Heretics Use Ambiguity to Camouflage Error

[Stone]

Heretics Use Ambiguity to Camouflage Error
Pius VI, Bull Auctorem Fidei of August 28, 1794

TIA | October 11, 2025

Ambiguity has been used by Progressivism to escape the condemnations of Modernism and Liberalism made by the Pontifical Magisterium in the last three centuries. With this ploy, the errors of these currents are disguised under obscure formulae in order to gain right of citizenship in the Church. Then, little by little the error comes to light and spreads everywhere.

All of the Vatican II documents were ambiguous, and progressivists used such ambiguities to completely change Catholic doctrine.

It is very useful for our readers to know that this tactic was strongly denounced by Pope Pius VI long ago when, in his Bull Auctorem Fidei, he condemned the errors of the Synod of Pistoia. We reproduce below some excerpts from this important document.

Pope Pius VI

In order not to shock the ears of Catholics, the innovators 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 a 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 that 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, on examining such documents, had the ability 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 St. Celestine [8] 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 that 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.