Christian Fact Checker And Modernist Peaceful Compromise

 Preamble:

A Modernist dogmatic constitution containing a number of Modernist peaceful compromises in their bid to placate their embittered conservative comrades within, while not being offensive to their radical comrades outside the walls of Catholic buildings... 

A while ago I saw a post of a self-appointed and self-sent  "Apostle" declaring that the  fact-checker for any teaching that can be called Christian is the Bible and it alone. Obviously this is a paraphrase of Apostate Luther's "Sola scriptura" insidious mantra.

Now, this declaration reminded me of my days in Modernist-dressed-as-Catholic major seminary when my lecturer in the course "Introduction to Vatican II" gladly declared, and truly so, that the sixteen documents of the so-called Vatican II Council is a product of a compromise between the conservative and the liberal factions among the "council fathers". This compromise was gladly affirmed by my lecturer to be in effect a victory for the liberals who had the "Pope" on their side. It goes to show that the "Pope" being from their ranks (militant modernists), would not affirm what is Catholic simply so, and understandably so...  

 As a matter of fact, one of such themes concerning which this historic compromise is very conspicuous is what relates to the "fact checker" of any Christian doctrine whatsoever: Divine Revelation.

Christian Doctrine: what it is, what it contains.

In the language of the One and Only Church of Christ on earth, Christian doctrine is the divine doctrine taught by Jesus Christ and it contains the whole of divine revelation. 

And, by divine revelation we mean a supernatural manifestation which God has made to men of what they should know, believe, and practice. 

Anyone who denies the possibility of divine revelation by that fact denies the very knowledge and power of God: His knowledge, by supposing that He has nothing to make known to us; His Power, by denying to Him a faculty which each man posseses. Thus, they alone deny divine revelation who say in their hearts "there is no God" (Ps. 13:1): fools. 

Errors Against divine revelation

History is replete with a number of errors against divine revelation. Some deny the possibility and existence of revelation. Others attack any one or more of the revealed truths. In the first case we have Agnosticism, Rationalism, deism, naturalism and a host of other systems. In the second group we find Protestantism and all heresies. 

Now, to the extent Modernism has for it's foundation Agnosticism and Rationalism on the one hand, and it is the synthesis of all heresies, on the other hand, it is easy to see how Modernism is a synthesis of all the errors against divine revelation. 

Note worthy is that, the principle from which all these errors proceed is the criminal revolt of reason against the divine teaching. By this revolt, an attempt, a vain attempt, is made to justify a pretended right to private judgement and interpretation. 

Divine Revelation: Its Sources. 

To a Christian truly so, it is a simple known truth that according to the faith of the Universal Church, divine revelation is contained in Holy Scripture and Sacred Tradition. These two are traditionally spoken of as "two sources" of divine revelation. 

Now, Holy Scripture is the word of God written under the inspiration of the Holy Ghost. It is ordinarily called "The Bible" i.e. The Book of books; containing seventy two books, divided in two principal parts: the Old Testament (having forty-five books) and the New Testament (having twenty seven books). 

On the other hand, Sacred Tradition is the word of God not written in the Bible, but transmitted, in an unbroken succession, by word of mouth from the Apostles. St. Paul enjoins "hold the traditions which you have learned , whether by word or by our epistle" (2 Thess. 2:14)

Of note is that, Sacred Tradition is of equal authority with Sacred Scripture precisely because it is equally the word of God. Also, without the help of apostolic tradition, we cannot tell what is scripture or not. 

Yes, it is written "ask thy father and he will show thee, thy elders and they will tell thee" (Deut. 32:7).

Of the Corinthians St. Paul wrote: "Now I praise you, brethren, that in all things, you are mindful of me and keep my ordinances as I have delivered them to you" (1 Cor. 11:2).

Writing to the Thessalonians, he says "And we charge you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you withdraw yourselves from every brother walking disorderly and not according to the tradition which they have received of us" (2 Thess. 3:6)

References "from the Bible " attesting to the authority of sacred Tradition can be multiplied, but it would not be necessary.

