PDA

View Full Version : The Syllabus of Errors of Pius IX


Amazing Rando
March 12th 2005, 01:41 AM
In 1864, Pope Pius IX issued a document containing 80 errors he felt that the Christian church should reject unequivocably.
Which (if any) of the following do you strongly agree must be rejected? Which (if any) did the Pope blow it on and demand rejection of a good idea?

THE SYLLABUS OF ERRORS CONDEMNED BY PIUS IX

I. PANTHEISM, NATURALISM AND ABSOLUTE RATIONALISM

1. There exists no Supreme, all-wise, all-provident Divine Being, distinct from the universe, and God is identical with the nature of things, and is, therefore, subject to changes. In effect, God is produced in man and in the world, and all things are God and have the very substance of God, and God is one and the same thing with the world, and, therefore, spirit with matter, necessity with liberty, good with evil, justice with injustice. -- Allocution "Maxima quidem," June 9, 1862.

2. All action of God upon man and the world is to be denied. -- Ibid.

3. Human reason, without any reference whatsoever to God, is the sole arbiter of truth and falsehood, and of good and evil; it is law to itself, and suffices, by its natural force, to secure the welfare of men and of nations. -- Ibid.

4. All the truths of religion proceed from the innate strength of human reason; hence reason is the ultimate standard by which man can and ought to arrive at the knowledge of all truths of every kind. -- Ibid. and Encyclical "Qui pluribus," Nov. 9, 1846, etc.

5. Divine revelation is imperfect, and therefore subject to a continual and indefinite progress, corresponding with the advancement of human reason. -- Ibid.

6. The faith of Christ is in opposition to human reason and divine revelation not only is not useful, but is even hurtful to the perfection of man. -- Ibid.

7. The prophecies and miracles set forth and recorded in the Sacred Scriptures are the fiction of poets, and the mysteries of the Christian faith the result of philosophical investigations. In the books of the Old and the New Testament there are contained mythical inventions, and Jesus Christ is Himself a myth.

II. MODERATE RATIONALISM

8. As human reason is placed on a level with religion itself, so theological must be treated in the same manner as philosophical sciences. -- Allocution "Singulari quadam," Dec. 9, 1854.

9. All the dogmas of the Christian religion are indiscriminately the object of natural science or philosophy, and human reason, enlightened solely in an historical way, is able, by its own natural strength and principles, to attain to the true science of even the most abstruse dogmas; provided only that such dogmas be proposed to reason itself as its object. -- Letters to the Archbishop of Munich, "Gravissimas inter," Dec. 11, 1862, and "Tuas libenter," Dec. 21, 1863.

10. As the philosopher is one thing, and philosophy another, so it is the right and duty of the philosopher to subject himself to the authority which he shall have proved to be true; but philosophy neither can nor ought to submit to any such authority. -- Ibid., Dec. 11, 1862.

11. The Church not only ought never to pass judgment on philosophy, but ought to tolerate the errors of philosophy, leaving it to correct itself. -- Ibid., Dec. 21, 1863.

12. The decrees of the Apostolic See and of the Roman congregations impede the true progress of science. -- Ibid.

13. The method and principles by which the old scholastic doctors cultivated theology are no longer suitable to the demands of our times and to the progress of the sciences. -- Ibid.

14. Philosophy is to be treated without taking any account of supernatural revelation. -- Ibid.

III. INDIFFERENTISM, LATITUDINARIANISM

15. 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.

16. 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.

17. 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.

18. Protestantism is nothing more than another form of the same true Christian religion, in which form it is given to please God equally as in the Catholic Church. -- Encyclical "Noscitis," Dec. 8, 1849.

IV. SOCIALISM, COMMUNISM, SECRET SOCIETIES, BIBLICAL SOCIETIES, CLERICO-LIBERAL SOCIETIES

Pests of this kind are frequently reprobated in the severest terms in the Encyclical "Qui pluribus," Nov. 9, 1846, Allocution "Quibus quantisque," April 20, 1849, Encyclical "Noscitis et nobiscum," Dec. 8, 1849, Allocution "Singulari quadam," Dec. 9, 1854, Encyclical "Quanto conficiamur," Aug. 10, 1863.

V. ERRORS CONCERNING THE CHURCH AND HER RIGHTS

19. The Church is not a true and perfect society, entirely free- nor is she endowed with proper and perpetual rights of her own, conferred upon her by her Divine Founder; but it appertains to the civil power to define what are the rights of the Church, and the limits within which she may exercise those rights. -- Allocution "Singulari quadam," Dec. 9, 1854, etc.

