. 22, 1851. *

Since the Church exercises so little direct temporal power in today’s society, and no force that I know of, does that mean we believe its no longer necessary to do so, or that the Church doesn’t have this power?

[quote=CollegeKid]Had a few questions about the following errors condemned by Pius IX (was the syllabus an infallible document?). My main question for each of the statements cited below: Does the Church still maintain that these are errors and act/teach in defiance of these attitudes?

*55. The Church ought to be separated from the .State, and the State from the Church. – Allocution “Acerbissimum,” Sept. 27, 1852. *

Does the Church still try to be directly intertwined with any governments?

*48. Catholics may approve of the system of educating youth unconnected with Catholic faith and the power of the Church, and which regards the knowledge of merely natural things, and only, or at least primarily, the ends of earthly social life. – Ibid. *

Why don’t we hear more preaching against public education?

*24. The Church has not the power of using force, nor has she any temporal power, direct or indirect. – Apostolic Letter “Ad Apostolicae,” Aug. 22, 1851. *

Since the Church exercises so little direct temporal power in today’s society, and no force that I know of, does that mean we believe its no longer necessary to do so, or that the Church doesn’t have this power?
[/quote]

The Syllabus of Errors was not a Magisterial document. It required submission by virture of it being Papal instruction, but these various items were not by any means irreformable. This article may help: matt1618.freeyellow.com/syllabus.html. What it amounts to is that these were errors condemned by Pius IX, but all he did was condemn them without giving any plan of action to help with them. Since then, the Church has been more active in formulating methods of dealing with these errors. Sometimes, these methods are misconstrued by traditionalist Catholics as contradicting the Syllabus. Even if they did, this would not matter, because the Syllabus was not irreformable. However, what is more the case is that the Church now tends to praise those aspects of truth which are contained in the views of those who erroneously hold these errors, because it is a lot easier to dialogue with someone on their errors when we first help them to see their truths.

Thanks, good article.

[quote=Lazerlike42]The Syllabus of Errors was not a Magisterial document. It required submission by virture of it being Papal instruction, but these various items were not by any means irreformable.
[/quote]

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.

[quote=USMC]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.
[/quote]

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.

[quote=CollegeKid]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.
[/quote]

No it doesn’t. He is right that the Syllabus has Magisterial force. I checked that article after reading his post, and it makes perfect sense of the three questions you posed.

“The only two *ex-cathedra *pronouncements in 2,000 years have been the dogmas of the Immaculate Conception (1854) and the Assumption (1950).” Catholicism for Dummies; Rev. John Trigilio Jr., PhD, ThD and Rev. Kenneth Brighenti, Phd

Not trying to be a “wise-guy”, just trying to help out.

[quote=banjo]“The only two *ex-cathedra *pronouncements in 2,000 years have been the dogmas of the Immaculate Conception (1854) and the Assumption (1950).” Catholicism for Dummies; Rev. John Trigilio Jr., PhD, ThD and Rev. Kenneth Brighenti, Phd

Not trying to be a “wise-guy”, just trying to help out.
[/quote]

This is the definition of the term ex-Cathedra, from the Catholic encyclopedia:

*"Literally “from the chair”, a theological term which signifies authoritative teaching and is more particularly applied to the definitions given by the Roman pontiff. Originally the name of the seat occupied by a professor or a bishop, cathedra was used later on to denote the magisterium, or teaching authority. The phrase ex cathedra occurs in the writings of the medieval theologians, and more frequently in the discussions which arose after the Reformation in regard to the papal prerogatives. But its present meaning was formally determined by the Vatican Council, Sess. IV, Const. de Ecclesiâ Christi, c. iv: “We teach and define that it is a dogma Divinely revealed that the Roman pontiff when he speaks ex cathedra, that is when in discharge of the office of pastor and doctor of all Christians, by virtue of his supreme Apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine regarding faith or morals to be held by the universal Church, by the Divine assistance promised to him in Blessed Peter, is possessed of that infallibility with which the Divine Redeemer willed that his Church should be endowed in defining doctrine regarding faith or morals, and that therefore such definitions of the Roman pontiff are of themselves and not from the consent of the Church irreformable.” (See INFALLIBILITY; POPE.) * newadvent.org/cathen/05677a.htm

There have been many statements by the Popes that meet this definition.

[quote=banjo]“The only two *ex-cathedra *pronouncements in 2,000 years have been the dogmas of the Immaculate Conception (1854) and the Assumption (1950).” Catholicism for Dummies; Rev. John Trigilio Jr., PhD, ThD and Rev. Kenneth Brighenti, Phd

Not trying to be a “wise-guy”, just trying to help out.
[/quote]

Since Rev Trigilio & Brighenti are not part of the magisterium, they do not define doctrine infallibly and, therefore, the above statement is subject to error, no matter how holy/saintly they may be or how many letters they may have after their names. 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

[font=Times New Roman][size=3]15: Every man is free to adopt and profess any religion which, under the guidance of reason, he believes to be true.

37: It is lawful to establish National Churches that are not subject to the authority of the Roman Pontiff and are, in fact, entrely separated.

