Skip to main content

The Other Dubia - Archbishop Lefebvre 1987

Image
By
+
JMJ


In 1987, Archbishop Lefebvre sent his dubia (see Religious Liberty Questioned) to the Vatican. He had to wait a number of months and the answer was not a 'yes/no' response.  Looking at the non-response to the four dubia of Card. Burke et al, we can see a pattern. There will be no direct response to simple questions.


The dubia were all related to either Vatican II or specific documents of that council (Dignitatis Humanae). Below are my summarized versions of Archbishop Lefebvre's dubia. Some of the dubia are quite long so apologies if I didn't capture the meaning of some dubia perfectly.
  1. Is human dignity based only on the dignity of its nature, independent of its adherence to what is true and what is good?
  2. Is the Council reconcilable with Holy Scripture's teaching on the downfall from human dignity of our first parents and their descendants after original sin, as well as its restoration by the Redemption?  
  3. Is the Council reconcilable with the teaching of Leo XIII in Immortale Dei? Specifically,  that if the mind and will assent / chooses what is wrong that both fall from their natural dignity.
  4. Do adherents to error or moral evil objectively possess a negative right to practice publicly their false religion? 
    1. Is this reconcilable with the classic doctrine of "objective right" explained by Pius XII: "...that which does not correspond to truth or to the norm of morality objectively has no right to exist, to be spread, or to be activated."
  5. Is it natural for man to be exempt from any constraint (physical, legal, temporal, spiritual) while seeking any truth? 
    1. Is this reconcilable with the teaching of Leo XIII on the benefits of the constraint of law to ensure true liberty?
  6. Are non-Catholics, exempt from any constraints in the search for religious truth and their desire to adhere to it? Specifically, not only direct constraint used to extort consent but also constraint used justly to repress or limit religious error.
    1. Is this reconcilable with the doctrine of St. Augustine on this point, as well as all the Catholic princes who applied it?
  7. Does the teaching of the Council include the missionary apostolate?  
    1. Is it reconcilable with the teaching of St. Paul?
  8. Does the expression "exercise or religion" mean not only the acts of the Catholic Faith but also the acts of other religions? 
    1. Does the Council teach that "man sets the course of his life directly towards God" by the "internal acts" of false religions?  
    2. Is this reconcilable with the pre-conciliar condemnations of religious indifferentism?
  9. Does the Council's teaching of "religious bodies" include non-Catholic entities such as Protestant denominations, Islam, Buddhism, the "Moonies", Freemasonry, etc.? 
    1. Does the Council recognize "the special value" of the doctrine of these false religions?
  10. Does honouring the 'Supreme Being' include non-Catholic forms of worship?
    1. Is God legitimately honoured by false worship?
  11. Do the expressions "religious life" and "religious duties" extend beyond the Catholic Faith?
    1. Are non-Catholics who accept the of their false religions "faithful to God and to His holy will?
  12. In its use of the word "faith" is the council referring to the erroneous opinions of false religions?
    1. Do false religions have a right to "propaganda"?
    2. Is this non-Catholic "propaganda" good and not harmful to the faith of Catholics, the mission of the Church, and religious unity of Catholic countries?
  13. Can the right to "propaganda" reconcilable with the teachings of Pius XII and Leo XIII?
  14. Is the liberty of worship and propaganda taught by the Council the same as the duty of tolerance as taught by Pius XII?
  15. Should false religions and their members benefit in principle and all circumstances  from a right to be tolerated in a Catholic country?
    1. How is this reconcilable with the teaching of Leo XIII, and Pius XII?
  16. Is Dignitatis Humanae Magisterial or simply prudential / pastoral?
    1. What level of assent is required of the faithful to Dignitatis Humanae?