20. The ecclesiastical power ought not to exercise its authority without the permission and assent of the civil government. -- Allocution "Meminit unusquisque," Sept. 30, 1861.

21. The Church has not the power of defining dogmatically that the religion of the Catholic Church is the only true religion. -- Damnatio "Multiplices inter," June 10, 1851.

22. The obligation by which Catholic teachers and authors are strictly bound is confined to those things only which are proposed to universal belief as dogmas of faith by the infallible judgment of the Church. -- Letter to the Archbishop of Munich, "Tuas libenter," Dec. 21, 1863.

23. 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. -- Damnatio "Multiplices inter," June 10, 1851.

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.

25. Besides the power inherent in the episcopate, other temporal power has been attributed to it by the civil authority granted either explicitly or tacitly, which on that account is revocable by the civil authority whenever it thinks fit. -- Ibid.

26. The Church has no innate and legitimate right of acquiring and possessing property. -- Allocution "Nunquam fore," Dec. 15, 1856; Encyclical "Incredibili," Sept. 7, 1863.

27. The sacred ministers of the Church and the Roman pontiff are to be absolutely excluded from every charge and dominion over temporal affairs. -- Allocution "Maxima quidem," June 9, 1862.

28. It is not lawful for bishops to publish even letters Apostolic without the permission of Government. -- Allocution "Nunquam fore," Dec. 15, 1856.

29. Favours granted by the Roman pontiff ought to be considered null, unless they have been sought for through the civil government. -- Ibid.

30. The immunity of the Church and of ecclesiastical persons derived its origin from civil law. -- Damnatio "Multiplices inter," June 10, 1851.

31. The ecclesiastical forum or tribunal for the temporal causes, whether civil or criminal, of clerics, ought by all means to be abolished, even without consulting and against the protest of the Holy See. -- Allocution "Nunquam fore," Dec. 15, 1856; Allocution "Acerbissimum," Sept. 27, 1852.

32. The personal immunity by which clerics are exonerated from military conscription and service in the army may be abolished without violation either of natural right or equity. Its abolition is called for by civil progress, especially in a society framed on the model of a liberal government. -- Letter to the Bishop of Monreale "Singularis nobisque," Sept. 29, 1864.

33. It does not appertain exclusively to the power of ecclesiastical jurisdiction by right, proper and innate, to direct the teaching of theological questions. -- Letter to the Archbishop of Munich, "Tuas libenter," Dec. 21, 1863.

34. The teaching of those who compare the Sovereign Pontiff to a prince, free and acting in the universal Church, is a doctrine which prevailed in the Middle Ages. -- Apostolic Letter "Ad Apostolicae," Aug. 22, 1851.

35. 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. -- Ibid.

36. The definition of a national council does not admit of any subsequent discussion, and the civil authority car assume this principle as the basis of its acts. -- Ibid.

37. National churches, withdrawn from the authority of the Roman pontiff and altogether separated, can be established. -- Allocution "Multis gravibusque," Dec. 17, 1860.

38. The Roman pontiffs have, by their too arbitrary conduct, contributed to the division of the Church into Eastern and Western. -- Apostolic Letter "Ad Apostolicae," Aug. 22, 1851.

VI. ERRORS ABOUT CIVIL SOCIETY, CONSIDERED BOTH IN ITSELF AND IN ITS RELATION TO THE CHURCH

39. The State, as being the origin and source of all rights, is endowed with a certain right not circumscribed by any limits. -- Allocution "Maxima quidem," June 9, 1862.

40. The teaching of the Catholic Church is hostile to the well- being and interests of society. -- Encyclical "Qui pluribus," Nov. 9, 1846; Allocution "Quibus quantisque," April 20, 1849.

41. The civil government, even when in the hands of an infidel sovereign, has a right to an indirect negative power over religious affairs. It therefore possesses not only the right called that of "exsequatur," but also that of appeal, called "appellatio ab abusu." -- Apostolic Letter "Ad Apostolicae," Aug. 22, 1851

42. In the case of conflicting laws enacted by the two powers, the civil law prevails. -- Ibid.

43. The secular Dower has authority to rescind, declare and render null, solemn conventions, commonly called concordats, entered into with the Apostolic See, regarding the use of rights appertaining to ecclesiastical immunity, without the consent of the Apostolic See, and even in spite of its protest. -- Allocution "Multis gravibusque," Dec. 17, 1860; Allocution "In consistoriali," Nov. 1, 1850.

