CDF and Lefebvre Pars III (Religious Liberty and the Unity of the True Religion)

Introduction
Pars I
Pars II

2. Religious Liberty and the Unity of the True Religion.

The elements expounded in section 1 clarify in large measure the problem presented in section 2. For this reason our project here will be more brief and content with completing certain aspects what have already been mentioned.

The doctrine on religious liberty, contained in DH, absolutely does not include a relativist conception about truth, nor a negation of the fact that the Catholic religion is the unique true religion. The dubia on this subject were formulated so as to propose certain affirmations about DH, in particular, on sections 3, 4 and 6:

Side note concerning the Dubia of Marciel Lefebvre

For those who want not only to read the response, but also to review the original dubia, Angeleus Press published them in 2001 under the title Religious Liberty Questioned.

A copy may be ordered from Amazon or any number of other sites.

If there is a public domain source for them in English, or even in French or Latin I would gladly post them if it should be made available to me.

CDF and Lefebvre pars II (Religious Liberty and Human Dignity)

Introduction
Pars I

III. RESPONSE TO FUNDAMENTAL POINTS

1. Religious liberty and human dignity according to the Declaration Dignitatis humanæ (hereafter, DH):

           The right to religious liberty 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. (DH, 2/a).

Therefore the right to religious freedom has its foundation not in the subjective disposition of the person, but in his very nature. (DH, 2/b).

Would, therefore, the conciliar doctrine, according to which the foundation of the right to religious liberty is located in the objective dignity of the person, based, in turn, on human nature, be incompatible with the traditional Catholic doctrine, such as what is expressed for example in the affirmation given by Leo XIII?

RELIGIOUS LIBERTY Response to the dubia presented by His Excellency Archbishop Lefebvre- Pars I

RELIGIOUS LIBERTY
Response to the dubia presented by His Excellency Archbishop Lefebvre

At the request of the Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith, I have studied with care the large dossier prepared by His Excellency Msgr. Lefebrve, in which a certain number of dubia are presented on the possibility of reconciling Vatican II's doctrine on religious liberty and the prior magisterium.

Already in the different stages of the preparation of the Declaration Dignitatis humanæ, this question was very present and the definitive text of the Declaration itself, within its preamble, explicitly affirms that “the Council of the Vatican searches the sacred tradition and holy doctrine of the Church from whence it draws from the new in constant accord with the old” (DH no. 1). Likewise, afterwards, many theological studies, in commenting on the conciliar Declaration, tried to show how the indisputable newness which this document represents was in continuity and harmony with the prior magisterium.¹

However, in order to respond to the question posed by Msgr. Lefebvre, it is not sufficient to publish from what is already handed down in the existing bibliography, and it was judged necessary to conduct a more detailed study, the result of which will be presented in the following pages.

I. PRESENTATION OF THE “DUBIA”OF MSGR. LEFEBVRE.

Msgr. Lefebvre and the CDF- Certain Dubia Concerning Religious liberty

A while back I started translation an unsigned response the CDF gave to a series of dubia presented by Archbishop Marciel Lefebvre on religious liberty. I then left it off distracted by other things. As far as I am aware this has not been widely disseminated nor translated into English before. The text is divided into four main parts, the most important of which is the third.

1. Presentation of the dubia of Msgr. Leferbve.
2. Presentation of this Response to the "dubia" - an explanation of procedure and why they chose not to directly list and answer the dubia as is normally done
3. Response to Fundamental Points - which is divided into four:
1. Religious Liberty and the Dignity of Man
2. Religious Liberty and the Unity of the True Religion
3. Duties of the State to religion. The Church and State
4. On the comparison of Quanta Cura and Dignitatis humanae.
4. Conclusion

The text is in French, but makes frequent use of quotations both in Latin and Italian. They often quote from the same document, in one place the French translation, and in another place the Latin. As a rule I have tried to follow the Latin unless the French had some notable difference.

At this point I am merely presenting the text. In the near future, after editing, I will make available, either here or on another site, the full document, annotated and with commentary.

For now I will post sections of it at a time. The first shall be parts I, and II. The next four will be of part III and the conclusion.

15th Sunday after Pentecost and St. Matthew

Today was a liturgical two-fer in the 1962 Missal- 15th Sunday after Pentecost and the Feast of St. Matthew, Apostle. Starting in 1955, the Sunday take precedence with a commemoration of St. Matthew. The Gospel for today brought to mind my last post, in light of the claims of Cardinal Kasper that Christ's raising people from the dead were "non-historical" stories.

Luke 7:11-16

Efficacious and Sufficient Grace

Confídimus in Dómino Iesu, quia, qui coepit in vobis opus bonum, perfíciet usque in diem Christi Iesu.

