Pope Pius VI on Ambiguity and the Deceptive Methods of Benedict XVI

By Bro. Peter Dimond, O.S.B.

POPE PIUS VI TELLS US THAT HERETICS HAVE ALWAYS USED AMBIGUITY TO INCULCATE HERESIES AND THAT CATHOLICS MUST CONDEMN THE HERETICAL STATEMENT DESPITE THE AMBIGUITY UNDER WHICH IT MAY BE CAMOUFLAGED!

Pope Pius VI, condemning the Synod of Pistoia, 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 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.”

Wow!  This is an extremely important teaching of the Church, and especially relevant today.  Pope Pius VI teaches us that if someone veils a heresy in ambiguity, a Catholic must hold him to the heretical meaning and denounce the heretical meaning which is camouflaged in ambiguity.  He points out that heretics have always used such tactics to insinuate their doctrinal errors and heresies.  There are countless examples from the Vatican II apostasy that could be given for which this teaching applies.  There are plenty of bold and unambiguous heresies taught by the Vatican II sect and the Vatican II antipopes, but there are also countless heresies that are veiled in ambiguity or contradictory statements.  The fact that these must be held to their heretical meaning is not just the teaching of the Church, but also common sense. For instance, if a man says that he is against abortion but sometimes contradicts himself and votes in favor of it, he is a supporter of abortion.  He rejects Catholic teaching.  Likewise, if a man teaches that there is no salvation outside the Church but sometimes teaches that souls can be saved without the Catholic Faith, he rejects the dogma Outside the Church There is No Salvation.  If he didn’t believe in salvation outside the Church he wouldn’t teach it even one time.  If he didn’t support abortion he wouldn’t vote in favor of it.  The fact that he contradicts himself doesn’t show that he is not teaching heresy.  Pope Pius VI teaches that heretics have always used such tactics because they are deceivers and dishonest at their core.  Those who say that heretics cannot be held to their heretical meanings because they often state precisely the opposite – even sometimes within the same context – or because they veil it in ambiguity, aid and abet heretics, assist the destruction of the Faith and contradict the authoritative teaching of the Church.  And this is precisely the method of Benedict XVI.

BENEDICT XVI DECEIVES HIS VICTIMS WITH AMBIGUITY, FALSE CONSERVATISM AND CONTRADICTORY PASSAGES

First, let me emphasize that Benedict XVI teaches many bold heresies.  But one of the ways by which Benedict XVI has been able to deceive so many among the false conservatives and pseudo-traditionalists is that in his writings there are many conservative lines.  These conservative lines often come just before or just after the most astounding heresies.  Benedict XVI will even say things that appear to be anti-modernist, while at the same time he teaches modernist apostasy.  He will also get personal, and reveal a seemingly deep attachment to the Faith.  These are the methods by which he deceives his victims in the context of teaching the most astounding heresies.  For instance:

“Cardinal” Joseph Ratzinger, Truth and Tolerance, 2004, p. 206: “Paul does not say, If the pagans keep their own religion, that is good before the judgment-seat of God.  On the contrary, he condemns the majority of the religious practices of his time.”

Here Benedict XVI seems to be denouncing paganism.  He seems to be indicating that they cannot be saved in their pagan religion.  But this deceiving heretic is just setting you up.  For in the very same book – including on the page just after this quote – he indicates again and again that pagans are saved and even calls into question whether Christianity is the true religion.

“Cardinal” Joseph Ratzinger, Truth and Tolerance, 2004, p. 207: “The fact that in every age there have been, and still are, ‘pagan saints’ is because everywhere and in every age – albeit often with difficulty and in fragmentary fashion – the speech of the ‘heart’ can be heard, because God’s Torah may be heard within ourselves...”

For the weak of Faith, however, all Benedict XVI needs to do is say certain things that are conservative or anti-modernist or seemingly devoted to the Faith and he’s got them.  They’re swept away because when they see things that appear conservative or even anti-modernist they say: “how could he possibly be evil?  How could he not accept Catholic teaching when he speaks like this?”  They don’t understand how the devil works; they don’t understand how heretics deceive; and, most significantly, they don’t have the supernatural Faith to perceive that a very evil person could – and often deliberately does – say things that give the appearance of a devotion to the Faith.  Here’s another example of the contradictory lies and heresy of Benedict XVI.

“Cardinal” Joseph Ratzinger, God and the World, 2000, p. 150: “Q.  God has not, then, retracted his word that Israel is the Chosen People? A.  No, because he is faithful… they still stand within the faithful covenant of God.”

On page 150 of his book God and the World Benedict XVI inculcates the heresy that the Jews are still the Chosen People and the Old Covenant is still in force.  This was condemned by the Council of Florence.  This heresy is consistently taught by the Vatican II antipopes and the Novus Ordo Bishops.  But Benedict XVI proceeds to seemingly contradict this in the very next question:

“Cardinal” Joseph Ratzinger, God and the World, 2000, p. 150: “Does that mean that Jews will have to recognize the Messiah, or ought to do so?  A.  That is what we believe.  That does not mean that we have to force Christ upon them but that we should share in the patience of God.”

