original HERE...
Note: Pardon the bold highlighting but I think you will see why it is necessary as it sheds light on the documents of Vatican II where ambiguities and all dubiously expressed propositions need correction, to be brought back into line with Church Tradition---or else rejected.---SH
Pope Pius VI, in condemning the Synod of Pistoia, published the most enlightening Bull, Auctorem fidei, August 28, 1794: “[The Ancient Doctors] knew the capacity of innovators in the art of deception. In order not to shock the ears of Catholics, they sought to hide the subtleties of their tortuous maneuvers by the use of seemingly innocuous words such as would allow them to insinuate error into souls in the most gentle manner. Once the truth had been compromised, they could, by means of slight changes or additions in phraseology, distort the confession of the faith which is necessary for our salvation, and lead the faithful by subtle errors to their eternal damnation. This manner of dissimulating and lying is vicious, regardless of the circumstances under which it is used. For very good reasons it can never be tolerated in a synod of which the principal glory consists above all in teaching the truth with clarity and excluding all danger of error.
"Moreover, if all this is sinful, it cannot be excused in the way that one sees it being done, under the erroneous pretext that the seemingly shocking affirmations in one place are further developed along orthodox lines in other places, and even in yet other places corrected; as if allowing for the possibility of either affirming or denying the statement, or of leaving it up to the personal inclinations of the individual – such has always been the fraudulent and daring method used by innovators to establish error. It allows for both the possibility of promoting error and of excusing it.
"It is as if the innovators pretended that they always intended to present the alternative passages, especially to those of simple faith who eventually come to know only some part of the conclusions of such discussions which are published in the common language for everyone's use. Or again, as if the same faithful had the ability on examining such documents to judge such matters for themselves without getting confused and avoiding all risk of error. It is a most reprehensible technique for the insinuation of doctrinal errors and one condemned long ago by our predecessor Saint Celestine who found it used in the writings of Nestorius, Bishop of Constantinople, and which he exposed in order to condemn it with the greatest possible severity. Once these texts were examined carefully, the impostor was exposed and confounded, for he expressed himself in a plethora of words, mixing true things with others that were obscure; mixing at times one with the other in such a way that he was also able to confess those things which were denied while at the same time possessing a basis for denying those very sentences which he confessed.
"In order to expose such snares, something which becomes necessary with a certain frequency in every century, no other method is required than the following: Whenever it becomes necessary to expose statements which disguise some suspected error or danger under the veil of ambiguity, one must denounce the perverse meaning under which the error opposed to Catholic truth is camouflaged" ---(emphasis added throughout)
Note: See the late Michael Davies' books Pope John's Council and Pope Paul's New Mass for more on the role of deliberate ambiguity planted by liberals with a view to forging "compromise texts" at the Council which they said could be exploited after the Council. The Church, it was astonishing for me to find, has already (long ago) given us the principles of interpretation whereby we can detect the "vicious". I wish I had seen this authoritative pronouncement years ago. Not only does this cast the more grave suspicion on the method of the authors of the texts of the Second Vatican Council (and permitted by that mystery man, Paul VI), but also on books published subsequently by those even in the highest ranks of the Church, to say nothing of conciliar "theologians" in general. The method is to give with one hand what one robs with the other.
Love, yes, always. Relativism and pluralism which embraces contradictions, no. We can't go that way. SH
No comments:
Post a Comment