The Counter-Syllabus

[Aloysius]

Ratzinger said Lumen Gentium is a counter-syllabus to the syllabus of errors. I agree.
first, there's this for a thorough treating of the topic: [url="http://matt1618.freeyellow.com/syllabus.html"]http://matt1618.freeyellow.com/syllabus.html[/url]

however, I was just thinking of what Ratzinger meant by "counter-syllabus" and it hit me plain and simple.

It means that you could make any statement

"It is an error to state that _______(insert error condemned by Syllabus of Errors), it is correct to state that ________(instert teaching by Lumen Gentium)"

So to those who take issue with the counter-syllabus of Lumen Gentium, I issue a challenge. pick any error condemned by the syllabus and any teaching of lumen gentium that would make the above formula contradictory.

It's quite an impossible challenge, so come on all you phishes... let's see what's goin on. just fill in the blanks of my formula so that the syllabus and counter-syllabus can work as they were meant to, in perfect harmony.

[Era Might]

The syllabus was simply stunted by the theological progress of its age ("one-sided", as Ratzinger put it).

IOW, the intent of the Syllabus was a defensive reaction to the world after the French Revolution, whereas the Second Vatican Council was a positive engagement of this world.

It's kind of like if the Church had picked out errors in Pagan philosophy to highlight and condemn. One might get the impression that Pagan philosophy as a whole were condemned. But, the Church could just as easily engage the philosophy and purify it, as she did.

So, for example, the French Revolution was accompanied with the extreme error that society has no obligation to God. At the root, the principle of religious freedom can be extracted from this idea (as was done at the Second Vatican Council), while still upholding society's fundamental duty to God and the moral law.

ps: Excellent link. McIlhenny is great with stuff like this.

Edited August 21, 2005 by Era Might

[MC Just]

yeah now "liberalism and Catholicism" are one, right Era might?

i'm having a very hard time with this. There is no way i will ever accept such a thing.

Edited August 21, 2005 by MC Just

[Era Might]

[quote name='MC Just' date='Aug 21 2005, 12:03 PM']yeah now "liberalism and Catholicism" are one,  right Era might?

i'm having a very hard time with this.  There is no way i will ever accept such a thing.
[right][snapback]692989[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

No.

The Church is above political systems. She is not liberal or conservative, democratic or monarchial, communist or capitalist.

She is One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic.

She permits all that falls within the boundaries of her moral faith, whether it's the liberal concept of democracy, or the conservative order of monarchy.

Edited August 21, 2005 by Era Might

[MC Just]

I think im done with the phorum for a while. I'm going to get my self in trouble.

Edited August 21, 2005 by MC Just

[Aloysius]

however, I still uphold that the errors condemned in the syllabus are true errors that should not be held. so I want someone who has trouble with Lumen Gentium to take me up on this. pick any quote from the syllabus and any quote from Lumen Gentium. the Syllabus condemns what is wrong, Lumen Gentium offers what it should be.

[popestpiusx]

Phish unite!!!






What are supposed to be attempting here?

[Extra ecclesiam nulla salus]

i think MC JUst is a phishyyyyyy!

Edited August 22, 2005 by Extra ecclesiam nulla salus

[Aloysius]

[quote name='popestpiusx' date='Aug 22 2005, 08:36 AM']Phish unite!!!
What are supposed to be attempting here?
[right][snapback]693983[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
show some way my formula can be contradictory:
"It is an error to state that _______(insert error condemned by Syllabus of Errors), it is correct to state that ________(instert teaching by Lumen Gentium)"

I contend that it would not be contradictory. I will attempt to provide reasons why with any example you come up with.

[Extra ecclesiam nulla salus]

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.

[MC Just]

[quote name='Extra ecclesiam nulla salus' date='Aug 22 2005, 08:47 AM']i think MC JUst is a phishyyyyyy!
[right][snapback]694037[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


I just dont like how "trads" are being treated on here. I consider myself a trad in communion with the Holy Father.

I believe VII was a good thing that went bad because the liberal minded wouldnt give it a chance to work right.

Don't get me wrong people,there are some diocese's and parishes that actually do run things according to VII , but i think the ones that dont out weigh the ones that do. (Even Benedict XVI says there is a lot of filth in the church today, and has plans to make changes)

The reason I say this is because, I've been to a lot of parishes and dioceses so far and ive seen and heard a lot of messed up heterodox things.

I do not agree with modernism (id rather be back in the 12th century). I dont agree with Catholic parishes that are ugly as sin.

So modern that they dont even look catholic. I dont agree with goofy priests who tell us things that are contrary to church teaching.