44. The civil authority may interfere in matters relating to religion, morality and spiritual government: hence, it can pass judgment on the instructions issued for the guidance of consciences, conformably with their mission, by the pastors of the Church. Further, it has the right to make enactments regarding the administration of the divine sacraments, and the dispositions necessary for receiving them. -- Allocutions "In consistoriali," Nov. 1, 1850, and "Maxima quidem," June 9, 1862.

45. The entire government of public schools in which the youth- of a Christian state is educated, except (to a certain extent) in the case of episcopal seminaries, may and ought to appertain to the civil power, and belong to it so far that no other authority whatsoever shall be recognized as having any right to interfere in the discipline of the schools, the arrangement of the studies, the conferring of degrees, in the choice or approval of the teachers. -- Allocutions "Quibus luctuosissimis," Sept. 5, 1851, and "In consistoriali," Nov. 1, 1850.

46. Moreover, even in ecclesiastical seminaries, the method of studies to be adopted is subject to the civil authority. -- Allocution "Nunquam fore," Dec. 15, 1856.

47. The best theory of civil society requires that popular schools open to children of every class of the people, and, generally, all public institutes intended for instruction in letters and philosophical sciences and for carrying on the education of youth, should be freed from all ecclesiastical authority, control and interference, and should be fully subjected to the civil and political power at the pleasure of the rulers, and according to the standard of the prevalent opinions of the age. -- Epistle to the Archbishop of Freiburg, "Cum non sine," July 14, 1864.

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.

49. The civil power may prevent the prelates of the Church and the faithful from communicating freely and mutually with the Roman pontiff. -- Allocution "Maxima quidem," June 9, 1862.

50. Lay authority possesses of itself the right of presenting bishops, and may require of them to undertake the administration of the diocese before they receive canonical institution, and the Letters Apostolic from the Holy See. -- Allocution "Nunquam fore," Dec. 15, 1856.

51. And, further, the lay government has the right of deposing bishops from their pastoral functions, and is not bound to obey the Roman pontiff in those things which relate to the institution of bishoprics and the appointment of bishops. -- Allocution "Acerbissimum," Sept. 27, 1852, Damnatio "Multiplices inter," June 10, 1851.

52. Government can, by its own right, alter the age prescribed by the Church for the religious profession of women and men; and may require of all religious orders to admit no person to take solemn vows without its permission. -- Allocution "Nunquam fore," Dec. 15, 1856.

53. The laws enacted for the protection of religious orders and regarding their rights and duties ought to be abolished; nay, more, civil Government may lend its assistance to all who desire to renounce the obligation which they have undertaken of a religious life, and to break their vows. Government may also suppress the said religious orders, as likewise collegiate churches and simple benefices, even those of advowson and subject their property and revenues to the administration and pleasure of the civil power. -- Allocutions "Acerbissimum," Sept. 27, 1852; "Probe memineritis," Jan. 22, 1855; "Cum saepe," July 26, 1855.

54. Kings and princes are not only exempt from the jurisdiction of the Church, but are superior to the Church in deciding questions of jurisdiction. -- Damnatio "Multiplices inter," June 10, 1851.

55. The Church ought to be separated from the .State, and the State from the Church. -- Allocution "Acerbissimum," Sept. 27, 1852.

VII. ERRORS CONCERNING NATURAL AND CHRISTIAN ETHICS

56. Moral laws do not stand in need of the divine sanction, and it is not at all necessary that human laws should be made conformable to the laws of nature and receive their power of binding from God. -- Allocution "Maxima quidem," June 9, 1862.

57. The science of philosophical things and morals and also civil laws may and ought to keep aloof from divine and ecclesiastical authority. -- Ibid.

58. No other forces are to be recognized except those which reside in matter, and all the rectitude and excellence of morality ought to be placed in the accumulation and increase of riches by every possible means, and the gratification of pleasure. -- Ibid.; Encyclical "Quanto conficiamur," Aug. 10, 1863.

59. Right consists in the material fact. All human duties are an empty word, and all human facts have the force of right. -- Allocution "Maxima quidem," June 9, 1862.

60. Authority is nothing else but numbers and the sum total of material forces. -- Ibid.

61. The injustice of an act when successful inflicts no injury on the sanctity of right. -- Allocution "Jamdudum cernimus," March 18, 1861.

62. The principle of non-intervention, as it is called, ought to be proclaimed and observed. -- Allocution "Novos et ante," Sept. 28, 1860.

