![\"\"](\"https:\/\/wp-media.patheos.com\/blogs\/sites\/572\/2023\/11\/Ambiguity.jpg\")
<\/a><\/p>\nChapter 12 (pp. 99-111) of my book, Reflections on Radical Catholic Reactionaries<\/em><\/a> (December 2002; revised second edition: 17 August 2013; slightly revised again in November 2023 for the purpose of the free online version). Anyone who reads this book should first read the following three introductory articles, in order to fully understand the definitions and sociological categories I am employing:<\/p>\n Introduction (on the book page<\/a>)<\/p>\n Definitions: Radical Catholic Reactionaries, Mainstream \u201cTraditionalists,\u201d and Supposed \u201cNeo-Catholics\u201d\u00a0<\/a>[revised 8-6-13]<\/span><\/p>\n Radical Catholic Reactionaries: What They Are\u00a0Not<\/em><\/a>\u00a0[9-28-21]<\/p>\n If you\u2019re still confused and unclear as to my meanings and intent after that, read one or more of these articles:<\/p>\n Rationales for My Self-Coined Term, \u201cRadical Catholic Reactionaries\u201d<\/a>\u00a0[8-6-13]<\/p>\n My Coined Term, \u201cRadical Catholic Reactionary\u201d: Clarifications<\/a>\u00a0[10-5-17]<\/p>\n Clarifying My Coined Term, \u201cRadical Catholic Reactionary\u201d<\/a>\u00a0[4-3-20]<\/p>\n This book is modeled after the method and structure of the French mathematician and Catholic apologist Blaise Pascal\u2019s classic,\u00a0Pens\u00e9es<\/em> (\u201cthoughts\u201d). Catholic apologist and philosopher Peter Kreeft described this masterpiece\u00a0<\/i>as \u201craw pearls\u201d and \u201cmore like \u2018sayings\u2019 than a book . . . \u2018Sayings\u2019 reflect and approximate the higher, the mode of Christ and Socrates and Buddha. That\u2019s why Socrates is the greatest philosopher, according to St. Thomas (S.T.<\/i> III, 42, 4).\u201d<\/p>\n *****<\/p>\n All the arguments which go to prove the infallibility of the Church apply with their fullest force to the infallible authority of general councils in union with the pope. For conciliary decisions are the ripe fruit of the total life-energy of the teaching Church actuated and directed by the Holy Ghost. Such was the mind of the Apostles when, at the Council of Jerusalem (Acts, xv, 28), they put the seal of supreme authority on their decisions in attributing them to the joint action of the Spirit of God and of themselves: Visum est Spiritui sancto et nobis (It hath seemed good to the Holy Ghost and to us). This formula and the dogma it enshrines stand out brightly in the deposit of faith and have been carefully guarded throughout the many storms raised in councils by the play of the human element.<\/p>\n From the earliest times they who rejected the decisions of councils were themselves rejected by the Church. Emperor Constantine saw in the decrees of Nicaea \u201ca Divine commandment\u201d and Athanasius wrote to the bishops of Africa: \u201cWhat God has spoken through the Council of Nicaea endureth for ever.\u201d St. Ambrose (Ep. xxi) pronounces himself ready to die by the sword rather than give up the Nicene decrees, and Pope Leo the Great\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 expressly declares that \u201cwhoso resists the Councils of Nicaea and Chalcedon cannot be numbered among Catholics\u201d (Ep. lxxviii, ad Leonem Augustum). In the same epistle he says that the decrees of Chalcedon were framed instruente Spiritu Sancto, i.e. under the guidance of the Holy Ghost.<\/p>\n How the same doctrine was embodied in many professions of faith may be seen in Denzinger\u2019s (ed. Stahl) \u201cEnchiridion symbolorum et definitionum\u201d, under the heading (index) \u201cConcilium generale representat ecclesiam universalem, eique absolute obediendum\u201d\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 (General councils represent the universal Church and demand absolute obedience<\/em>). The Scripture texts on which this unshaken belief is based are, among others: \u201cBut when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will teach you all truth . . .\u201d John xvi, 13) \u201cBehold I am with you\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 [teaching] all days even to the consummation of the world\u201d (Matt., xxviii, 20), \u201cThe gates of hell shall not prevail against it [i.e. the Church]\u201d (Matt., xvi, 18).<\/p>\n Papal and conciliar infallibility are correlated but not identical. A council\u2019s decrees approved by the pope are infallible by reason of that approbation, because the pope is infallible also extra concilium, without the support of a council. The infallibility proper to the pope is not, however, the only formal adequate ground of the council\u2019s infallibility. The Divine constitution of the Church and the promises of Divine assistance made by her Founder, guarantee her inerrancy, in matters pertaining to faith and morals, independently of the pope\u2019s infallibility: a fallible pope supporting, and supported by, a council, would\u00a0 still pronounce infallible decisions.<\/p>\n This accounts for the fact that, before the Vatican decree concerning the supreme pontiff\u2019s ex-cathedra judgments, Ecumenical councils were generally held to be infallible even by those who denied the papal infallibility<\/em>; it also explains the concessions largely made to the opponents of the papal privilege that it is not necessarily implied in the\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 infallibility of councils, and the claims that it can be proved separately and independently on its proper merits. The infallibility of the council is intrinsic, i.e. springs from its nature<\/em>. Christ promised to be in the midst of two or three of His disciples gathered together in His name; now an Ecumenical council is, in fact or in law, a gathering of all Christ\u2019s co-workers for the salvation of man through true faith and holy conduct; He is therefore in their midst, fulfilling His promises and leading them into the truth for which they are striving. . . .