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

The myth of the Hermeneutic of Continuity - Rorate Caeli

By
+ JMJ Interestingly the complete acceptance of the Second Vatican Council (without reservations) is required of the SSPX. Just when people are starting to wonder how it came to this! Courtesy of Rorate Caeli P^3
Post a Comment
Read more

A Look Back: Archbishop Lefebvre’s Prophetic Address to The Remnant, 1976

By
 + JMJ  Looking back is important to understand why we are where we are in this crisis. Courtesy of RemnantNewsPaper  P^3 FOR THE FIRST TIME ONLINE: Archbishop Lefebvre’s Prophetic Address to The Remnant, 1976 Written by  Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre Introduction by Michael J. Matt More than forty years ago—during the disastrous reign of Pope Paul VI, the latest candidate for a Vatican-issued Halo Award, by the way—my father, Walter L. Matt, organized the first large scale public reception in the U.S. for the late Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre. It was held at the Radisson South Hotel, Minneapolis, on Tuesday, May 12, 1976, and its stated purpose was to assist the Archbishop in gaining a stronger foothold for the Society of St. Pius X in the States during the unprecedented crisis Blessed Pope Paul had helped unleash on the Church. On that occasion Archbishop Lefebvre delivered ...
Post a Comment
Read more

Of the Church and the Pope - Fr. Calmel O.P.

By
+ JMJ Once again, looking back to see if the 'Traditional Catholics' in the early days of this crisis of the Church had a sufficient view to realize the roots of the crisis. The root: The Pope Hence when the Pope is 'righted' the Church will be 'righted'. P^3 Courtesy of SSPXasia Fr. Roger Calmel, O.P. This essay by Fr. Roger Calmel, O.P. (1914-75) helps us in these difficult times to preserve our love of the Church. More than 30 years after its first publication, this article retains all its relevance, so much so that it even seems to have been written for our time, in which the crisis in the Church deepens at an unprecedented pace. This essay will help the reader to think clearly, keep the Faith, and maintain serenity in the troubled times we are navigating. “My country has hurt m e,”wrote a young poet in 1944 during the purge 1 when the head of state [Charles De Gaulle] implacably pursued the sinister job that had been in the wo...
Post a Comment
Read more

Canonical Mission and State of Emergency - A Response to Mr. John Salza - Part B

By
 +  JMJ  I was trying to think of a way to map out the time course I discussed in Part A of this article.  Early this morning it came to me that this is more about obedience and duty than canon law.  As is my wont, I mapped out my thoughts (see image) to draw linkages between the core concepts. My conclusion is that, at least subjectively, Archbishop Lefebvre had sufficient information to make good decisions concerning whether or not he was obliged to obey.  I know that the Jesuits, some Sedevacantists and the priests that left over the years will not agree with my thoughts. So be it.  The core pieces of information include: Attacks against the SSPX were launched because they kept the Tridentine Mass and the pre-conciliar understanding of the Truths of the Faith. The authorities in the Church were willing to go against the laws of the Church. The same authorities encouraged the various dangers to the Faith embedded in popular interpretations of ambiguo...
Post a Comment
Read more

Validity of new rite of episcopal consecrations - Courtesy of SSPX.org

By
+ JMJ In the blogosphere there are number of responses to this crisis in the Catholic Church that lead to conclusions that run counter to Catholic Doctrine and Dogmas - if taken to their logical conclusion. The validity of the New Rite of Episcopal consecrations is one such hotspot within more extreme sections of the 'traditionalist' culture. Validity of new rite of episcopal consecrations Courtesy of SSPX.org Why the new rite of episcopal consecration is valid Introduction This comprehensive study was compiled to settle a debate that has been circulating in traditional Catholic circles. Some writers have examined the new rite of episcopal consecration and concluded that it must be invalid. Since this would cause manifest problems if it were true and due to the heightened awareness of such a theory, we present a study of this question concluding that it is valid. Following the Council, in 1968 a new rite for the ordination of bishops was promulg...
1 comment
Read more