Now, it belongs to the infallible teaching authority of the Church, the guardian of revealed truth, to interprete Holy Scripture and Sacred Tradition. 

Comes In Modernist Historic Compromise.

Just like my lecturer affirmed, one of the themes hotly debated during the first session of Vatican II council was the matter of single or twofold source of revelation. Reaching a deadlock point, the question was entrusted to a joint commission of representatives from both the conservative and progressive wings. It was not until the third session that the matter was deemed settled, but not without disservice to, indeed a betrayal of,  Catholic Truth.

The author of "The Rhine Flows Into The Tiber" often quoted by my lecturer, narrates that the text agreed upon by this joint commission was affirmed by a Bishop who was a liberal member of the Theological commission to have been:

...the result of a laborious struggle...a compromise with all the disadvantages that a compromise entails... (p. 175)

 The same Bishop said that to achieve further concessions was not possible and not much more was to be hoped for. He would go on to categorically state that the text was 

a peaceful compromise which avoids many causes of divine soon, but which therefore avoids mentioning many things concerning which additional doctrine would be welcome (The Rhine Flows Into The Tiber, p. 176)

 My lecturer explained in class that regarding the question of the sources of revelation the teaching of Vatican II is that there is one source with two branches (this was demonstrated on the board). While I am yet to find that exact expression, the 9th paragraph of Vatican II's Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation, Dei Verbum is apt to have such imagery drawn from it. It reads thus:

...there exists a close connection and communication between sacred Tradition and sacred scripture. For both of them, flowing from the same divine wellspring, in a certain way merge into unity and tend toward the same end... Consequently it is not from Sacred Scripture alone that the Church draws her certainty about everything which has been revealed. Therefore both sacred tradition and Sacred Scripture are to be accepted and venerated with the same sense of loyalty and reverence. (DV 9)

The Motive For The Compromise 

Why did the matter on the sources of divine revelation prove particularly difficult among others? Good enough my lecturer was not silent about it: because of ecumenical implications.

The then chief-ecumenist pretending to be the Catholic Pope, Apostate Cardinal Roncali, had set up ecumenism as the yardstick for the Council convoked by himself. And, essential to modernist ecumenism is not being offensive to those traditionally called in Catholic terms as heretics and schismatics, among others.

To the heretics outside the walls, there is only one source of revelation: the Bible. To this the heretics within the walls (Modernists) would gladly agree, but in order to placate their conservative comrades a compromise, a peaceful compromise comes to the rescue. This compromise avoids mentioning the Catholic expression of there being "two sources" of divine revelation; it also avoids simply affirming "one source" of revelation. 

Summing up

The criminal revolt of reason against the divine teaching by which a vain attempt is made to justify a pretended right to private judgement and interpretation urges Protestants outside the walls of Catholic buildings to declare that the only fact checker of any Christian doctrine is the Bible. 

Though on fire with that revolt to a superlative degree, Protestants within the walls of Catholic buildings, (Modernists), since their favorite tactics is duplicity, would settle for a peaceful compromise as to please their radical comrades outside the walls while sounding more or less Catholic to placate their conservative comrades within. 

Now, an informed Catholic common sense can never in anyway be preyed up by whatever mode  of subtlety assumed by the Modernist duplicity. The fact checker of Christian doctrine remains Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition and both come under the title of "two sources of divine revelation". 

Taught by the infallible Church of Christ from her two sources of divine revelation, we are certain that Modernist indifferentism which is a logical development of Protestant indifferentism, is not a revealed truth but a grain of the operation of error springing from the Father of lies.

In the same way, the rotten fruits of this same indifferentism can in way be shown to be drawn from the sources of divine revelation: ecumenism and ecumenical endeavors, collegiality, synodality, false religious freedom, interreligious dialogue and worship. To this, no one with an informed Catholic common sense would say nay...