This seems to indicate that Jews need to believe in Christ for salvation.  It tickles the ears of many of his heretical readers.  But, then, on the very next page (p. 151), Benedict XVI completely contradicts this again:

“Cardinal” Joseph Ratzinger, God and the World, 2000, p. 151: “On the one hand, their [the Jews] No to Christ brings the Israelites into conflict with the subsequent acts of God, but at the same time we know that they are assured of the faithfulness of God.  They are not excluded from salvation, but they serve in a particular way, and thereby they stand within the patience of God, in which we, too, place our trust.”

Here, on page 151, Benedict XVI bluntly tells us that Jews are not excluded from salvation even though they say “No” to Christ.  So in just two pages he tells us that the Jews’ Covenant with God is still valid (heresy); that they need to accept Christ (truth which contradicts the heresy); and that they are not excluded from salvation (heresy).  He then proceeds on page 209, as quoted in my article on the heresies in God and the World, to question whether Christ is even prophesied in the Old Testament!  This is how the devil works.  This is how heretics have always worked.  This is what Pope Pius VI condemns; this is what he warns Catholics about and declares they must condemn.  So don’t be deceived if Benedict XVI does conservative things or contradicts himself or seems to express an attachment to the Faith in some of his lines.  It’s all a bunch of nonsense from an extremely diabolical heretic who is deliberately trying to deceive – a heretic who repeatedly denies Christ and the Catholic Faith.  None of his conservative statements or actions changes the fact that he consistently teaches astounding heresies; that he is a promoter of the apostate Vatican II religion; that he denies the necessity of the Catholic Faith for salvation; that he denies the Papacy, etc., etc., etc.

SOME MORE EXAMPLES OF CONSERVATIVES LINES IN BENEDICT XVI’S WRITINGS AND BENEDICT XVI GETTING PERSONAL

“Cardinal” Joseph Ratzinger, Principles of Catholic Theology, 1982, p. 283: “No one goes to church to hear someone else’s personal opinions.  I am simply not interested in what fantasies this or that individual priest may have spun for himself regarding questions of Christian faith.” “Cardinal” Joseph Ratzinger, Salt of the Earth, 1996, p. 185: “For whoever reads the Gospel sees that Christ preached the good news but that precisely the message of judgment is a part of it.  There are quite dramatic words of judgment in the Gospel that can really make one shudder.  We ought not to stifle them.  The Lord himself in the Gospel obviously sees no contradiction between the message of judgment and the good news.” “Cardinal” Joseph Ratzinger, God and the World, 2000, p. 214: “That [Christmas account] is certainly one of the most moving scenes in the whole of Scripture.  It’s not for nothing that Christendom so loves it.  From early Christian art onward, we can see that.  This scene goes right to your heart, but the message goes far beyond what is merely cheerful and lovely.” “Cardinal” Joseph Ratzinger, God is Near Us, 2001, p. 54: “I am always moved by those stories of what happened in concentration camps or Russian prison camps, where people had to do without the Eucharist for a period of weeks or months and yet did not turn to the arbitrary action of celebrating it themselves…waiting with yearning upon the Lord….”

Yes, you are so moved that you stated in Sakrametale Begrundung christlicher Existenz that it is waste of time to spend time in front of the Blessed Sacrament.  You are so moved by the Eucharist that you deny the Bodily Presence of Christ on page 84 of this same book:

“Cardinal” Joseph Ratzinger, God is Near Us, 2001, p. 84: “There were those who were filled with the thought: Jesus is really there.  But ‘reality’, for them, was simply physical, bodily.  Consequently, they arrived at the conclusion: In the Eucharist we chew on the flesh of the Lord; but therein they were under the sway of a serious misapprehension.  For Jesus has risen.  We do not eat flesh, as cannibals would do.”

This is a bold denial of the Real Presence.  We do eat the Body and Blood of the Lord.  When one receives the Eucharist he should try not to chew on the host, of course.  He should receive it and consume it without chewing.  But the meaning of Benedict XVI is that we don’t receive Our Lord’s flesh (which is bold heresy).  The fact that this is his meaning is further proven when he says: “We do not eat flesh.”  This is a clear denial of the Real Presence and Our Lord’s declaration in John 6:54 – exactly 30 pages after trying to show us how “moved” he is by the Eucharist.

John 6:54- “Amen, amen I say to you: except you eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you.” 

Be prepared for more of the same from the apostate Benedict XVI.  Be prepared for more of the most astounding heresies, combined with some conservative actions and statements.

Pope Pius X, Pascendi dominici gregis (#18), Sept. 8, 1907: "This becomes still clearer to anybody who studies the conduct of the Modernists, which is in perfect harmony with their teachings.  In the writings and addresses they seem not infrequently to advocate now one doctrine now another so that one would be disposed to regard them as vague and doubtful.  But there is a reason for this, and it is to be found in their ideas as to the mutual separation of science and faith.  Hence in their books you find some things which might be well expressed by a Catholic, but in the next page you find other things which might have been dictated by a rationalist."