63. It is lawful to refuse obedience to legitimate princes, and even to rebel against them. -- Encyclical "Qui pluribus," Nov. 9, 1864; Allocution "Quibusque vestrum," Oct. 4, 1847; "Noscitis et Nobiscum," Dec. 8, 1849; Apostolic Letter "Cum Catholica."

64. The violation of any solemn oath, as well as any wicked and flagitious action repugnant to the eternal law, is not only not blamable but is altogether lawful and worthy of the highest praise when done through love of country. -- Allocution "Quibus quantisque," April 20, 1849.

VIII. ERRORS CONCERNING CHRISTIAN MARRIAGE

65. The doctrine that Christ has raised marriage to the dignity of a sacrament cannot be at all tolerated. -- Apostolic Letter "Ad Apostolicae," Aug. 22, 1851.

66. The Sacrament of Marriage is only a something accessory to the contract and separate from it, and the sacrament itself consists in the nuptial benediction alone. -- Ibid.

67. By the law of nature, the marriage tie is not indissoluble, and in many cases divorce properly so called may be decreed by the civil authority. -- Ibid.; Allocution "Acerbissimum," Sept. 27, 1852.

68. The Church has not the power of establishing diriment impediments of marriage, but such a power belongs to the civil authority by which existing impediments are to be removed. -- Damnatio "Multiplices inter," June 10, 1851.

69. In the dark ages the Church began to establish diriment impediments, not by her own right, but by using a power borrowed from the State. -- Apostolic Letter "Ad Apostolicae," Aug. 22, 1851.

70. The canons of the Council of Trent, which anathematize those who dare to deny to the Church the right of establishing diriment impediments, either are not dogmatic or must be understood as referring to such borrowed power. -- Ibid.

71. The form of solemnizing marriage prescribed by the Council of Trent, under pain of nullity, does not bind in cases where the civil law lays down another form, and declares that when this new form is used the marriage shall be valid.

72. Boniface VIII was the first who declared that the vow of chastity taken at ordination renders marriage void. -- Ibid.

73. In force of a merely civil contract there may exist between Christians a real marriage, and it is false to say either that the marriage contract between Christians is always a sacrament, or that there is no contract if the sacrament be excluded. -- Ibid.; Letter to the King of Sardinia, Sept. 9, 1852; Allocutions "Acerbissimum," Sept. 27, 1852, "Multis gravibusque," Dec. 17, 1860.

74. Matrimonial causes and espousals belong by their nature to civil tribunals. -- Encyclical "Qui pluribus," Nov. 9 1846; Damnatio "Multiplices inter," June 10, 1851, "Ad Apostolicae," Aug. 22, 1851; Allocution "Acerbissimum," Sept. 27, 1852.

IX. ERRORS REGARDING THE CIVIL POWER OF THE SOVEREIGN PONTIFF

75. The children of the Christian and Catholic Church are divided amongst themselves about the compatibility of the temporal with the spiritual power. -- "Ad Apostolicae," Aug. 22, 1851.

76. The abolition of the temporal power of which the Apostolic See is possessed would contribute in the greatest degree to the liberty and prosperity of the Church. -- Allocutions "Quibus quantisque," April 20, 1849, "Si semper antea," May 20, 1850.

X. ERRORS HAVING REFERENCE TO MODERN LIBERALISM

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.

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.

79. Moreover, it is false that the civil liberty of every form of worship, and the full power, given to all, of overtly and publicly manifesting any opinions whatsoever and thoughts, conduce more easily to corrupt the morals and minds of the people, and to propagate the pest of indifferentism. -- Allocution "Nunquam fore," Dec. 15, 1856.

80. The Roman Pontiff can, and ought to, reconcile himself, and come to terms with progress, liberalism and modern civilization.- -Allocution "Jamdudum cernimus," March 18, 1861.

spl_cadet
March 12th 2005, 01:24 PM
They're all right :teeth:

Constantine
March 12th 2005, 11:41 PM
They're all right

I second that motion. :yes:

Jaltus
March 13th 2005, 12:51 AM
76. The abolition of the temporal power of which the Apostolic See is possessed would contribute in the greatest degree to the liberty and prosperity of the Church. -- Allocutions "Quibus quantisque," April 20, 1849, "Si semper antea," May 20, 1850.

So you guys disagree with this statement? That means you believe the pope should have temporal and earthly power.

spl_cadet
March 13th 2005, 01:13 AM
So you guys disagree with this statement? That means you believe the pope should have temporal and earthly power.

Loss of temporal power certainly didn't help the Church.