  17. Can the Catholic Church, in a Catholic Country, ask for the State's help against false religions to maintain public order / common good, but not to preserve souls from the false teachings?
    1. How is this reconcilable with the teaching of Leo XIII in Immortale Dei?
  18. Does the phrase "Freedom of the Church" mean that the freedom of the Catholic Church is the same as that provided to other religions in a "regime of religious liberty"?
    1. Does this 'freedom' regulate the relations between Church and State even outside of the situation where the State is not persecuting the Catholic Church?
    2. Is this reconcilable with Scripture, Fathers of the Church, and popes (Pius IX, Leo XIII) etc?
  19. Is the reduction of the Catholic Church to the same level as other 'associations within Civil Society' valid in any circumstances?
    1. How is this reconcilable with the doctrine of the Church that condemns in a Catholic nation, laws the reduce the Catholic Church to the common law status of other associations?
  20. Is this principle of common-law an absolute principle for all circumstances?
  21. Is no special recognition to be provided to the true religion?
    1. How is this reconcilable with prior teaching of the Catholic Church? (Pius IX, Pius XII)
  22. Is the teaching of the Council on the recognition or non-recognition permanent or could it stop being valid in the future?
  23. Is DH6 reconcilable with the teaching of Pius IX in the Syllabus of Errors (#78)?
  24. Does the council teach that the Church desires independence from the State but not protection of favor of civil laws?
    1. Is this reconcilable with Leo XIII's teaching in Immortale Dei?
  25. Is the situation where the Church is protected by the state less desirable for the mission of the Church?
    1. How is this reconciled with the teaching of Leo XIII in Loginqua Oceani  / Immortale / Dei / Libertas and Pius IX teaching condemning propositions 77 & 79?
  26. Is the State incompetent to pass judgement on religious truth or error?
    1. How is this reconcilable with pre-conciliar teachings (Immortale Dei, Quas Primas etc) on the duty of the state to pass and carry out such judgements?  
  27. Is it a doctrine of Leo XIII that the State must limit itself to the natural sphere?  
    1. How is this compatible with Pius IX Quas Primas?
    2. Can religious liberty be the foundation if it is based on a naturalistic concept of the State?
  28. Is the view that "That the State should neither apply the existing distinction in virtue of divine positive law between the true religion and false religions nor express in juridical terms the theological distinction between the rights of the true religion and the tolerance of false religions?" reconcilable with Pius XII's condemnation of juridical positivism ?
    1. Are States that express this distinction in their constitution to be condemned?
  29. Can a state refuse "religious liberty"?  For example in the case of divorce, simltaneous polygamy?
  30. Is the "objective moral order" noted in DH used as criteria for the limits of religious liberty the same as the moral order of natural law?
    1. Does the have a duty to conform itself to the natural order?
  31. Can religious liberty of false religions be limited for moral reasons but not because they are false?
  32. How is "immune from coercion" and "any human power" reconcilable with the doctrine contained in Holy Scriptures?
  33. Is DH2 reconcilable with the condemnaton of the Synod of Pistoia under Pius VI (Auctorem Fidei)
  34. Can it be affirmed that in religious matters a person must be immune from any constraint of human power "without professing a fundamental error which affects the Faith"?
  35. Must we affirm that the Councils declaration on religious liberty contradicts the pre-conciliar magisterium?
  36. Does DH contradict Quanta Cura? (see page 125 to 129 in the english edition)
  37. Is Quanta Cura's condemnations infallible?
    1. Can it be affirmed that DH falls under the infallible condemnation of the Magisterium
  38. Is the right affirmed by DH subject to the same theological censures as the propositions condemned in Quanta Cura?
  39. Can it be affirmed that DH creates very grievious problems of ecclesiology which the Church will have to solve?

