Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
We hope you enjoy your visit!
You're currently viewing Catholic CyberForum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our online cyberparish, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.
Join our community!
Messages posted to this board must be polite and free of abuse, personal attacks, blasphemy, racism, threats, harrassment, and crude or sexually-explicit language.
If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
The Syllabus of Errors
Topic Started: Thursday, 27. October 2011, 00:37 (520 Views)
OsullivanB

The Syllabus is occasionally mentioned but I have never seen it examined. I thought it might be worth taking a canter through them.
"There is a principle which is a bar against all information, which is proof against all arguments and which cannot fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance - that principle is contempt prior to investigation." Herbert Spencer
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
OsullivanB

Syllabus
 
I. PANTHEISM, NATURALISM AND ABSOLUTE RATIONALISM

[It is an error to assert that]

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 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.
While I don't myself understand the phrase "necessity with liberty" here, I don't imagine many Catholics now or then would have much difficulty in spotting the error here, and it would be interesting to know exactly why His Holiness thought it necessary to begin the Syllabus with this seemingly obvious error, bearing in mind that the Syllabus was published with an Encyclical addressed specifically to "Our Venerable Brethren, all Patriarchs, Primates, Archbishops, and Bishops having favor and Communion of the Holy See" - not to the faithful generally and certainly not to those outside the Church.

Please run with this ball. A previous attempt in another place to develop a discussion when quite a few were writing in favour of the Syllabus met with total silence. More soon.
"There is a principle which is a bar against all information, which is proof against all arguments and which cannot fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance - that principle is contempt prior to investigation." Herbert Spencer
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Gerard

The syllabus of errors is a very embarassing document (becuase it is so wrong on so many points and in so many ways) and it is not the least surprising that it generates silence. Most people just wish we could all forget about it and let it fade away into total absence. And silence was my first impulse. However, given the request I will try to engage.


It is easy to agree with the overall sweep of this stated error. The error itself is very common and that is perhaps why Pius IX opened with it. In effect know your enemy.

I checked out wiki on it and thought it interesting that Newman said the document did not stand by itself but one needed to consult the authoritative documents behind it. And when one does one finds that the words dont mean what they at first appear to mean.

Gerry
"The institutional and charismatic aspects are quasi coessential to the Church's constitution" (Pope John Paul II, 1998).
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
OsullivanB

I also found the reference to Newman's observations. The Allocution referred to at the end of Error 1 (above) does not appear to be accessible on the internet in English translation. The Latin is available (though not on a Vatican site), as is a French translation. When I have had time to read the Allocution, I may be better able to understand this part of the Syllabus.

It would, of course, have been helpful, perhaps even prudent, for His Holiness to choose words which did mean what they at first appear to mean when preparing such an important document.
"There is a principle which is a bar against all information, which is proof against all arguments and which cannot fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance - that principle is contempt prior to investigation." Herbert Spencer
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
trying hard

I am not aquanted with this syllabus of errors but the assertion that there is a God would seem the logical starting point to any teaching from a Catholic to a world of disbelievers and something about God nature. Because without establishing that starting point then everything else becomes mute.

spirit with matter, necessity with liberty, good with evil, justice with injustice it was intresting the order of words if you notice all the positive aspects are listed first in the pairs so strange that liberty is put in the same league as the more negative elements. I presume necessity are needs that we feel tied to in order to live from base necessities like food ; safety etc to higher forms such as love ;acceptance and a sence of purpose. There is almost a full thread in that pairing itself. Can we ever be totally free if we have been made to be with God and the alternative is enslavement by satan. The only freedom we have is a choice of masters.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Gerard

I think you have got something there TH, I hand not understood that these were contrasting pairs. You show that Pius considers liberty as a negative thing - where we would consider it positive. And this is one added difficulty with such a document. It is of its time. And our thinking is different to their thinking. Though even of its time it was a wrong headed and embarassing document.

Gerry
"The institutional and charismatic aspects are quasi coessential to the Church's constitution" (Pope John Paul II, 1998).
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
OsullivanB

I don't think it is Catholic teaching that matter is to be deemed negative or in any way to be bracketed with evil or injustice. It is God's creation which He said was good. I think we have simply identified another infelicity of this document.
"There is a principle which is a bar against all information, which is proof against all arguments and which cannot fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance - that principle is contempt prior to investigation." Herbert Spencer
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Gerard

Agreed, they are opposites but the better seems to come first.

I do think there is a negativity associated here with liberty. The French Revolution (equality, egality and liberty) and its effects - particularly the Italian Revolution were part of the motivation behind the encylical.

Gerry
Edited by Gerard, Thursday, 27. October 2011, 10:24.
"The institutional and charismatic aspects are quasi coessential to the Church's constitution" (Pope John Paul II, 1998).
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
OsullivanB

If spirit is better than matter, there seems little point in the General Resurrection.

