Catholic theology: explanation of the "Syllabus of Errors" of 1867?

Question

The "Syllabus of Errors" of 1867 was the Catholic Church's retrenchment against modern times. It was held in high influence until Vatican II. The Syllabus viewed with hostility the modern movements of the time: nationalism, socialism, republicanism, etc. The Church was, at this time, literally fighting against the modern forces moving through the world; soon enough, Rome would be incorporated into the Kingdom of Italy, and an estrangement would begin which would last until 1929.

With the modern world still struggling with the very things the Syllabus viewed with suspicion, does the Church's position remain the same as regards it's(the Syllabus) tenets? When the Pope issued the Syllabus Ex Cathedra, did it not merit infallibility, and does such infallibility apply today?

How does the Syllabus apply to today's world, has the Church superseded its instructions, and if so, with what and how?

To Meg:
You are correct about the date, it was 1864, not 1867. As far as Papal Infallibility, it was not strictly defined until 1870, but the spirit of my question is retained despite this, particularly as there apears to have been no retraction of the Syllabus's teachings. As far as application to the modern world, familiarity with the document provides its own specifics. In particular, I am curious about the document's opposition to the separation of Church and state. An easy enough thing for the Church to clarify, if it has attempted to do so---or will. For the record, I am not a Catholic, or any religion. I am an Atheist.

Meg, perhaps you can answer the question, at least the separation of Church and State components and the Church's position on it, instead of taking a small portion of the document and holding it up as an example of the whole? If you have nothing constructive to add, what exactly is your point?

Meg, look at Doug Lawrence's answer right below yours and you wll see that not everyone has such a narrow view of the Syllabus that you yourself do. There is much more to the Syllabus than the archaic example you have provided---but thanks for wasting space on the page and managing to be uninteresting all at the same time.

To Chez: Of course I don't understand. That's why I'm asking the question!

Answer 1

The syllabus was not an ex-cathedra statement, so it was not to be considered infallible.

However, a great number of the errors listed there remain today, and continue to take their toll on modern civilization.

http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Pius09/p9syll.htm

Answer 2

>>1867<<

1864.

>>When the Pope issued the Syllabus Ex Cathedra<<

He didn't.

>>How does the Syllabus apply to today's world<<

Can you be more specific?

>>has the Church superseded its instructions, and if so, with what and how?<<

Not to the best of my knowledge.

>>With the modern world still struggling with the very things the Syllabus viewed with suspicion<<

Really? When was the last time you discussed whether or not "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" at the dinner table?

>>In particular, I am curious about the document's opposition to the separation of Church and state.<<

I need to locate an English translation of Acerbissimum before I can give a decent answer, but I will point out that for all our talk about separation here in the USA, the state DOES interfere in religious matters, prohibiting polygamy, restricting drug use, etc.

Answer 3

The Syllabus of Errors is as spurious as the "infallible word" of the Pope. Protestants broke away from the RCC with the enlightened teaching of Martin Luther who was appalled at the corruption and said it was Grace alone, not works or indulgences that were sold by the RCC, by which man might be saved. This "modern" doctrine took political power from the RCC. Knowledge is power, and the RCC has no more rational claim of exclusivity than the claim of "unbroken lineage" to the Apostle Peter. The word of God is powerful, and Pope Benedict's permission to return to Latin, a dead language, is an effort to "dumb down" good Catholic Christians who actually are questioning many doctrine's of the RCC. Before this announcement, it required a special dispensation to conduct a Latin mass. Many chose to ignore the explicit instruction of the RCC on birth control and limited their family to the children they could support financially. Many good Christian Catholics will also ignore the reminder that only the RCC grants salvation and Protestants are going to hell. If all the Popes have been infallible, then why the need for any changes? Pope Paul may have shared the same beliefs as Pope Benedict, but Pope Paul was a peacemaker, not a divider. The RCC has and will continue to supercede any past creeds or edicts as long as one man is give the power to be called "infallible." Pope Benedict's contention is that the Vatican II has been "liberally interpreted," and he is determined to get another "infallible" interpretation, [his,] practiced. Jesus wasn't big on the organized religious leaders in His ministry on earth, in fact he told them prostitutes would enter heaven before them.
The RCC is the largest and richest church in the world. As long as they control their flock with fear of enternal damnation, there is political control. If all Catholics listened to the Vatican, they would only grow in political power. Thankfully, they do not.

Answer 4

The Syllabus, in my opinion was the Vatican's last grasp at supreme power. All these new ideas in the modern world have stripped the church of the power it enjoyed for over a thousand years.

Answer 5

It is clear to me that you do not understand the Syllabus of Errors; Otherwise, you would have asked the question, "...has the Church superseded its instructions...?

The quick answer to that is no.

Answer 6

Why Captain Jack!.. that's a mighty BIG question you are holding there.... arrrhhhh.

EDIT:
There be a new pope now, Jack. this new Pope's word is now relevant, that is apart from God's word.. which the pope is tuned into most acutely... (on account of the fact.. that's his job) ... but it is fallible, Jack.. it is still only the word of the Pope and that is the word of a man.... the Church has always recognised this fact... and kept it gold separated from the Gov't. What I wouldn't do to take a little peak at that gold, Jack.