The Aberration of Ambiguity
Vatican II incarcerated Catholic Truth in cells of anomalies that reek of modernism, humanism and other anathemas. Today there are powerful periti from the Council who have burrowed beneath dogmatic truth to loosen foundations within the modern Vatican. At various times they surface from their foxholes via statements that, based on the aberration of ambiguity, give rise to relativism and further make the sheep ripe for the shearing. Why? Because they've been so dumbed down that they've had the wool pulled over their collective eyes and ears, unable to recognize the identity of who's really undermining the Truth Faith.
By Kathy Willett Redle
"We have used ambiguous phrases during the Council and we know how we will interpret them afterwards." the exact words of Edward Schillebeexks, progressive peritus of Vatican II
EDITOR'S NOTE: In this series, headlines and subheads as well as theme have been added by the editor to further enhance the points made by the author for it is vital that the facts here are not cast into ambiguity but clear, concise and can serve as a resounding clarion to arouse the masses from their 40-year slumber.
He is considered the guardian of the Faith, but is he really guarding it faithfully? Most give Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger a pass of immunity when it comes to laying the blame on what has been responsible for the devastation of the Church and caused the agony of aggiornamento. Even Robert Sungenis, head of Catholic Apologetics International, who has been writing regularly this past year in Catholic Family News left the German cardinal out of the mix of progressivist theologians in focusing on problems in the conciliar church. I would like to refer the reader to an article he wrote back in June on Raymond Brown part 5. He did a very good job of exposing this modernist scripture scholar and his clever cabal. However, I would say that Mr. Sungenis in his criticism of Karl Barth's illumination of original sin and advancement of universal salvation and those Catholic scripture scholars who followed him - "Karl Rahner, Hans Kung, Henri de Lubac, Anthony de Mello, Edward Schillebeexks, Garbial Moran, et all," were theologians who were invited as periti at Vatican II but Sungenis omitted one key player who contributed to this fray and is now head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. So where is my proof?
Cardinal Ratzinger said,
"The [Genesis] account tells us that sin begets sin, and that therefore all the sins of history are interlinked. Theology refers to this state of affairs by the certainly misleading and imprecise term "original sin". What does this mean? Nothing seems to us today to be stranger or, indeed, more absurd than to insist upon original sin, since, according to our way of thinking, guilt can only be something very personal, and since God does not run a concentration camp in which one's relatives are imprisoned. What does original sin mean? ... this requires nothing less than trying to understand the human person better. ... each of us enters into a situation in which relationality has been hurt. Consequently each person is, from the start, damaged in his relationships ..." [!]
This is from In the Beginning A Catholic Understanding of Creation & the Fall. Ignatius Press 1990 pg 89-91 from a series of lectures he gave in the US. in 1989. See http://members.iinet.net.au/~raphael/bib_1_3.html
Then Ratzinger states in the above book
- (p.12): "... for science has long since disposed of the concepts (Gen. 1-19) that we have just now heard. ... we hear of the Big Bang, which happened billions of years ago. ... it was rather in complex ways and over vast periods of time that earth and the universe were constructed."
(p.65): "We cannot say: creation or evolution. The proper way of putting it is: creation and evolution."
(p.37): "Physics and Biology, and the natural sciences in general, have given us a new and unheard-of creation account."
(pp.20-21): "In Israel itself the creation theme went through several different stages. ... The moment when creation became a dominant theme occurred during the Babylonian exile. It was then that the account which we have just heard - based, to be sure, on very ancient tradition - assumed its present form. ..."
And also on p.21: "This faith (in creation) now had to find its own contours and it had to do so precisely vis-a-vis the seemingly victorious religion of Babylon."
And p.22: "It has to find its contours vis-a-vis the great Babylonian creation account of Enuma Elish." The authors of the above web site point out that "Hebrew Scripture owes absolutely nothing to the Babylonian myth."
So I think its clear from the above demonstrations that Cardinal Ratzinger does not adhere to the historicity of either the creation of Adam and Eve or to the fall.
My question for Mr. Sungenis is why does he seem to equate the infallibility of scriptures with Vatican II when he wrote on his site that Vatican II did not make errors in its teachings http://www.catholicintl.com/epologetics/Letter_to_Concerned_Patron.asp
or perhaps he thinks the indefectibility of the Church is in jeopardy. Its ambiguity itself is an error leading to the spread of errors and has been the source of today's confusion. William Mayer of Pipeline News recommended "Burying Vatican II''s Heterodoxy -- One Catholic''s Opinion"
see http://www.pipelinenews.org/index.cfm?page=thisnthat.htm or www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1089114/posts There are many people who do not agree that Vatican II was perfectly orthodox or unambiguous or why would we have all of this unprecedented controversy?
The liberal peritus, Father Edward Schillebeeckx admitted, "we have used ambiguous phrases during the Council and we know how we will interpret them afterwards." See "Open Letter to Confused Catholics," Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, Kansas City, Angelus Press, 1992, p. 106.
I fail to see how a "pastoral council" is infallible or without error (other than in reiterating past doctrines) when it has ambiguous statements as this from Fr. Walter Abbott's The Documents of Vatican II p 350 Document on Ecumenism Chapter II states,
"6.Every renewal of the Church essentially consists in an increase of fidelity to her own calling. Undoubtedly this explains the dynamism of the movement toward unity. Christ summons the Church, as she goes her pilgrim way, to that continual reformation of which she always has need, insofar as she is an institution of men here on earth. Therefore, if the influence of events or of the times has led to deficiencies in conduct, in Church discipline, or even in the formulation of doctrine (which must be carefully distinguished from the deposit itself of faith), these should be appropriately rectified at the proper moment." Fr. Abbott stated, in note "33 It is remarkable, indeed, for an Ecumenical Council to admit possible deficiency of previous doctrinal formulations."
There are several problematic statements here. First, the Church is the spotless Bride of Christ as Pope Leo XIII in Immortale Dei asserts that the Church is a perfect society as does Pius XI in Mortalium Animos, sec 6 and that She doesn't need to search for unity because She already possesses it as
"So, Venerable Brethren, it is clear why this Apostolic See has never allowed its subjects to take part in the assemblies of non-Catholics: for the union of Christians can only be promoted by promoting the return to the one true Church of Christ of those who are separated from it, for in the past they have unhappily left it." sec 15.
The confusing and ambiguous element of the Conciliar Church crisis is all too apparent so how can this aspect be from God or be compared to past infallible councils or scriptures? St. Paul says in 1 Colossians 14:33 "For God is not the God of dissension, (confusion) but of peace: as also I teach in all the churches of the saints."
And finally, in order to better alert readers as to the obvious, I leave you with this statement on ambiguity from Pope Pius VI, 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 dissimulation and lying is vicious, regardless of the circumstance under which it is used. For very good reason 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 ether 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 imposter 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 then 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."
As was stated above and documented, and it is vital to realize that those crafting Vatican II have admitted their intent to purposely impose ambiguity. Schillebeeckx admitted, "we have used ambiguous phrases during the Council and we know how we will interpret them afterwards." We know now how they have interpreted them and there is nothing ambiguous in their intent.
Kathy Willett Redle