(as ive witnessed first hand) Many of these things are the results of Liberals misenterpreting Vatican II.(basically saying that anything goes).

Many of the priests (probably ordained in the sexual revolutionary 60's) never even had a calling to the priesthood, they were chosen by heterodox men and women because they were not really "catholic"

or they were not "rigid" they were either heretics or homosexuals. ( dont jump on me for saying this either, because it really did happen). .

You call people phishy and say "they dont rep the church" . Why?

I think its up to the Holy Father to say they dont rep the church not us.

Edited August 22, 2005 by MC Just

[Aloysius]

[quote name='Extra ecclesiam nulla salus' date='Aug 22 2005, 10:47 AM']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.
[right][snapback]694089[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
you forgot half of the formula... what in Lumen Gentium contradicts that? are you suggesting Lumen Gentium teaches pantheism?

MC Just, ppl with "phishy" have come out against the council itself, not just its interpretation. I am against its false interpretation and in favor of the Tridentine Mass and I have myself a "Church Faithful" logo.

well, except popestpiusx, he didn't come out against the council. there was a misunderstanding that caused him to be "phishy" he really shouldn't be.

[Extra ecclesiam nulla salus]

who is that adressed to?

so wait i have to get something from the sylabus of errors and than something from lumen gentium that affirms or denies that???? im confused

Edited August 22, 2005 by Extra ecclesiam nulla salus

[MC Just]

[quote name='Aloysius' date='Aug 22 2005, 10:21 AM']you forgot half of the formula... what in Lumen Gentium contradicts that?  are you suggesting Lumen Gentium teaches pantheism? 

MC Just, ppl with "phishy" have come out against the council itself, not just its interpretation.  I am against its false interpretation and in favor of the Tridentine Mass and I have myself a "Church Faithful" logo.
[right][snapback]694128[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


i dont think it would have been so bad if it had been interpreted correctly.. Like why were altar rails removed when the documents of Vatican II say nothing about it?

[Aloysius]

I propose that the formula will not contradict if you fill in the blanks with any two statements:

"It is an error to state that _______(insert error condemned by Syllabus of Errors), it is correct to state that ________(instert teaching by Lumen Gentium)"

see the blanks? if you think there are two quotes from the two documents that will make this formula contradict itself, then show me them.

[Extra ecclesiam nulla salus]

only lumen gentium?

because i know other place V2 contradicts the syllabus of errors

[Aloysius]

Lumen Gentium is the counter-syllabus to the Syllabus of Errors. Whereas the Syllabus condemns what is wrong, Lumen Gentium offers something that is right. So yes, I am only looking for stuff from Lumen Gentium.

EDIT! woops, I meant Gaudium et Spes... I'm a really being sloppy recently.

here's the formula I meant:
"It is an error to state that _______(insert error condemned by Syllabus of Errors), it is correct to state that ________(instert teaching by Gaudium et Spes)"

[Era Might]

Just to clarify, here's exactly what Pope Benedict said:

[quote]If it is desirable to offer a diagnosis of the text [of Gaudium et Spes] as a whole, we might say that (in conjunction with the texts on religious liberty and world religions) it is a revision of the Syllabus of Pius IX, a kind of counter syllabus…the one-sidedness of the position adopted by the Church under Pius IX and Pius X in response to the situation created by the new phase of history inaugurated by the French Revolution was, to a large extent, corrected via facti, especially in Central Europe, but there was still no basic statement of the relationship that should exist between the Church and the world that had come into existence after 1789.[/quote]

It's not just GS alone which constitutes a "counter-syllabus", but GS "in conjunction with the texts on religious liberty and world religions".

Edited August 22, 2005 by Era Might

[Aloysius]

okay, yeah, but counter-syllabus doesn't mean contradiction, it means the counter-syllabus says what is right where the syllabus said what is wrong. therefore, nothing said in this counter-syllabus should be interpretted as being in agreement with one of the errors condemned by the syllabus. it has to be interpretted in the light of tradition.

[Era Might]

The problem with the syllabus is not that it's "wrong". Like the Old Testament, it's just incomplete. It's a one-sided look at certain problems, mired in the social and theological context of its day. Holding up the Syllabus like some self-professed "Traditionalists" do, as though it's a summation of Catholic thought, the be all end all, is like holding up the book of Leviticus to teach people about Jesus Christ.

Although the Second Vatican Council must be seen in the context of its foundation, that foundation must also be seen in light of the Second Vatican Council, just as the Old Testament, although chronologically first, is subordinated to the New.

I agree with you, thought, that if you put the two texts side by side, they can surely be hammered out and harmonized.

Edited August 22, 2005 by Era Might