Fr. Most on the Dubia of Archbishop Lefebvre

+

JMJ

While the focus has been on the Dubia of the Cardinals for the last few months, there is another set of Dubia that should foremost in our minds: The of Archbishop Lefebvre.

Before I transcribe the Dubia, I'd like to provide a critique of a criticism of the Dubia submitted by Archbishop Lefebvre.

P^3
Source: EWTN

ARCHBISHOP LEFEBVRE AND THE DECLARATION ON RELIGIOUS LIBERTY
                        by Fr. William Most


Because of the claims, and subsequent schism, made by Archbishop 
Lefebvre that the <Declaration on Religious Liberty> of Vatican II, 
<Dignitatis humanae>, contradicted teachings of Gregory 
XVI, Pius IX, and Leo XIII, we will make a careful comparison of texts.   
Tradical: As we know, there was no 'schism' as there was no schismatic act.  A person cannot be guilty of a law that changed after the act. The consecration without Pontifical Mandate is not a schismatic act.

We must add that something taught repeatedly on the Ordinary 
Magisterium level is infallible. Such seems to be the case with the 
teaching of these three Popes. Hence, no matter on what level Vatican II, 
was teaching in this Declaration, the charge amounts to a charge that a 
general council taught heresy. Then the promises of Christ would be at 
least largely void. 
Tradical: Well, I guess Fr. Most was a little rusty on his theology.  Ordinary Magisterium only becomes Ordinary and Universal (ie Infallible) if it is taught as necessary as being held.

... four conditions must be  met for an 


infallible exercise of the ordinary magisterium of bishops around the world. These  are:

 1. That the bishops be in communion with one another and with the pope.
 2. That they teach authoritatively on a matter of faith or morals.
 3. That they agree in one judgment.
 4. That they propose this as something to be held definitively by the  faithful.

Tradical: For further reading see: Magisterium and levels of assent.

It is of capital importance to use <sound theological method> in all 
things, especially in this matter. God has made two promises, to protect the teaching of the Church, and to give free will to humans. At times He needs, as it were, to walk a tight line to carry out both. Therefore, in some texts - such as some of those below - we may suspect that the Pope had in his mind more strenuous things than what he set down on paper, we must say that <only the things put down on paper are protected by Divine Providence - not all what he may or may not have had in his mind.> 
Tradical: I agree completely, a sound theological method is necessary. As we see already, that Fr. Most is already on shaky ground.
 

As Father Most goes on at some length swatting at various straw-men.  Let's cut to the quick - with the benefit of knowing what Archbishop Lefebvre found to be the core issue with Dignitatis Humanae (A Little Cultural Perspective on Traditionalism and the 'Four Points' - Part 2).

 "The doctrine on religious liberty, as it is expressed in no. 2 of the 
Declaration 'Dignitatis humanae,' contradicts the teachings of Gregory 
XVI in 'Mirari vos' and of Pius IX in 'Quanta cura' as well as those of 
Pope Leo XIII in 'Immortale Dei' and those of Pope Pius XI in 'Quas 
primas.'

 What does DH#2 state?

Dignitatis Humanae 2 This Vatican Council declares that the human person has a right to religious freedom. This freedom means that all men are to be immune from coercion on the part of individuals or of social groups and of any human power, in such wise that no one is to be forced to act in a manner contrary to his own beliefs, whether privately or publicly, whether alone or in association with others, within due limits.The council further declares that the right to religious freedom has its foundation in the very dignity of the human person as this dignity is known through the revealed word of God and by reason itself.(2) This right of the human person to religious freedom is to be recognized in the constitutional law whereby society is governed and thus it is to become a civil right.It is in accordance with their dignity as persons-that is, beings endowed with reason and free will and therefore privileged to bear personal responsibility-that all men should be at once impelled by nature and also bound by a moral obligation to seek the truth, especially religious truth. They are also bound to adhere to the truth, once it is known, and to order their whole lives in accord with the demands of truth. However, men cannot discharge these obligations in a manner in keeping with their own nature unless they enjoy immunity from external coercion as well as psychological freedom. Therefore the right to religious freedom has its foundation not in the subjective disposition of the person, but in his very nature. In consequence, the right to this immunity continues to exist even in those who do not live up to their obligation of seeking the truth and adhering to it and the exercise of this right is not to be impeded, provided that just public order be observed.

