I don't know where you get your bizarre ideas but, Popes don't just make up doctrines as they go along. What they usually do is to simply define or explain doctrines and practices that already exist.
That's absolutely fascinating. Popes don't make stuff up. They define what already exists. Thank you for that erudite explanation to what I was saying all along. That PiusIX wasn't making stuff up, but in his syllabus of errors which was annexed to his encyclical Quanta Qura was agreeing with Catholic thought and doctrine thus was precisely the point I was making. And subsequent debates and discussions within Catholicism since have affirmed that Vatican III was not in contradiction to the syllabus, thus affirming the authority of the syllabus of errors as equal to the council. Now we've got that settled and you and I agree, then let me repeat what Pius IX was saying that it is error to think that...quote...
23. Roman pontiffs and ecumenical councils have wandered outside the limits of their powers, have usurped the rights of princes, and have even erred in defining matters of faith and morals. — Damnatio “Multiplices inter,” June 10, 1851.
24. The Church has not the power of using force, ( and of course this has nothing to do with freedom of conscience) nor
has she any temporal power, direct or indirect. — ( and such force in the temporal sphere is denied by you and others here in this forum when you claim only the state used torture and correction and the death sentence.)Apostolic Letter “Ad Apostolicae,” Aug. 22, 1851.
55.
The Church ought to be separated from the .State, and the State from the Church. — ( unconstitutional?) Allocution “Acerbissimum,” Sept. 27, 1852.
Pests of this kind (Bible societies included so again, a declaration against religious liberty) are frequently
reprobated in the severest terms in the Encyclical “Qui pluribus,” Nov. 9, 1846, Allocution “Quibus quantisque,” April 20, 1849, Encyclical “Noscitis et nobiscum,” Dec. 8, 1849, Allocution “Singulari quadam,” Dec. 9, 1854, Encyclical “Quanto conficiamur,” Aug. 10, 1863.
For you well know, venerable brethren, that at this time men are found not a few who, applying to civil society the impious and absurd principle of “naturalism,” as they call it, dare to teach that “the best constitution of public society and (also) civil progress altogether require that human society be conducted and governed without regard being had to religion any more than if it did not exist; or, at least, without any distinction being made between the true religion and false ones.” And, against the doctrine of Scripture, of the Church, and of the Holy Fathers, they do not hesitate to assert that “
that is the best condition of civil society, in which no duty is recognized, as attached to the civil power, of restraining by enacted penalties, offenders against the Catholic religion, except so far as public peace may require.” From which totally false idea of social government they do not fear to foster that erroneous opinion, most fatal in its effects on the Catholic Church and the salvation of souls,
called by Our Predecessor, Gregory XVI, an “insanity,”2 viz.,
that “liberty of conscience and worship is each man’s personal right,
which ought to be legally proclaimed and asserted in every rightly constituted society; and that a right resides in the citizens to an absolute liberty, which should be restrained by no authority whether ecclesiastical or civil, whereby they may be able openly and publicly to manifest and declare any of their ideas whatever, either by word of mouth, by the press, or in any other way.” But, while they rashly affirm this, they do not think and consider that they are preaching “liberty of perdition;”3 and that “if human arguments are always allowed free room for discussion, there will never be wanting men who will dare to resist truth, and to trust in the flowing speech of human wisdom; whereas we know, from the very teaching of our Lord Jesus Christ, how carefully Christian faith and wisdom should avoid this most injurious babbling.”4
The above declaration by the Pope, which he starts was the same as the view held by Gregory previously, which to their Catholic mind was, quote, insanity, is nothing else but suppression, censorship, and the condoning of legally enacted penalties by the state against any views contrary to Catholic dogma.
And you dare to claim the Catholic Church supports the constitution?