<\/p>\n Some important consequences flow from these principles. Conciliar decrees approved by the pope have a double guarantee of infallibility: their own and that of the infallible pope<\/em>. The council\u2019s dignity is, therefore, not diminished, but increased, by the definition of papal infallibility, . . .<\/p>\n An opinion too absurd to require refutation pretends that only these latter canons (with the attached anathemas) contain the peremptory judgment of the council demanding unquestioned submission. Equally absurd is the opinion, sometimes recklessly<\/em> advanced, that the Tridentine capita are no more than explanations of the canones, not proper definitions; the council itself, at the beginning and end of each chapter, declares them to contain the rule of faith.<\/p>\n Obedient Catholics (per the above pre-conciliar explanations) obey ecumenical councils and give them their inner assent and submission.<\/p>\n Apostolic Brief In Spiritu Sancto<\/em> for the Closing of the Council; read at the closing ceremonies of 8 December by Archbishop Pericle Felici, general secretary of the council:<\/p>\n The Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, assembled in the Holy Spirit and under the protection of the Blessed Virgin Mary, whom we have declared Mother of the Church, and of St. Joseph, her glorious spouse, and of the Apostles SS. Peter and Paul, must be numbered without doubt among the greatest events of the Church . . .<\/p>\n At last all which regards the holy ecumenical council has, with the help of God, been accomplished and all the constitutions, decrees, declarations and votes have been approved by the deliberation of the synod and promulgated by us . . .<\/p>\n We decided moreover that all that has been established synodally is to be religiously observed by all the faithful, for the glory of God and the dignity of the Church and for the tranquillity and peace of all men. We have approved and established these things, decreeing that the present letters are and remain stable and valid, and are to have legal effectiveness, so that they be disseminated and obtain full and complete effect, and so that they may be fully convalidated by those whom they concern or may concern now and in the future; and so that, as it be judged and described, all efforts contrary to these things by whomever or whatever authority, knowingly or in ignorance be invalid and worthless from now on.<\/p>\n Given in Rome at St. Peter\u2019s, under the [seal of the] ring of the fisherman, Dec. 8, on the feast of the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin Mary, the year 1965, the third year of our pontificate.<\/p>\n P1 The Council says x (in its actual words).<\/p>\n P2 The \u201cconservatives\u201d (i.e., orthodox Catholics) interpret the words in a Catholic sense, consistent with sacred tradition.<\/p>\n P3 The liberals (or, modernists) interpret the words in a heterodox, un-Catholic, revolutionary sense.<\/p>\n C1 The words of the council must therefore lend themselves \u2014 in their essence, intrinsically, and objectively \u2014 to either interpretation.<\/p>\n C2 Since both readings occur in fact, therefore the council is deliberately ambiguous, and \u201ccompromises the faith.\u201d<\/p>\n The fallacy lies in C1, leading to further false assertion C2. It is not established by logic; nor is it proven that the council is the sole<\/em> (or even primary<\/em>) cause of what comes after<\/em> it. One can see how fallacious this is, using the analogy of the Bible:<\/p>\n PP1 The Bible says x (in its actual words).<\/p>\n PP2 Catholics interpret the words in a Catholic sense, consistent with sacred tradition.<\/p>\n PP3 Protestants, and heretics such as Jehovah\u2019s Witnesses or Mormons<\/a> interpret (many of) the words in a heterodox, un-Catholic sense.<\/p>\n CC1 The words of the Bible must therefore lend themselves \u2014 in their essence, intrinsically, and objectively \u2014 to either the Catholic or the heretical interpretation.<\/p>\n CC2 Since both readings occur in fact, therefore the Bible is deliberately ambiguous, and \u201ccompromises the faith.\u201d<\/p>\n The reasoning is precisely the same in both cases. All Christian sects and heresies appeal to the Bible (and here we encounter the doctrinal and hermeneutical relativism of sola Scriptura<\/em>). Likewise, liberals appeal to Vatican II. We would expect no less, since they also appeal to Scripture (even homosexual activists try to find support for their abominable viewpoints in Scripture, with some of the worst, twisted exegesis known to man). Pro-abortionists find abortion in the U.S. Constitution, under a supposed \u201cright to privacy\u201d \u2014 rather like the ersatz liberal alleged \u201cspirit\u201d of Vatican II. Just as the Bible in no wise teaches what they claim it does, so it is the case that Vatican II does not teach their damnable heresies, either.<\/p>\n One must look at the objective words of the council, interpreted through cross-reference within its own documents, and the historical precedent of Catholic orthodoxy, just as one does with the Bible: through exegesis, hermeneutics, and the appeal to the apostolic tradition as a norm of authentic interpretation. Reactionaries have it exactly backwards \u2014 they locate the meaning of the conciliar documents in the liberal distortions and \u201cco-opting\u201d of them, which makes no sense at all; in fact, it is scandalous, coming from those who claim to be upholding tradition. It is as unseemly as taking a Mormon interpretation of Scripture as the criterion for proper biblical hermeneutics, then condemning the Bible because of the heretical and false nature of Mormon teaching.