The last few dubia were difficult to summarize and were the result of in depth analysis and comparison. 

What can we conclude?

Religious Liberty, as taught by DH, will result in the protection of error and the constraint of truth.  

Why?

Because speaking the truth will constrain the erroneous.

As we have daily proof.

P^3

Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

What is Tradition?

By
 + JMJ What Is Tradition? The basic premise, from my perspective, is that what was taught before cannot be contradicted by the 'present' magisterium, only deepened and expanded upon. I recall the Roman theologians called the SSPX protestants while the SSPX called them modernists.  I believe this was all surrounding the concept of Traditon. SSPX's Understanding of Tradition One accusation made against the SSPX is that they don't have a correct understanding of 'Tradition'.  This is how the SSPX understands Tradition: I finally profess that Tradition is not a dead memory, but the living transmission of the doctrine received from the Apostles. It remains living, in distinction to Revelation, which is closed. It is so both in the activity of the Magisterium of the Teaching Church and in the profession of Faith of the Church Taught, of which the sentire cum Ecclesia is the result of the teaching of the Magisterium. Tradition may be called ‘living’, not in the sense t...
Post a Comment
Read more

SSPX.ca: What is the position of the SSPX on Vatican II???

By
 + JMJ With all the mis-information about the SSPX rejecting the Second Vatican Council, I thought it would be useful to publish an article that focuses on the real issues that the SSPX has identified. Update: Why Did the SSPX Consecrate Bishops? ( Neither Schismatic, Nor Disobedient link ) In the linked document the SSPX outlined the key motivation and core issues with Vatican II and the post-conciliar magisterium (see above link for full document): 4. The Society Acted Precisely Because of the State of Necessity in Which the Faith Finds Itself  In the present situation of the Church, if the Society of Saint Pius X had not carried out the consecrations of July 1st, it would have found itself facing an inevitable alternative: either to disappear gradually, or to accept, at least in fact, the new liturgy as well as the false doctrines of Vatican II and the post-council. Without the consecrations of July 1st, the Fraternity would have found itself, in a few years, without bishop...
1 comment
Read more

Thoughts on: Finding Common Ground Between Rome and the SSPX

By
 + JMJ In the ramp up to the consecrations the noise floor in the intergnat grew to a constant din.  This was one of the few the peeped its signal over the noise. https://crisismagazine.com/opinion/finding-common-ground-between-rome-and-the-sspx The key issue is contained in this paragraph: In the lead-up to the planned July 1, 2026, episcopal consecrations,  the SSPX rejected Rome’s offer  of doctrinal dialogue on the grounds that “we both know in advance that we cannot agree doctrinally, particularly regarding the fundamental orientations adopted since the Second Vatican Council.” Fr. Pagliarani also said that his previous attempt at dialogue in 2019 was shut down by Rome because of an assumed irreconcilability. It seems that, from the Society’s perspective, and perhaps from Rome’s too, their positions are incompatible. If memory serves, Rome killed any opportunity for an open discussion by stating that Vatican II was not up for debate. So it was a still-birth and ...
Post a Comment
Read more

The News is an Addiction ...

By
 + JMJ People seem to be mesmerised by train wrecks.   They just can't turn away as the disaster creeps forward along train tracks towards the crossing where a car, truck, bus, trailer awaits its destruction. Trads have been watching the train wreck that is this crisis of the Catholic Church for decades. The trade war between the Canada and the US has reminded me that the news is addictive.   The first time I was addicted what from 2009 to  2014 when I was closely following the Rome / SSPX discussions.  I was at work watching a live-stream as Bishop Fellay disappeared into the Vatican. The lead-up to this moment had been intense as the 'resistance' got freaked out and the cultural cracks between doctrine and conspiracy theory widened. In the decade since then other things have emerged, wars, rumours of wars, conspiracies, celebrity Catholics etc. Now we have a new addiction and its name is Trump. Lately, no matter how much I try, I find myself wonderin...
Post a Comment
Read more

Thoughts on the Thoughts of a former SSPX priest

By
 + JMJ Well Gary Campbell, former SSPX Priest and now laicised has posted a new article on WherePeterIs. https://wherepeteris.com/thoughts-of-a-former-sspx-priest-on-the-july-1-consecrations/ These words stuck out: Heck, they have built a five-star hotel, wine bar, and Walmart on the opposite bank of the Rubicon! They are not in danger of entering a state of schism, for they are  already  in a state of schism. I believe he doth protest too much. All the actual facts indicate that the SSPX was not in a state of schism before July 1st and an examination of the decree of excommunication highlights the either ineptitude of those in charge or a desire to leave the barn door open. The chasm between an act of disobedience and act of schism remains just what is has always been - an inconvenient barrier that person(s) in Rome seek to bridge but appear incapable of succeeding. The SSPX re-stated that they recognize the Pope as the Vicar of Christ and feel obliged by conscience...
Post a Comment
Read more