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

"Father, Should I Attend That Mass?" Advice on Attending Non-SSPX Latin Masses

By
 + JMJ I see that the 'resistors' are in a tizzy because Fr. Robinson used them as an example instead of the sedevacantists. What is interesting is that you can apply the exact same reasons against going to a sede mass as that of the 'resistors'. Namely: On the other extreme are those situations where an SSPX priest knows that a certain non-SSPX traditionalist venue is a grave danger to the faith . Frankly, most, if not all, of the Resistance Masses would fall into this category. In many cases, the behavior of these priests has been and continues to be scandalous, by their (A) spirit, their (B) preaching, and their indiscriminate conferral of the (C) priesthood and (D) episcopacy. To attend a Mass with such ongoing scandals poses a serious danger to the souls of the faithful. Yep, looking at A,B,C and D the shoe fits. On this basis the "resistors" = "sedevacantists". P^3 Courtesy of SSPX.org   A companion article to a recent "Questions with ...
Post a Comment
Read more

Correcting Caricatures of the SSPX

By
 + JMJ Introduction First, a little background on the FSSP St. John Vianney Chapel in Mission Hill Kansas.  After the 1988 consecrations and the foundation of the FSSP there was a consistent trend of Dioceses allowing the SSPX to run chapels and churches near SSPX locations. As with any 'organizational change' there were those who didn't agree with the change and no longer sought the sacraments from the SSPX. I heard from friends that in that era there was a lot of anger and tension (on both sides) between the St. Mary's SSPX and Mission Hill FSSP.  Second, there have been caricatures of the SSPX position (some are evident below) in which personal opinions of SSPX priests and laity are taken as the official position or conflated with those of sedevacantists or 'resistance'. Recent Perspectives of the SSPX Position In the shadow of the consecrations a fever pitch accusations and opinions how surfaced - many of which include caricatures of the SSPX positions, of w...
Post a Comment
Read more

SSPX: Why Is the SSPX So Criticized?

By
 + JMJ As long as you are ok with what happens in other Catholic Churches, Traditional Catholics will be left 'alone'.  This is a paraphrase of words spoken by an Archbishop to Traditional Catholics (with a sprinkling of SSPX) who had requested the Traditional Latin Mass under Summorum Pontificum. This reflects that attitude of the Church towards anyone who takes issue with some of the ambiguities of Vatican II and the post-conciliar magisterium.  If you reject the papacy but are ok with V2, the New Mass, and what Rome has stated since 1965 - then you are welcome. Question some of the more abiguous statements and ask for Rome to realise that a circle is not a square - then you are in for a world of hurt. This is where the SSPX exists and has existed from almost its very first moments. Pointing out contradictions with previous magisterium is not acceptable - under any condition. Why? Because it will cause the whole V2 house of cards to fall. I guess only when the contradic...
Post a Comment
Read more

Stories: Early Days of Tradition Part 8 - Convention Centre Chapel

By
 + JMJ I came to Tradition a few years after they had bought a chapel. My wife told me of the earlier years when Fr. Normandin would come to town and Mass would be held in a room at the convention centre.  He'd start by blessing the room and then proceed with Mass. This went on for a while before the one of the faithful found a small hall that would suit just fine. They pooled their money and bought the building.  Then came the work as the retiree's refinished the floor, setup the sactuary. Oh, did I mention that I heard that the hall had been used by a motorcycle gang? The floor needed a lot of work.  I remember seeing pictures of the founders working to make the hall into a fitting place for the Sacrifice of the Mass. That little chapel would be a refuge like many others serviced by Fr. Normandin.  From Thunderbay, Ontrario to Nanaimo, British Columbia - the SSPX chapels are all the results of Fr. Normandin's missionary work in those desperate times. Without h...
Post a Comment
Read more

How many more must die for the throne? or How to combat FUD!

By
 + JMJ How many more must die for the throne? (Movie Quote: Prince Caspian) The Spread of Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt I've seen a lot of FUD spreading across the intergnat on various stats etc.   So let's put this in context ... especially the perspective of those people in positions of authority who need to make decisions to protect the lives of their citizens. Yep, this is going to be that type of post.  Like it or not the leaders of our governments have their authority from God.  So, as Catholics should know, you need to have a very good reason to deliberately disobey the orders of their superiors. This is basic St. Thomas Aquinas ... so don't blame me for discussing things from a Catholic perspective. The leaders of our countries have taken action to protect the vulnerable of our countries.   As much as the young and not-so-young may whine and complain - I have to ask how many more of our elderly have to die? What the armchair virologists and ec...
10 comments
Read more