 Now the texts of the 3 Popes:

Gregory XVI – Mirari Vos13. Now We consider another abundant source of the evils with which the Church is afflicted at present: indifferentism. This perverse opinion is spread on all sides by the fraud of the wicked who claim that it is possible to obtain the eternal salvation of the soul by the profession of any kind of religion, as long as morality is maintained. ...14. This shameful font of indifferentism gives rise to that absurd and erroneous proposition which claims that liberty of conscience must be maintained for everyone. It spreads ruin in sacred and civil affairs, though some repeat over and over again with the greatest impudence that some advantage accrues to religion from it. "But the death of the soul is worse than freedom of error," as Augustine was wont to say.[21] When all restraints are removed by which men are kept on the narrow path of truth, their nature, which is already inclined to evil, propels them to ruin. ... Thence comes transformation of minds, corruption of youths, contempt of sacred things and holy laws ... Experience shows, even from earliest times, that cities renowned for wealth, dominion, and glory perished as a result of this single evil, namely immoderate freedom of opinion, license of free speech, and desire for novelty.15. Here We must include that harmful and never sufficiently denounced freedom to publish any writings whatever and disseminate them to the people ... We are horrified to see what monstrous doctrines and prodigious errors are disseminated far and wide in countless books, pamphlets, and other writings which, though small in weight, are very great in malice. ... Some are so carried away that they contentiously assert that the flock of errors arising from them is sufficiently compensated by the publication of some book which defends religion and truth. ...

Pius IX – Quanta Cura3. ...For you well know, venerable brethren, that at this time men are found not a few who, applying to civil society the impious and absurd principle of "naturalism," as they call it, dare to teach that "the best constitution of public society and (also) civil progress altogether require that human society be conducted and governed without regard being had to religion any more than if it did not exist; or, at least, without any distinction being made between the true religion and false ones." And, against the doctrine of Scripture, of the Church, and of the Holy Fathers, they do not hesitate to assert that "that is the best condition of civil society, in which no duty is recognized, as attached to the civil power, of restraining by enacted penalties, offenders against the Catholic religion, except so far as public peace may require." From which totally false idea of social government they do not fear to foster that erroneous opinion, most fatal in its effects on the Catholic Church and the salvation of souls, called by Our Predecessor, Gregory XVI, an "insanity,"2 viz., that "liberty of conscience and worship is each man's personal right, which ought to be legally proclaimed and asserted in every rightly constituted society; and that a right resides in the citizens to an absolute liberty, which should be restrained by no authority whether ecclesiastical or civil, whereby they may be able openly and publicly to manifest and declare any of their ideas whatever, either by word of mouth, by the press, or in any other way." ...

