SYLVESTER
370
SYLVESTER
thesis 6, Fogazzaro; 26, Le Roy). As a rule the quo-
tation is not literal, for it would have been possible
only in a few cases clearly to express the error in a
short proposition. According to their contents the
theses may be divided into six groups. They con-
demn the doctrine of the Modernists on ecclesiastical
decisions (1-8), and on Holy Writ (9-19); the Mod-
ernist Philosophy of Religion (20-26) and Modernist
Christology (27-38); the theory of the Modernists
on the origin of the sacraments (39-51) and the
evolution of the Church with regard to its constitu-
tion and doctrine (52-65). In detail the Syllabus of
Pius X condemns the following assertions: ecclesias-
tical decisions are subject to the judgment of scientific
scrutiny and do not demand interior assent (1-8);
"excessive simplicity or ignorance is shown by those
who believe that God is really the Author of Holy
Scripture" (9); God neither inspired (in the Catholic
sense of the word) the sacred writers nor guarded
them from all error; the Gospels in particular are
not books worthy of historic belief, as their authors
have consciously, though piously, falsified facts
(10-19); Revelation can be nothing else than the
consciousness acquired by man of his relation to
God, and does not close with the Apostles (20-21);
" The Dogmas, which the Church proposes as revealed
are not truths fallen from Heaven, but an interpre-
tation of religious facts, acquired by the human mind
through laborious process of thought" (this twenty-
second thesis, with the somewhat crude expression,
"truths fallen from Heaven", is taken from Loisy's
"L'Evangile et I'Eglise"); one and the same fact can
be historically false and dogmatically true; faith is
based upon a number of probabilities; dogmatic
definitions have only a passing practical value as
norms in life (23-26); the Divinity of Christ is a
dogma which the Christian consciousness deduced
from its idea of the Messiah; the real, historical
Christ is inferior to the Christ idealized by faith;
Jesus Christ erred; His resurrection is no historical
event; His vicarious death is a Pauline invention
(27-38); the sacraments were not instituted by
Christ, but are additions made by the Apostles and
their successors, who, under the pressure of events,
interpreted the idea of Christ (39-51); Jesus Christ
did not think of founding a Church; the latter is a
purely human society subject to all the changes of
time; of the Primacy, Peter himself knew nothing;
the Church is an enemy of scientific progress (5-57);
"Truth is as changeable as man, because it is evolved
with him, in him, and by him" (58); there are no
immutable Christian dogmas, they have developed
and must develop with the progress of the centuries
(59-63); "Scientific progress demands a reform of
the Christian dogmatic conception of God, creation,
revelation, the Person of the Word Incarnate, and
redemption" (64); "The Catholicism of to-day is
irreconcilable with genuine scientific knowledge,
unless it be transformed into a Christendom without
dogmas, i. e. a broad and liberal Protestantism" (65).
C. Binding Power. — Many theses of the Syllabus
of Pius X, as all Catholic theologians affirm, are
heresies, i. e. infallibly false; for their contradictory
is dogma, in many cases even fundamental dogma
or an article of faith in the Catholic Church. With
regard to the question, whether the Syllabus is in
itself an infallible dogmatic decision, theologians
hold opposite opinions. Some maintain that the
Decree is infallible on account of its confirmation
{{c|{{larger|(4 July, 1907) or sanction (18 November, 1907) by the pope; others defend the opinion that the Decree remains nevertheless the doctrinal decision of a Roman Congregation, and is, viewed precisely as such, not absolutely immune from error. In this theological dispute, therefore, liberty of opinion, which has always been safeguarded by the Chinch in undecided questions, still remains to us. Yet all
theologians agree that no Catholic is allowed to
maintain any of the condemned theses. For in the
decrees of a Roman Congregation we not only have
the verdict of a scientific commission, which gives its
decisions only after close investigation, but also the
pronouncement of a legitimate religious authority
competent to bind the whole Church in questions
within its competence (cf. what has been said above
regarding the Syllabus of Pius IX; under I. B.).
D. Importance. — The Syllabus of Pius X may be taken as an introduction to the Encyclical "Pas- cendi", which gives a more systematic exposition of the same subject. It may be, therefore, that later generations will not find it necessary to distinguish between the importance of the Syllabus and that of the Encyclical. Neverthless, the Syllabus was published at the most opportune moment. The Catholics of those countries in which Modernism had worked its ill effects felt relieved. By this Decree the tenets of religious evolutionism were laid before them in short theses and condemned. Up to that time the significance and the bearing of isolated Modernist views, appearing now here, now there, had not al- ways been fully grasped. Now, however, everyone of good will had to recognize that the Modernists, under the plea of assimilation to modern ideas of develop- ment, had tried to destroy the foundations of all natural and supernatural knowledge. Moreover, to the whole Catholic world the Decree sounded a note of warning from the supreme pastor and drew atten- tion to the excellent principles of scholastic theology and to the growing importance of a thorough school- ing in exegetical criticism and in the history of dogma, which the Modernists had abused in the most unpar- donable manner.
Denzi.nger, Enchiridion, No. 1700 sqq.; No. 2001 sqq.: The Doctrinal Authority of the Syllabus in The Catholic World, XXII (New York. 1S86), 31; Ward, The Life of John Henry Cardinal Neivman, II (London. 1912); Gladstone, Rovie and the Newest Fashions in Religion (London, 1875); Newsian, Letter to the Duke of Norfolk on Occasion of Mr. Gladstone's Recent Expostulation (London. 1875); Manning, The Vatican Decrees in their Bearing on Civil Allegiance (London. 1875), another reply to Gladstone; MacCaffrey, History of the Catholic Church in the Nineteenth Century (St. Louis, 1910). I, 249, 438, 440. 487; II, 60. 462, 480; Choupin, Valeur des decisions (Paris, 1907); Hourat. Le Syllabus (Paris, 1904); Heiner, Der Syllabus in uUramontaner und anti- uUramontaner Bcleuchtung (Mainz, 1905); RlNALDl. II valore del Syllabo (Rome. 1888); Heiner, Der neue Syllabus (Mainz, 1907); Bessmer, Philosophic und Theologie des Modemismus (Freiburg, 1912); Villada, Razdn y Fe, XIX, 154; Lepin, Les theories de M. Loisy (Paris, 1908).
A. Haag.
Sylvester I, Saint, Pope (314-335), date of birth unknown; d. 31 December, 335. According to the "Liber pontificalis" (ed. Duchesne, I, 170) he was the son of a Roman named Rufinus; the legendary "Vita beati Sylvestri" calls his mother Justa. After the death of Miltiades (Melchiades) S\-lvester was made Bishop of Rome, and occupied this position twenty-one years. This was the era of Constantine the Great, when the public position of the Church ^o greatly improved, a change which must certainly have been very noticeable at Rome; it is consequently to be regretted that there is so little authoritati-i-e in- formation concerning Sylvester's pontificate. At an early date legend brings him into close relationship with the first Christian emperor, but in a way that is con- trary to historical fact. These legends were introduced especially into the "Vita beati Sylvestri" (Duchesne, loc. cit., Introd., cix sq.) which appeared in the East and has been preserved in Greek, SjTiac, and Latin in the "Constitutum Sylvestri" — an apocryphal ac- count of an alleged Roman council which belongs to the Symmaehian forgeries and appeared between 501 and 50S, and also in the "Donatio Constantini". The accounts given in all these writings concern- ing the persecution of Sylvester, the healing and b.aptism of Constantine, the empe-or's gift to the pope, the rights granted to the latter, and the council