Having read all the helpful contributions above, I tentatively suggest that "necessity" refers to all those things that we need to ("must"?) believe, think and do, where "liberty" refers to wrong belief, thought and deeds. I think Gerry is probably right about the relevance of the then current association of "liberty" with revolution. That seems to me to underline the fact that this document is very much of its time and those who seek its meaning (and that of Quanta Cura etc.) must be careful about how it is to be understood today.
"There is a principle which is a bar against all information, which is proof against all arguments and which cannot fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance - that principle is contempt prior to investigation." Herbert Spencer
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Gerard

Actually, thinking about it a little more - I think there was some negativity associated with the body/matter/etc then. There is a temptation in christianity (also other religions) to consider the body/matter corrupt and the spirit higher and purer. I think there was more of this attitude around at that time.

Gerry
"The institutional and charismatic aspects are quasi coessential to the Church's constitution" (Pope John Paul II, 1998).
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
OsullivanB

Syllabus
 
[It is an error to assert that]

2. All action of God upon man and the world is to be denied. - Ibid.
I find it surprising that the Pope needed to say that it was an error.
"There is a principle which is a bar against all information, which is proof against all arguments and which cannot fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance - that principle is contempt prior to investigation." Herbert Spencer
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
OsullivanB

Syllabus
 
[It is an error to assert that]

3. Human reason, without any reference whatsoever to God is the sole arbiter of truth and falsehood, and of good and evil; it is alw to itself, and suffices, by its natural force, to secure the welfare of man and of nations. - Ibid.
Another fairly obvious proposition for Catholics, presumably stated here in opposition to the new atheistic ideologies of Communism and Socialism.
"There is a principle which is a bar against all information, which is proof against all arguments and which cannot fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance - that principle is contempt prior to investigation." Herbert Spencer
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
OsullivanB

Syllabus
 
[It is an error to assert that]

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.
The obvious error is easy to discern. Such a proposition denies the role of revelation of and faith in those truths which are not accessible to reason. I don't imagine for one moment that His Holiness was rejecting the use of human reason in exploring the truths of religion as exemplified by the works of St Thomas Aquinas. I wonder, however, if there is more to this proposition than the obvious aspect I have already identified. I wonder, only because it seems so obvious that it hardly needed the Pope to tell his bishops etc. that it was so.
"There is a principle which is a bar against all information, which is proof against all arguments and which cannot fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance - that principle is contempt prior to investigation." Herbert Spencer
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
OsullivanB

Syllabus
 
[It is an error to assert that]
5. Divine revelation is imperfect, and therefore subject to a continual and indefinite progress, corresponding with the advancement of human reason. - Ibid.
This, I think, is somewhat more interesting and less obvious than what has gone before. "Divine revelation" is not defined, but must include Scripture and Tradition. If, as one might expect, not least from this Pope, that it also includes the Magisterium, then I find it less easy to follow. Pope Pius IX not only defined the dogma of the Immaculate Conception but also presided over the First Vatican Council which defined the dogma of Papal Infallibility. Since we know that revelation ended with the death of the last apostle, the mainspring of these and many other authoritative pronouncements must be human reason, doubtless guided by but not operating under revelation by the Holy Spirit.

I strongly suspect that this is aimed at some particular theological theory being explored at the time. However, if it is contended that these are propositions which are valid for all time as written, then, presumably, it is only proper to consider the words as they stand. I ask myself the unanswerable question whether Pope Pius IX would still have regarded this as an error if it had started: "5. Our understanding of divine revelation is imperfect..." If so, this seems akin to a straw man argument. If not, I do not understand why not.
"There is a principle which is a bar against all information, which is proof against all arguments and which cannot fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance - that principle is contempt prior to investigation." Herbert Spencer
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
OsullivanB

I am going through this exercise in a genuine spirit of enquiry. I have looked for some time for a sympathetic account of the Syllabus but have so far found nothing. An appeal for information from another source some time ago yielded nothing. An internet search got me to this written in a book by one Mitch Finley. (http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=EGKRqusSnpkC&pg=PA123&lpg=PA123&dq=felix+dupanloup+syllabus&source=bl&ots=OQmDB0-9Xg&sig=vZtYYIEY-vhiXfT_Cv0QKuod1C4&hl=en&ei=tGqpTteFI9HU8QOq4dCEDA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3&ved=0CCoQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=felix%20dupanloup%20syllabus&f=false)
"The key reaction...came from the bishop of Orleans...Felix Dupanloup. He wrote an interpretation of the Syllabus which made the most ridiculous aspects of the document seem harmless, and clever man that he was, he did so in such a way that Pio Nono himself approved, more or less. As a result of Bishop Dupanloup's interpretation of the Syllabus, liberal Catholic outrage in Europe soon faded, except in Germany, where those who believed in academic freedom and freedom of the press continued to stew."
If anyone knows the name of Dupanloup's book or can help me to an online version I would very much appreciate it. It sounds like a very interesting and perhaps remarkable piece of work.
"There is a principle which is a bar against all information, which is proof against all arguments and which cannot fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance - that principle is contempt prior to investigation." Herbert Spencer
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · General Catholic Discussion · Next Topic »
Add Reply