Leo XIII – Immortale Dei31. ... Men who really believe in the existence of God must, in order to be consistent with themselves and to avoid absurd conclusions, understand that differing modes of divine worship involving dissimilarity and conflict even on most important points cannot all be equally probable, equally good, and equally acceptable to God.32. So, too, the liberty of thinking, and of publishing, whatsoever each one likes, without any hindrance, is not in itself an advantage over which society can wisely rejoice. On the contrary, it is the fountain-head and origin of many evils. Liberty is a power perfecting man, and hence should have truth and goodness for its object. But the character of goodness and truth cannot be changed at option. These remain ever one and the same, and are no less unchangeable than nature itself. If the mind assents to false opinions, and the will chooses and follows after what is wrong, neither can attain its native fullness, but both must fall from their native dignity into an abyss of corruption. Whatever, therefore, is opposed to virtue and truth may not rightly be brought temptingly before the eye of man, much less sanctioned by the favor and protection of the law. A well-spent life is the only way to heaven, whither all are bound, and on this account the State is acting against the laws and dictates of nature whenever it permits the license of opinion and of action to lead minds astray from truth and souls away from the practice of virtue. To exclude the Church, founded by God Himself, from life, from laws, from the education of youth, from domestic society is a grave and fatal error. A State from which religion is banished can never be well regulated; and already perhaps more than is desirable is known of the nature and tendency of the so-called civil philosophy of life and morals. ...34. Doctrines such as these, which cannot be approved by human reason, and most seriously affect the whole civil order, Our predecessors the Roman Pontiffs (well aware of what their apostolic office required of them) have never allowed to pass uncondemned. Thus, Gregory XVI in his encyclical letter "Mirari Vos," dated August 15, 1832, inveighed with weighty words against the sophisms which even at his time were being publicly inculcated-namely, that no preference should be shown for any particular form of worship; that it is right for individuals to form their own personal judgments about religion; that each man's conscience is his sole and all sufficing guide; and that it is lawful for every man to publish his own views, whatever they may be, and even to conspire against the State. ^...36. ... The Church, indeed, deems it unlawful to place the various forms of divine worship on the same footing as the true religion, but does not, on that account, condemn those rulers who, for the sake of securing some great good or of hindering some great evil, allow patiently custom or usage to be a kind of sanction for each kind of religion having its place in the State. And, in fact, the Church is wont to take earnest heed that no one shall be forced to embrace the Catholic faith against his will, for, as St. Augustine wisely reminds us, "Man cannot believe otherwise than of his own will."37. In the same way the Church cannot approve of that liberty which begets a contempt of the most sacred laws of God, and casts off the obedience due to lawful authority, for this is not liberty so much as license, and is most correctly styled by St. Augustine the "liberty of self-ruin," and by the Apostle St. Peter the "cloak of malice."^[23] Indeed, since it is opposed to reason, it is a true slavery, "for whosoever committeth sin is the slave of sin."^[24] ...

Pius XI – Quas Primas
18. Thus the empire of our Redeemer embraces all men. To use the words of Our immortal predecessor, Pope Leo XIII: "His empire includes not only Catholic nations, not only baptized persons who, though of right belonging to the Church, have been led astray by error[ie heresy], or have been cut off from her by schism, but also all those who are outside the Christian faith; so that truly the whole of mankind is subject to the power of Jesus Christ."[28] Nor is there any difference in this matter between the individual and the family or the State; for all men, whether collectively or individually, are under the dominion of Christ. In him is the salvation of the individual, in him is the salvation of society. ... If, therefore, the rulers of nations wish to preserve their authority, to promote and increase the prosperity of their countries, they will not neglect the public duty of reverence and obedience to the rule of Christ. ...24. ... The right which the Church has from Christ himself, to teach mankind, to make laws, to govern peoples in all that pertains to their eternal salvation, that right was denied. Then gradually the religion of Christ came to be likened to false religions and to be placed ignominiously on the same level with them. It was then put under the power of the state and tolerated more or less at the whim of princes and rulers. Some men went even further, and wished to set up in the place of God's religion a natural religion consisting in some instinctive affection of the heart. There were even some nations who thought they could dispense with God, and that their religion should consist in impiety and the neglect of God. ...31. When we pay honor to the princely dignity of Christ, men will doubtless be reminded that the Church, founded by Christ as a perfect society, has a natural and inalienable right to perfect freedom and immunity from the power of the state; and that in fulfilling the task committed to her by God of teaching, ruling, and guiding to eternal bliss those who belong to the kingdom of Christ, she cannot be subject to any external power. ...

The key difference is that Dignitatis Humanae states that a person cannot be forced to act in a manner contrary to his own beliefs, whether privately or publicly, whether alone or in association with others, within due limits (DH).

So, reading this at face value, a protestant, atheist who seeks to proselytize others to abandon the Faith, cannot be restrained from doing so.  

Reading the pre-conciliar magisterium, we find that ... yes they can be restrained in the public action according to their beliefs.

Sorry Father, but there is an issue with DH and it is quite clear.

P^3