Constantine
March 13th 2005, 08:17 PM
So you guys disagree with this statement? That means you believe the pope should have temporal and earthly power.

um, yes.

We are Catholic after all. Part of the Pope's power is over Vatican city which is an independent nation.

Card carrying Papist and accessories to the anti-Christ (if you ask Jude3b).

Anoetos
March 14th 2005, 08:09 AM
But, you guys believe he should have more temporal sway, right? And how much should he have? The whole penninsula of Italy? The old boundaries of the western Roman Empire? All of Europe? Africa too? What about Asia? North and South America?

Just wondering...and appreciating your candor.

spiritmech
March 14th 2005, 09:54 AM
34. The teaching of those who compare the Sovereign Pontiff to a prince, free and acting in the universal Church, is a doctrine which prevailed in the Middle Ages. -- Apostolic Letter "Ad Apostolicae," Aug. 22, 1851.

While I agree with this one, there has been a modulation of approach. This is from the introduction to Vatican 2 documents (http://www.christusrex.org/www1/CDHN/v1.html):

1. Too often in the past, the sacramental nature of the Church has been lost to view. Some theologians used to describe the Church in terms of a perfect, independent society, often in competition with other social systems. Others preferred to see it as a complexity of legal systems, issuing laws to control man's spiritual destiny. Others, again, looked at age-old institutions, its fine buildings and palaces, the splendour of its ornaments, vestments and ceremonies, and saw in all these things evidence of triumph and victory -- "ecclesiastical triumphalism."

2. The Constitution sees the Church, not as any of those things, but as "the sacrament of union with God, the sacrament of the unity of the whole of the human race." A sacrament is a sign which brings about what it signifies. The Church is the sign of unity. Through it, Christ, its founder, shows the power and presence of God, acting upon society, upon mankind, upon the world itself; and the action is the same as Christ's action on Cavalry -- bringing mercy and pardon to men.

spl_cadet
March 14th 2005, 12:03 PM
Personally I'm not quite sure what the idea being condemned is, but I wouldn't quote Vatican II in defense of any position either. I wouldn't be surprised to see that council and its writings condemned by the next pope or his successor.

George Murphy
March 14th 2005, 01:18 PM
Personally I'm not quite sure what the idea being condemned is, but I wouldn't quote Vatican II in defense of any position either. I wouldn't be surprised to see that council and its writings condemned by the next pope or his successor.

I.e., "I don't like Vatican II so even though I purport to be a faithful Roman Catholic I can reject the statements of what that church considers an ecumenical council."

I especially like the expression, "its writings," as if the documents of the council were just some individual's opinions. (I guess whoever it was slipped them by Popes John XXIII & Paul VI while they weren't looking.)

Thanks for outing yourself.

Shalom,
George

furay
March 14th 2005, 02:53 PM
Personally I'm not quite sure what the idea being condemned is, but I wouldn't quote Vatican II in defense of any position either. I wouldn't be surprised to see that council and its writings condemned by the next pope or his successor.

Interesting...

spiritmech
March 14th 2005, 03:45 PM
Personally I'm not quite sure what the idea being condemned is, but I wouldn't quote Vatican II in defense of any position either. I wouldn't be surprised to see that council and its writings condemned by the next pope or his successor.

I'm not sure why. Obviously Vatican 2 has been confusing, but I'm not so sure that's the fault of the texts of Vatican 2.

SM

Amazing Rando
March 14th 2005, 03:45 PM
55. The Church ought to be separated from the .State, and the State from the Church.

This one really irks me. The marriage of church and state under Constantine and his successors was one of the worst things that could ever happen to the church. We're still feeling its effects today, even after 1700 years.

Rusty T
March 14th 2005, 03:57 PM
This one really irks me. The marriage of church and state under Constantine and his successors was one of the worst things that could ever happen to the church. We're still feeling its effects today, even after 1700 years.

Well, I wouldn't go that far. The Byzantine Empire, while not perfect had many great things about it - not the least of which was the occasional pious Emperor who reigned over men's bodies, along with godly heirarchs who governed men's souls. There were times when this close relationship was perhaps taken too far, but I honestly do not mind the idea of a Christian nation in every sense of the word.

rusty

Amazing Rando
March 14th 2005, 04:13 PM
Well, I wouldn't go that far. The Byzantine Empire, while not perfect had many great things about it - not the least of which was the occasional pious Emperor who reigned over men's bodies, along with godly heirarchs who governed men's souls. There were times when this close relationship was perhaps taken too far, but I honestly do not mind the idea of a Christian nation in every sense of the word.

rusty

I hear ya rusty. That part I bolded, however, reminds me of a lesson we can learn from history. At a meeting with the leading clergy of his nation in the 1930's, a certain head of state told them, "You take care of their souls and let me take care of the rest, and we'll get along just fine."