<\/p>\n 1) The Bible is said (by agnostics, atheists, stuffed-shirt professors, and modernists) to be full of many irreconcilable contradictions, which are considered to be evidence of its untrustworthiness and lack of divine inspiration and infallibility.<\/p>\n 2) Likewise, infallible councils and papal pronouncements (especially since \u201c1958\u201d \u2014 which seems to be the \u201cmagic\u201d year of transformation) are said (by modernists, reactionaries, Orthodox, and Protestants) to be full of many irreconcilable contradictions, which are considered to be evidence of their untrustworthiness and lack of divine guidance and infallibility.<\/p>\n Where is the difference in principle between the two scenarios? Christians can readily see the folly and insufficiently compelling nature of the first argument. Countless so-called contradictions or \u201cimpossibilities\u201d in Holy Scripture have been resolved by textual advances, archaeological discoveries, scholarly exegesis, linguistic analysis, documented fulfilled prophecy, the exposing of unnecessarily and unfairly hostile academic theories, etc. Many \u201cparadoxes\u201d on their face have been clearly shown to be in fact logically complementary<\/em>. The supposed \u201ccontradiction\u201d is almost always merely an outgrowth of a prior prejudice and preconceived notions (oftentimes a flat-out anti-supernaturalism of radical philosophical or textual skepticism).<\/p>\n The point is that the committed, devout Christian of any stripe, grants to the Bible its inspired status. He has faith that it is indeed God\u2019s Revelation, God-breathed, preserved in its text in almost miraculous fashion, canonized by Catholic councils under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, maker of western civilization and breaker of cycles of immorality and decadence, and of tyrannies and tin pot dictators throughout history. The supposed \u201cerrors\u201d are believed to have a solution. The benefit of the doubt is granted to Holy Scripture, while scholars wrestle with the \u201cdifficulties\u201d of text and exegesis. One has faith, based on what they have seen by way of positive proofs and indications \u2014 a cumulative case which rings true, which is not contrary to reason, but which transcends it; harmonizes with it. This is Catholic, and general Christian belief.<\/p>\n So why is it different when it comes to the Church and the papacy? Catholicism is a three-legged stool: Holy Scripture, Holy Tradition, and Holy Mother Church, led by the Holy Father, the pope. How is it that self-professed Catholics can deign to summarily dismiss decrees of an ecumenical council, assuming (with a deluded air of \u201ccertainty\u201d) from the outset that they contradict earlier pronouncements of popes and councils? Why is not the benefit of the doubt and suspension of skepticism allowed in this<\/em> instance?<\/p>\n How can people who claim to believe in the indefectibility<\/em> of the Church, and supernatural protection against any error that would bind the faithful, believe such things? What becomes of faith in God\u2019s promises? Does such a person actually believe for a moment that God would allow mere modernists, who \u2014 by doubting and disbelieving \u2014 have lost the supernatural virtue of faith altogether, to subvert an ecumenical council, and by implication, the Church itself?<\/p>\n The very notion is preposterous! It is unthinkable within the orthodox Catholic framework of faith. It is un-Catholic. It has<\/em> never happened, and will<\/em> never happen. And it is the triumph of private judgment and modernist skepticism within the Church (i.e., among the crowd who accept these ludicrous propositions). One must persevere! One must keep the faith! One must take the long view of history, if there remains any doubt that God has supernaturally protected His Church. What becomes of one\u2019s Christian assurance and trust in the Lord, existing side-by-side with this incessant Protestantized doubt about magisterial pronouncements?<\/p>\n *<\/p>\n ***** Summary<\/em>: Chapter 12 of my book, Reflections on Radical Catholic Reactionaries<\/em> (December 2002; revised in November 2023 for the purpose of the free online version).<\/p>\n<\/body><\/html>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Chapter 12 (pp. 99-111) of my book, Reflections on Radical Catholic Reactionaries (December 2002; revised second edition: 17 August 2013; slightly revised again in November 2023 for the purpose of the free online version). Anyone who reads this book should first read the following three introductory articles, in order to fully understand the definitions and […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2331,"featured_media":77855,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[131],"tags":[164,1531,810,18215,1143,133],"class_list":["post-77609","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-church-ecclesiology","tag-catholic-authority","tag-conciliar-infallibility","tag-ecumenical-councils","tag-extraordinary-magisterium","tag-second-vatican-council","tag-vatican-ii"],"yoast_head":"\n\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n*<\/p>\n
\n*<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n