Auctorem Fidei and False Traditionalists

In the thread “Cardinal Koch: SSPX Will Have to Accept Vatican II”, posted by otremer6, it is said:

Edit: does this mean that the SSPX will have to give hearty assent to the vague and novel formulations which have no substantial foundation in Church history or doctrine before the 1960s according to Cardinal Koch

It means:

You say that you are subject to the church and faithful to tradition by the sole fact that you obey certain norms of the past that were decreed by the predecessor of him to whom God has today conferred the powers given to Peter. That is to say, on this point also, the concept of "tradition" that you invoke is distorted.

Tradition is not a rigid and dead notion, a fact of a certain static sort which at a given moment of history blocks the life of this active organism which is the church, that is, the mystical body of Christ. It is up to the Pope and to councils to exercise judgment in order to discern in the traditions of the church that which cannot be renounced without infidelity to the Lord and to the Holy Spirit - the deposit of faith - and that which, on the contrary, can and must be adapted to facilitate the prayer and the mission of the church throughout a variety of times and places, in order better to translate the divine message into the language of today and better to communicate it, without an unwarranted surrender of principles.

Hence tradition is inseparable from the living magisterium of the church, just as it is inseparable from sacred scripture. "Sacred tradition, sacred scripture and the magisterium of the church . . . are so linked and joined together that one of these realities cannot exist without the others, and that all of them together, each in its own way, effectively contribute under the action of the Holy Spirit to the salvation of souls" (Constitution Dei Verbum, 10).

With the special assistance of the Holy Spirit, the popes and the ecumenical councils have acted in this common way. And it is precisely this that the Second Vatican Council did. Nothing that was decreed in this Council, or in the reforms that we enacted in order to put the Council into effect, is opposed to what the 2,000-year-old tradition of the church considers as fundamental and immutable. We are the guarantor of this, not in virtue of Our personal qualities but in virtue of the charge which the Lord has conferred upon Us as legitimate successor of Peter, and in virtue of the special assistance that He has promised to Us as well as to Peter: "I have prayed for you that your faith may not fail" (Lk. 22:32). The universal episcopate is guarantor with us of this.

Again, you cannot appeal to the distinction between what is dogmatic and what is pastoral to accept certain texts of this Council and to refuse others. Indeed, not everything in the Council requires an assent of the same nature: only what is affirmed by definitive acts as an object of faith or as a truth related to faith requires an assent of faith. But the rest also forms part of the solemn magisterium of the church to which each member of the faithful owes a confident acceptance and a sincere application. (Pope Paul VI, Letter to Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, 1976)

It means:

... you list three texts of the Council 'incompatible', according to you, with the Magisterium, adding even an 'etc.' …But you can not assert the incompatibility of the conciliar texts - which are magisterial texts - with the Magisterium and Tradition. You can say that personally, you do not see this compatibility, and to ask explanations of the Apostolic See. But if, on the contrary, you assert the impossibility of such an explanation, you ARE DEPARTING DEEPLY from the fundamental structure of the Catholic faith; the of faith of the Church which you are claiming to defend at the end of your letter, the faith you were taught during your childhood and in the Eternal City." (Cardinal Ratzinger, Letter to Ab Lefebvre, 1983)

It means that the accusation of “vague and novel formulations which have no substantial foundation in Church history or doctrine before the 1960s” is itself a vague and novel formulation which conveniently slips out of the mouths of “traditionalists” on queue (like someone with Turret’s syndrome) in order to propagate the myth that VCII imposed on the Church “formulations” and doctrines opposed to immutable tradition and the faith itself.

Because new policies were introduced, this must be condemned as “novel formulations”, and because points of doctrine were expounded upon and developed which were new or which, heretofore, had received little attention, these must be “ambiguous”, “opposed to doctrine”, with “no substantial foundation in Church history or doctrine before the 1960s”.

It is all rubbish, and as accurate as columba’s accusation that the “innovators” who presided over VCII and promulgated it’s documents (like the Supreme Pontiff and the universality of Bishops in union with him), knowing full well:

“the capacity of innovators in the art of deception”, and “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. (Auctorem Fidei, 1794)

Yes, indeed, that was the sinful malicious intention and vicious lying practiced by Pope Paul VI and the Bishops assembled at VCII, and all subsequent Popes and Bishops, so that “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”.

And it is so simple; as simple as abiding by the “fraudulent and daring method used by innovators to establish error”, to simply “disguise some suspected error or danger under the veil of ambiguity”.

See, the catch word is “ambiguity”; meaning all ambiguity (like that which is not immediately and fully understood precisely because it is a development of a difficult point in doctrine, for example) is damnable, and that is precisely what Pope Pius VI condemned in Auctorem Fidei, according to the arbiter of truth and tradition, columba, and false traditionalists everywhere.

However, “Language can always be twisted regardless of the intentions of the authors and that Vatican II had a few apparent ambiguities is hardly irregular. All Councils and Magisterial documents have them to some extent. ... There are a few spots [in the documents of VCII] that could be argued are ambiguous but that is common to all General Councils and the CDF can add a few clarification notes where needed to correct this situation”, and it did. (http://matt1618.freeyellow.com/donatism.html)

Condemned in the Constitution, "Auctorem fidei," Aug. 28, 1794,

A. Errors about the Church 3. Obscuring of Truths in the Church [From the Decree de Grat., sec. I]

1. The proposition, which asserts "that in these later times there has been spread a general obscuring of the more important truths pertaining to religion, which are the basis of faith and of the moral teachings of Jesus Christ,"—heretical.

From the same Bull and Apostolic Constitution, Auctorem Fidei, in condemnation of the Gallican and Jansenist acts and tendencies of the Synod of Pistoia (1786):

78. The prescription of the synod about the order of transacting business in the conferences, in which, after it prefaced "in every article that which pertains to faith and to the essence of religion must be distinguished from that which is proper to discipline," it adds, "in this itself (discipline) there is to be distinguished what is necessary or useful to retain the faithful in spirit, from that which is useless or too burden-some for the liberty of the sons of the new Covenant to endure, but more so, from that which is dangerous or harmful, namely, leading to superstition and materialism"; in so far as by the generality of the words it includes and submits to a prescribed examination even the discipline established and approved by the Church, as if the Church which is ruled by the Spirit of God could have established discipline which is not only useless and burdensome for Christian liberty to endure, but which is even dangerous and harmful and leading to superstition and materialism,—false, rash, scandalous, dangerous, offensive to pious ears, injurious to the Church and to the Spirit of God by whom it is guided, at least erroneous.