That head of state I'm referring to is of course, Hitler.

I'd disagree with your notion that even a pious emperor can adequately rule over men's bodies. Colossians tells us that Jesus has "disarmed the powers and authorities... by the cross," and the confession that "Jesus is Lord" seems to me to be a very political one as well, with implications for everything in this world, not just the one to come.

I guess thinking of a "Christian nation" just seems to imply that everyone in it is a Christian- whether they want to be or not.

spl_cadet
March 14th 2005, 06:27 PM
I.e., "I don't like Vatican II so even though I purport to be a faithful Roman Catholic I can reject the statements of what that church considers an ecumenical council."

I especially like the expression, "its writings," as if the documents of the council were just some individual's opinions. (I guess whoever it was slipped them by Popes John XXIII & Paul VI while they weren't looking.)


While Vatican II was an ecumenical council, it was not a dogmatic council (which makes one wonder why it was called in the first place), and managed to make its documents so ambigious that heresy flourished, citing those documents. There were no statements of that council to reject, and I don't reject it anyhow. I said that citing VII is poor form and that I wouldn't be surprised to see the council condemned.


I'm not sure why. Obviously Vatican 2 has been confusing, but I'm not so sure that's the fault of the texts of Vatican 2.

It is. One of them (Gaudeim et Spies if I remember correctly) comes very close to contradicting the traditional teaching regarding the purpose of marriage.


This one really irks me. The marriage of church and state under Constantine and his successors was one of the worst things that could ever happen to the church. We're still feeling its effects today, even after 1700 years.


Say what? The state has a role from God, and all states are subject to the higher authority that is the Church. The only problem is that, with all human endeavours, it is imperfect.

George Murphy
March 14th 2005, 08:15 PM
While Vatican II was an ecumenical council, it was not a dogmatic council (which makes one wonder why it was called in the first place), and managed to make its documents so ambigious that heresy flourished, citing those documents. There were no statements of that council to reject, and I don't reject it anyhow. I said that citing VII is poor form and that I wouldn't be surprised to see the council condemned.

A nice use of obfuscation to criticize supposed ambiguity. The first two conciliar documents in Abbott's The Documents of Vatican II are given the English titles "Dogmatic Constitution on the Church" and "Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation."

If Vatican II was indeed an ecumenical council then it's hard to see why it's "poor form" to cite it. & instead of "I wouldn't be surprised to see it condemned" it would be more straightforward for you to say "I hope to see it condemned." (Don't hold your breath.)

& as for why the council was called - I think that attitudes like yours provide one very good reason.

Shalom,
George

Constantine
March 15th 2005, 12:50 AM
But, you guys believe he should have more temporal sway, right? And how much should he have? The whole penninsula of Italy? The old boundaries of the western Roman Empire? All of Europe? Africa too? What about Asia? North and South America?

Just wondering...and appreciating your candor.

The entire freaking planet. :wink:

The temporal power the Pope does and should have is over Vatican City. He doesn't need anymore than that to ensure the Church's independence from secular powers.

I said that citing VII is poor form and that I wouldn't be surprised to see the council condemned.

This is a little surprising. From your website:

The Second Vatican Council stated, "For since Christ died for all (Rom. 8:32) . . . we must hold that the Holy Spirit offers to all the possibility of being made partners, in a way known to God, in the paschal mystery" (Gaudium et Spes 22). This includes the young and those severely retarded.

Link: http://www.catholic-cadet.com/answers/oct02.html

Don't get me wrong, I respect you and your website.....but why the inconsistency?

spl_cadet
March 15th 2005, 01:27 AM
Don't get me wrong, I respect you and your website.....but why the inconsistency?

Because that was when I was starting to learn about the Faith. I've learned quite a bit since then. Should probably delete that section.


A nice use of obfuscation to criticize supposed ambiguity. The first two conciliar documents in Abbott's The Documents of Vatican II are given the English titles "Dogmatic Constitution on the Church" and "Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation."

Simple regurgitation of everything that had been said by prior councils and papal statements. No anathemas, no dogmatic decrees, nothing.


If Vatican II was indeed an ecumenical council then it's hard to see why it's "poor form" to cite it.

