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

Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Morning and Evening and other sundry Prayers

By
+ JMJ Along the theme of P^3 (Prayer, Penance, Patience), and for my own reference ... here is a collection of Morning and Evening prayers from the Ideal Daily Missal along with some additional prayers. In this crisis of the Church, I do not think it is possible to do too much prayer, penance and have patience. P^3
Post a Comment
Read more

SSPX and the Resistance - A Comparison Of Ecclesiology

By
Shining the light of Church Teaching on the doctrinal positions of the SSPX and the Resistance. Principles are guides used to aid in decision making.  It stands to reason that bad principles will lead to bad decisions. The recent interactions between Rome and the SSPX has challenged a number of closely held cultural assumptions of people in both sides of the disagreement. This has resulted in cultural skirmishes in both Rome and the SSPX. Since it is the smaller of the two, the skirmishes have been more evident within the SSPX.  The cultural fault-line that Bishop Fellay crossed appears to be linked to two points of Catholic Doctrine: Ecclesiology and Obedience.  The cultural difference of view points is strong enough that it has resulted in the expulsion of a number of members.  It should also be noted that some other priests expelled since the beginning of the latest interactions (starting in 2000) held the same view points and have joined with the l...
8 comments
Read more

Comparision of the Tridentine, Cranmer and Novus Ordo Masses

By
+ JMJ I downloaded the comparison that was linked in the previous article on the mass (here) . ... a very good reference! P^3 From: Whispers of Restoration (available at this link) . CHARTING LITURGICAL CHANGE Comparing the 1962 Ordinary of the Roman Mass to changes made during the Anglican Schism; Compared in turn to changes adopted in the creation of Pope Paul VI’s Mass in 1969 The chart on the reverse is a concise comparison of certain ritual differences between three historical rites for the celebration of the Catholic Mass Vetus Ordo: “Old Order,” the Roman Rite of Mass as contained in the 1962 Missal, often referred to as the “Traditional Latin Mass.”The Ordinary of this Mass is that of Pope St. Pius V (1570) following the Council of Trent (1545-63), hence the occasional moniker “Tridentine Mass.” However, Trent only consolidated and codified the Roman Rite already in use at that time; its essential form dates to Pope St. Gregory the Great (+604), in whose time the R...
Post a Comment
Read more

What the heck is a congregation of "Pontifical Right"

By
+ JMJ In a discussion with a friend the question occurred to me that I didn't actually know was is involved in being a religious order of 'pontifical right'. I had a vague notion that this meant they reported to Rome as opposed to the local diocese. I'm also aware that, according to the accounts I have heard, the Archbishop received 'praise' and the written direction to incardinate priests directly into the SSPX.  This is interesting because it implies that the SSPX priests were no longer required to incardinate in the local diocese but in the SSPX. This is something that belongs to an order of 'pontifical right'. Anyway here's some definitions: Di diritto pontificio is the Italian term for “of pontifical right” . It is given to the ecclesiastical institutions (the religious and secular institutes, societies of apostolic life) either created by the Holy See or approved by it with the formal decree, known by its Latin name, Decretu...
Post a Comment
Read more

Australia: Seal of the Confessional Outlawed at the Federal Level

By
+ JMJ This is simply another step in the attack on the Catholic Church. Interestingly, California's attempt to do the same failed. P^3 Courtesy of FSSPX.news Australia: Seal of the Confessional Outlawed at the Federal Level December 19, 2019 Source: fsspx.news On December 2, 2019, the Australian Conference of Bishops (ACBC) denounced the agreement between the Attorneys General of each state and the Australian federal government, with the aim of standardizing the laws imposing on priests the obligation to denounce any alleged fact of ill-treatment of minors that would be learned in the context of the sacrament of penance. “Counterproductive and unjust” are the terms with which Archbishop Mark Coleridge, Archbishop of Brisbane and President of the ACBC, denounced the new prejudicial legal norms on the sacramental seal of the confessional in Australia. The attorneys gener...
Post a Comment
Read more