The Counter-Syllabus

[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

[Aloysius]

it is one sided in that it condemns certain errors. the other side is proposing the things that are correct.

traditional teaching is not superceded or re-interpretted in the light of new teaching. new teaching is understood in context. the New Testament supercedes the old because it is where God Incarnate came and altered the course of human events. the Second Vatican Council is subserviant to the entirety of tradition that came before it and cannot be held to supercede anything (other than old disciplines that may have been abrogated)

doctrine developes, it does not re-evaluate its foundation. you cannot alter the understanding of previous doctrines, merely elaborate upon them.

[Era Might]

[quote]it is one sided in that it condemns certain errors. the other side is proposing the things that are correct.[/quote]

It's not that simple. The Second Vatican Council did not only rephrase the social thought of the Church positively. It actively developed it.

[quote]traditional teaching is not superceded or re-interpretted in the light of new teaching. new teaching is understood in context. [/quote]

Yes, the living Magisterium does supercede individual instances of teaching. The reason is, first, that the Magisterium may well intend to correct or refine certain points of teaching, but she may also judge that a new context or application requires her attention.

[quote]the Second Vatican Council is subserviant to the entirety of tradition that came before it and cannot be held to supercede anything (other than old disciplines that may have been abrogated)[/quote]

The Second Vatican Council is part of the Church's tradition. The Church is not "subservient" to older forms of theology. She is subservient to the deposit of faith, but this deposit is gradually apprehended through the ages. The living Magisterium must supercede itself in every age, or else there could be no legitimate development. If Pius IX did not supercede the former liberty enjoyed vis a vis the question of the Immaculate Conception, for example, then there is no way he could proclaim it as dogma.

[quote]doctrine developes, it does not re-evaluate its foundation. you cannot alter the understanding of previous doctrines, merely elaborate upon them.[/quote]

It depends on the character of individual teachings. The Ordinary Magisterium can most certainly err. Whether some point of traditional teaching constitutes an infallible truth is for the Church to decide. Even if there is no disagreement with a previous teaching, but merely a development, this developed understanding supercedes what came before it; just as the mercy of God in the New Covenant superceded his Justice in the Old, although he certainly did not renounce the Old.

Edited August 22, 2005 by Era Might

[Extra ecclesiam nulla salus]

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.


"the Church... can and ought to be enriched by the development of human social life... so that she may... adjust it [the Constitution of the Church] more successfully to our times."


"Christians cannot yearn for anything more ardently than to serve the men of the modern world."

[Aloysius]

that one is a very simple example of something that is apparently contradictory by the wording of it but is not at all.

I agree with the first one, the Pope cannot and should not reconcile himself and accept the errors of the modern world, what is called "progress" which is in reality regression to the last stages of the Roman Empire, or "liberalism" by which is meant dropping all orthodoxy and adherence to traditional teaching of the Church.

I agree with the second one, we must know how to talk to the modern world, we most know how best to effectively reach it and attempt to transform it. we may adjust the way we approach things based on new scientific discoveries, new inventions, or new situations. would you have us continue to address the world as if it were run by monarchs? or should not we rather work with what is offered, the "democracies", and help to transform them into something good? admonishing them for their evils and praising them for the good things?

the Church has not reconciled herself to liberalism and modern civilization. she has spoken to modern civilization as it exists today, recognizing what it looks like, and calling upon it for change.
furthermore, you cannot take #80 from the Syllabus of Errors and stagnate the Church into that... for if in ten years there were a huge revival of Christendom throughout all of Western Civilization, that would be modern civilization which you are saying we cannot come to terms with that is not what it means at all.

of course we must serve men of the modern world! that is Christ's call to us. would you have us shun them simply because they are part of the modern world? this does not imply agreement with their

[Extra ecclesiam nulla salus]

[quote]the Church has not reconciled herself to liberalism and modern civilization.[/quote]

thats up for debate.


the church is not in the modern world. it should be at odds with the modern world.

"No man can serve two masters, for to please one amounts to contemning the other...It is a high crime indeed to withdraw allegiance from God in order to please men."

- Pope Leo XIII, Sapientiæ Christianæ, #6&7, Jan. 10, 1890.

"It is not fitting that the Church of God be changed according to the fluctuations of worldly necessity."
- Pope Pius VI, Quod Aliquantum, Mar. 10, 1791.

Edited August 22, 2005 by Extra ecclesiam nulla salus

[Aloysius]

you have not shown a change.

the Church is in the modern world...it itself is not modern but it is surrounded by a modern world that it must deal with.

[Extra ecclesiam nulla salus]

if you can't see the contradiction i don't know what to tell you.

[Aloysius]

show me the contradiction, my friend. I just explained to you how that quote is to be understood, in the light of tradition, that the Church is not conforming to the modern world. it is talking to it considering the present realities.

from Gaudium et Spes:

[quote]3. Though mankind is stricken with wonder at its own discoveries and its power, it often raises anxious questions about the current trend of the world, about the place and role of man in the universe, about the meaning of its individual and collective strivings, and about the ultimate destiny of reality and of humanity. Hence, giving witness and voice to the faith of the whole people of God gathered together by Christ, this council can provide no more eloquent proof of its solidarity with, a, well as its respect and love for the entire human family with which it is bound up, than by engaging with it in conversation about these various problems. The council brings to mankind light kindled from the Gospel, and puts at its disposal those saving resources which the Church herself, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, receives from her Founder. For the human person deserves to be preserved; human society deserves to be renewed. Hence the focal point of our total presentation will be man himself, whole and entire, body and soul, heart and conscience, mind and will.[/quote]

The Church here addresses the reality of situations in the modern world. The Church is offering answers to the problems of modernity. The Church is not conforming, it is offering answers.

It says the world has these questions... and that the Church wants to enter into conversation with the world... what other conclusion is there other than the Church has answers?

[quote]4. To carry out such a task, the Church has always had the duty of scrutinizing the signs of the times and of interpreting them in the light of the Gospel. Thus, in language intelligible to each generation, she can respond to the perennial questions which men ask about this present life and the life to come, and about the relationship of the one to the other. We must therefore recognize and understand the world in which we live, its explanations, its longings, and its often dramatic characteristics. [/quote]

there you have it, the Church is using language intelliglible to this generation, responding (with answers) to their questions.

Where in the syllabus do you see condemnation for RECOGNIZING and UNDERSTANDING the moder world? would you have us merely sit and look with rose-colored glasses?

[Extra ecclesiam nulla salus]

are you trying to prove vatican II agianst the syllabus of errors?

because their are other sources from which you can see that vatican II is wrong.

[Aloysius]

no. I am attempting to show you they do not contradict (something you probably think is even more outrageous)

they do not. they use different tones, yes. but there's no doctrinal contradiction.

I've already shot down your first attempt which claimed that the syllabus condemned conforming to the modern times and that's what gaudiem et spes did.

so we can chalk one up for success at my formula:

paraphrased for better comprehension:
[color=red]It is an error to say that the Church should conform to the times (Syllabus of Errors)[/color][color=blue]It is correct to say that the Church should understand the times and talk to the world concerning its present situations (Counter-Syllabus)[/color]