54: Kings and princes are not only exempt from the jurisdiction of the Church but in deciding questions of jurisdiction they are above the Church.

55: The Church must be separated from the State and the State from the Church.

77: In our age it is no longer expedient to have the Catholic faith as the only religion of the State, to the exclusion of all others.

78: Hence it is rightly provided by law in certain nominally Catholic countries that men who migrate to them shall be allowed the public practice of the religion of each.

79: For it is false to say that the civil liberty of all cults and the concession of full power to men to discuss in public any sort of opinion and ideas leads to the corruption of the minds and morals of the people and the spread of the pest of indifferentism.

  1. The Roman Pontiff can, and ought to, reconcile himself, and come to terms with progress, liberalism and modern civilization.

[/size][/font]

So Catholics must oppose freedom of religion, hold that governments are subject to the Catholic Church, and cannot deny that that freedom of expression is a public evil?

As a non-Catholic, this is very disturbing. Is it only weakness and/or a lack of faith that prevents Catholics from actively opposing civil liberties in the US? Why shouldn’t non-Catholics like me fear sincere Catholics in power?

That’s not… quite right, no. I would recommend reading the link I posted below (post #2) I believe; it may help you to understand much better. :slight_smile:

What I wonder is how can this not weaken your faith in present Church documents. That was once an authoritative document, now the Church no longer enforces it.

What makes you think that present documents will be enforced in the next century?

[quote=svoboda]What I wonder is how can this not weaken your faith in present Church documents. That was once an authoritative document, now the Church no longer enforces it.

What makes you think that present documents will be enforced in the next century?
[/quote]

It is not true that it is not enforced. Read the link below.

[quote=Lazerlike42]It is not true that it is not enforced. Read the link below.
[/quote]

Hmm? What link? Sorry.

[quote=svoboda]Hmm? What link? Sorry.
[/quote]

matt1618.freeyellow.com/syllabus.html

[quote=JOE OBERR]Since Rev Trigilio & Brighenti are not part of the magisterium, they do not define doctrine infallibly and, therefore, the above statement is subject to error, no matter how holy/saintly they may be or how many letters they may have after their names.
[/quote]

This book does have an Imprimatur and Nihil Obstat (or whatever), so how can they be in error? :confused:

[quote=JSmitty2005]This book does have an Imprimatur and Nihil Obstat (or whatever), so how can they be in error? :confused:
[/quote]

A) Imprimaturs and Nihil Obstat are only as infallible as the men issuing them (who are not infallible :wink: )

B) The Imprimatur and Nihil Obstat only mean that a book is free from doctrinal error. The number of ex cathedra statements made is not a matter of doctrine.

C) There is often disagreement over what is an infallible statement or not. Depending on how one reads the Magisterium, it is possible to conclude that there have been only 2 pronouncements, or to conclude alternatively that even something like the Catechism is infallible. Hopefully the Magisterium will clear this up at some point soon. Fortunately, it doesn’t realy matter - we must submit and give our assent to all Magisterial teaching, regardless of its infallibility.

[quote=Lazerlike42]we must submit and give our assent to all Magisterial teaching, regardless of its infallibility.
[/quote]

Which would include the Syllabus of Errors, correct? Because it seems as though we’re plagued by the things condemned therein.

[quote=JSmitty2005]Which would include the Syllabus of Errors, correct? Because it seems as though we’re plagued by the things condemned therein.
[/quote]

I would agree, but also point out that I think people read into that document a great deal. The article I posted does several things. First, it proves that there are really very, very few things in Vatican II which could even be construed to contradict it, and shows that the alleged contradictions result only from people reading too much into the Syllabus or misrepresenting VII. It also helps to point of what some of the points of the Syllabus actually say so as to help us to take only out of it what it says, and not more, as people so often are inclined to do with any document. It also points out something very important: These errors are often out of the control of Catholics. In other words, we often must live with these errors while we work to put ourselves in a position whereby we are not bound by governments or whatnot which uphold them. The Syllabus only condemns the errors; it does not provide a solution to them. Ratzinger called GS a countersyllabus because is frequently addresses the same errors as the Syllabus, but instead of condemning them, provides a framework around which to deal with them. In other words, the Syllabus lists the problems, whereas GS attempts to provide solutions.

[quote=Lazerlike42]I would agree, but also point out that I think people read into that document a great deal. The article I posted does several things. First, it proves that there are really very, very few things in Vatican II which could even be construed to contradict it, and shows that the alleged contradictions result only from people reading too much into the Syllabus or misrepresenting VII. It also helps to point of what some of the points of the Syllabus actually say so as to help us to take only out of it what it says, and not more, as people so often are inclined to do with any document. It also points out something very important: These errors are often out of the control of Catholics. In other words, we often must live with these errors while we work to put ourselves in a position whereby we are not bound by governments or whatnot which uphold them. The Syllabus only condemns the errors; it does not provide a solution to them. Ratzinger called GS a countersyllabus because is frequently addresses the same errors as the Syllabus, but instead of condemning them, provides a framework around which to deal with them. In other words, the Syllabus lists the problems, whereas GS attempts to provide solutions.
[/quote]

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.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.