Because it made itself so ambigious that it can be cited in favor of almost any position.


& instead of "I wouldn't be surprised to see it condemned" it would be more straightforward for you to say "I hope to see it condemned." (Don't hold your breath.)

It will be condemned, given enough time.


& as for why the council was called - I think that attitudes like yours provide one very good reason.

It was called because the pope thought that was what God wanted. Vatican I had never been finished after all. But one needs only to look at the Council and resulting mayhem to know what crack Paul VI was speaking of.
"It is as if from some mysterious crack -- no, it is not mysterious -- from some crack the smoke of Satan has entered the temple of God."

{Tim}
March 15th 2005, 01:49 AM
Just quickly: the ones I disagree with to some extent (not all totally): 11, 13, 15, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 23, 24, 37, 38, 49, 55, 75, 77 & 78. Some of them are probably just quibbles, though. I also left out some that I didn't fully understand...

AcousticJS
March 15th 2005, 03:16 AM
It will be condemned, given enough time.

It was called because the pope thought that was what God wanted. Vatican I had never been finished after all. But one needs only to look at the Council and resulting mayhem to know what crack Paul VI was speaking of.
"It is as if from some mysterious crack -- no, it is not mysterious -- from some crack the smoke of Satan has entered the temple of God."

So you don't believe in papal infallibility then? Not even when he's speaking ex cathedra (as I'm presuming would've been the case with authorising Vatican II)?

George Murphy
March 15th 2005, 09:00 AM
Simple regurgitation of everything that had been said by prior councils and papal statements. No anathemas, no dogmatic decrees, nothing.

Because it made itself so ambigious that it can be cited in favor of almost any position.

It will be condemned, given enough time.

It was called because the pope thought that was what God wanted. Vatican I had never been finished after all. But one needs only to look at the Council and resulting mayhem to know what crack Paul VI was speaking of.
"It is as if from some mysterious crack -- no, it is not mysterious -- from some crack the smoke of Satan has entered the temple of God."

So it's quite clear that this boils down to the fact that you don't like Vatican II. That being the case, there's no need to continue the discussion.

Shalom,
George

spiritmech
March 15th 2005, 09:10 AM
If you do a Google search for "from some crack the smoke of Satan has entered the temple of God" you will find several conservative sites citing this quote of Paul Paul VI.

I'm not completely sure you want to be aligning yourself with these sort of things, Cadet. At least one of them argues that Vatican 2's messiness was the "3rd *real* secret" given by Our Lady of Fatima.

What this effectively does is say that Pope John Paul II is a liar when he said the 3rd prediction was his assassination attempt. If the current Pope is a liar, why be Catholic at all?

SM

furay
March 15th 2005, 11:22 AM
If the current Pope is a liar, why be Catholic at all?
SM

I think deep down inside Cadet yearns to be Orthodox. :wink: :poke:

Rusty T
March 15th 2005, 11:48 AM
I think deep down inside Cadet yearns to be Orthodox. :wink: :poke:

Poke and prod spl_cadet
But be careful of what you may get

:P

rusty

spl_cadet
March 15th 2005, 12:25 PM
So you don't believe in papal infallibility then? Not even when he's speaking ex cathedra (as I'm presuming would've been the case with authorising Vatican II)?

Authorization of a council isn't an infallible act. The councils are only infallible through the pope anyhow.


If you do a Google search for "from some crack the smoke of Satan has entered the temple of God" you will find several conservative sites citing this quote of Paul Paul VI.

I'll fess up to what may be obvious: I sympathize with traditionalism, and would be a traditionalist if it weren't for a dislike of Latin and being too lazy to go that far out of my way to an indult TLM. Don't sympathize with ultratraditionalism though, which rejects Vatican II as an authentic council (rather than just saying it was extremely messed and pointless) and rejects the pope.


I'm not completely sure you want to be aligning yourself with these sort of things, Cadet. At least one of them argues that Vatican 2's messiness was the "3rd *real* secret" given by Our Lady of Fatima.

What this effectively does is say that Pope John Paul II is a liar when he said the 3rd prediction was his assassination attempt.

Personally, I think that the Third Secret refers to probably the next pope (yeah, I go for St. Malachy's list), rather than JPII. I think he's misinterpreted it.


If the current Pope is a liar, why be Catholic at all?

Why don't you ask the Borgias that?


I think deep down inside Cadet yearns to be Orthodox.