We confide in the Lord Jesus, since He who has begun a good work in you shall bring it to completion until the day of Christ Jesus. (Philippians 1:6)

These words of St. Paul, which were read this last Sunday in the traditional form of the Roman Rite, are taken by St. Thomas Aquinas as a reproach against the Pelagians. For they held that the beginning of our conversion and salvation is from us, but God brings it to completion. On the contrary, the Apostle says, God has begun the good work in us. And He shall perfect it, that is bring it to completion. Both the beginning and end of salvation is from God.

In pondering these words, I am reminded of the connection between sufficient and efficacious grace in the Thomistic understanding. Sufficient grace is the ability to perform some salutary, or grace-filled action. Efficacious grace is the actual work itself. God is, at least, prepared in Himself to give all men sufficient grace. But efficacious grace is not given to all. For not all men come to grace to begin with, but resist. And others, who have come to God's grace, fall away and therefore do not persevere. They were able to persevere, they had sufficient grace, but they did not. They lacked efficacious grace.

The Molinists generally hold that the difference between these graces is only extrinsic. In actu secundo. That is, sufficient grace is efficacious grace when the will consents. They object to the Thomist view which states that not only are these two graces different in themselves, but one who does the salutary act does it because he was given efficacious grace, and the one who does not do so was not given efficacious grace.

Blaise Paschal, though motivated by Jansenist concerns, places the objection very bluntly. He reports a conversation with a Dominican:

“But tell me, Father, is this grace given to all men sufficient?” “Yes,” he said. “And yet it is of no effect without efficacious grace?” “That is true,” he said. “That means,” I said, “that all have enough grace, and all do not have enough; that this grace suffices, although it does not suffice; that it is sufficient in name and insufficient in fact.” (The Provincial Letters, Blaise Pascal. Letter II. Translation for Penguin Books. ©1967)

 
I am not here prepared to offer a full account or defense of the Thomistic doctrine. Rather, I mean only to bring up one aspect of the solution. "He who has begun a good work in you, shall bring it to completion." One does not sharpen a pencil unless he intends to write with the pencil. God does not act in vain. He does not bestow sufficient grace without there being a real connection between it and efficacious grace. As sharpening a pencil imparts an ability to the pencil to be an instrument of writing, so sufficient grace imparts an ability upon the created free agent to be an instrument of God's grace.

Still, even among the just, even among those elect, there are sins and failings. There are times when sufficient grace is given, not efficacious grace. We may respond, that though we sharpen a pencil in order to write with it, still we may omit writing with it if there is some fault in the pencil, such as if the tip breaks. Likewise, it is only on account of such a fault in us, our resistance to the good work, that sufficient grace is not brought to completion; that efficacious grace is denied. We must conceive the order in the person whom grace acts without impediment as- sufficient grace, efficacious grace, salutary act. The consent itself is from efficacious grace. But in the one who resists, we find that God has permitted (not caused!) the man to posit some resistance and only on account of that resistance, God denies efficacious grace. In the just, the grace causes the free consent. But in the sinner, it is not the denial of the grace that causes the resistance, but the resistance that causes the denial.

Although someone through the motion of his free choice is neither able to merit nor call upon divine grace, still he is able to impede himself lest he should receive it...And since this is in the power of free choice, to impede or not impede the reception of divine grace, it is not unjustly imputed to him as fault who presents an impediment to the reception of grace. For God, as much as He is in Himself, is prepared to give grace to all, for he wills all men to be saved... but those only are deprived of grace who present in themselves an impediment to grace. (Summa Contra Gentiles lib. 3 cap. 159)

So why is St. Paul so confident? If indeed God permits some to resist and thus denies completion to the good work? St. Paul justifies his confidence in the verses following the one at the top of this post.

And I have the right to feel so about you all, because I have you in my heart, all of you, alike in my chains and in the defense and confirmation of the Gospel, as sharers in my joy. For God is my witness how I long for you all in the heart of Christ Jesus. And this I pray, that your charity may more and more abound in knowledge and all discernment, so that you may approve the better things, that you may be upright and without offense unto the day of Christ, filled with the fruit of justice, through Jesus Christ, to the glory and praise of God.

It is because St. Paul prays that they be upright and without offense "until the day of Christ." And he has confidence in the object of his prayer because this is a good work begun by God. His confidence is wholly in God throughout, and this is why he may state so confidently that God shall bring the good work, to completion.This same and complete trust in God is echoed in the Thomist doctrine. St. Thomas, in the Summa Contra Gentiles passage, does not say it is in his power to "consent or reject." He says "to impede or not to impede." The sinner posits a contrary act, he rejects. But the just man rests on God. He does not need to posit some act in order for God to do anything. He merely must be docile to God, and in this docility he obtains true freedom and his will is brought to freely act in grace.