Nah. Eastern Catholic maybe once I see the Divine Liturgy (there's a Byzantine Catholic church pretty close to the university that I'm transferring to this fall, the Franciscan University of Steubenville), but never Orthodox. It's either Catholicism or apostasy, everyone else is wrong.

Amazing Rando
March 15th 2005, 01:37 PM
Personally I'm not quite sure what the idea being condemned is, but I wouldn't quote Vatican II in defense of any position either. I wouldn't be surprised to see that council and its writings condemned by the next pope or his successor.

:lol: Sounds like someone isn't a big fan of Vatican II.

According to this interesting book, (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0892435801/qid=1110908168/sr=8-1/ref=sr_8_xs_ap_i1_xgl14/104-5761298-2777536?v=glance&s=books&n=507846) you'd be a "Culture 1" Catholic.

spl_cadet
March 15th 2005, 02:04 PM
Thank God. According to his definitions, I'd need to be a Modernist heretic to be a Culture 2 Catholic.

spiritmech
March 15th 2005, 02:05 PM
:lol: Sounds like someone isn't a big fan of Vatican II.

According to this interesting book, (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0892435801/qid=1110908168/sr=8-1/ref=sr_8_xs_ap_i1_xgl14/104-5761298-2777536?v=glance&s=books&n=507846) you'd be a "Culture 1" Catholic.

Well I'd probably define myself as a Culture 1 Catholic as well, but there were many varied responses to VII, from super-liberal, to ultra-conservative. Most of the hippies who caused so much trouble in the past few decades are dying of heart disease, so things are improving.

Now other denominations are being hit harder than the Roman Catholic Church is, namely the Methodist and Episcopalian and Presbyterian groups, with respect to the conservative/liberal divide.

SM

Amazing Rando
March 15th 2005, 03:25 PM
Thank God. According to his definitions, I'd need to be a Modernist heretic to be a Culture 2 Catholic.

:lol: That's exactly what he said Culture 1's would say of Culture 2's! So you've read the book?

Amazing Rando
March 15th 2005, 03:31 PM
Well I'd probably define myself as a Culture 1 Catholic as well, but there were many varied responses to VII, from super-liberal, to ultra-conservative. Most of the hippies who caused so much trouble in the past few decades are dying of heart disease, so things are improving.

:yes: I read the book about 4 years ago, but if I remember correctly, Culture 1's are those Catholics who are absolutely enamored over the traditions of the Church, th hierarchical structure, etc.

A Culture 2 Catholic would be one who doesn't care as much for the Tradition (with a captital T), but still feels as if his or her spiritual home is with the RCC. I'm not phrasing it quite right- as I recall, it's not a divide between "die-hard" Catholics and "lukewarm" Catholics as much as it is between Catholics who simply have different definitions of what the Church is- nor is it a black and white, liberal vs. conservative divide either, for you'll find plenty of theological liberals and conservatives amidst both wings.

Now other denominations are being hit harder than the Roman Catholic Church is, namely the Methodist and Episcopalian and Presbyterian groups, with respect to the conservative/liberal divide.

SM

That's quite true. :yes:

Dr Fluff
March 17th 2005, 01:12 AM
Hmmm...going back to an older argument. I have to say Catholics are right. To divide state and Church is ridiculous. They should work in tandem. They deal with seperate issues, but sometimes they coincide. I think that the Church should have a say in moral issues. Otherwise, what basis are you going to form morality? It seems to me that there would be no other adequate basis.

Constantine
March 17th 2005, 11:19 PM
I read the book about 4 years ago, but if I remember correctly, Culture 1's are those Catholics who are absolutely enamored over the traditions of the Church, th hierarchical structure, etc.

A Culture 2 Catholic would be one who doesn't care as much for the Tradition (with a captital T), but still feels as if his or her spiritual home is with the RCC. I'm not phrasing it quite right- as I recall, it's not a divide between "die-hard" Catholics and "lukewarm" Catholics as much as it is between Catholics who simply have different definitions of what the Church is- nor is it a black and white, liberal vs. conservative divide either, for you'll find plenty of theological liberals and conservatives amidst both wings.

Then I am definately a Culture 1 Catholic. And it sounds like the Culture 2 Catholics aren't all that Catholic.

Jezz
March 21st 2005, 09:14 AM
Personally I'm not quite sure what the idea being condemned is, but I wouldn't quote Vatican II in defense of any position either. I wouldn't be surprised to see that council and its writings condemned by the next pope or his successor.
Unless I am mistaken, cadet, you are not part of the Roman Catholic Magisterium - in which case, your personal opinion about Vatican II isn't worth anything. :tongue: