Dialogue between Conn and Tradd

From TradWiki

Is the SSPX in Schism?

Dialogue between Conn (a Conservative Catholic) and Tradd (a Traditional Catholic).......

•Conn: I see you are still hard at it.

    • Tradd: We must persevere for the Truth. Cf the verse for Compline: 8 Be sober, be vigilant; because your adversary the devil, as a roaring lion, walketh about, seeking whom he may devour: 9 Whom resist ye, steadfast in the faith, knowing that the same afflictions are accomplished in your brethren that are in the world. 10 But the God of all grace, who hath called us unto his eternal glory by Christ Jesus, after that ye have suffered a while, make you perfect, stablish, strengthen, settle you. 11 To him be glory and dominion for ever and ever. Amen. (1Peter5: 8-9)

•Conn: You say that an act of disobedience is not an act of schism. This is clearly not true of all acts of disobedience. The two greatest acts of schism of all time; those of Lucifer and Adam and Eve were, we are led to believe, acts of disobedience.

    • Tradd: Every act of schism is an act of disobedience, but not every act of disobedience is an act of schism.

•Conn: Also it is not correct to classify Msgr Lefebvre's actions as merely acts of disobedience. They were a rejection of Papal authority in the governance of Holy Mother Church.

  • Tradd: He didn't say, 'You have no authority to do that, Holy Father', he said 'In the present situation "you are making a mistake so grave that I must respectfully disobey" [I won't press the point whether this was disobedience in the legal sense]. If this distinction were not possible, every act of disobedience would be an act of schism, which it is not. It would have become a schism if the Archbp. had appointed new bishops for dioceses that already had bps. appointed by the pope. This is usurping authority and schismatic. This is what the Chinese Patriotic church have done [without being excommunicated by the Vatican, despite the fact that excommunication is described as ‘automatic’ for Mgr Lefebvre & the other bishops].

    • Tradd: The SSPX was canonically erected, and given the necessary means for its continuance. It was never lawfully or legally suppressed. Mgr Lefebvre could not act as a private individual, any more than can the pope.

•Conn: Vatican Council I states: 9.So, then, if anyone says that the Roman pontiff has merely an office of supervision and guidance, and not the full and supreme power of jurisdiction over the whole church, and this not only in matters of faith and morals, but also in those which concern the discipline and government of the church dispersed throughout the whole world; or that he has only the principal part, but not the absolute fullness, of this supreme power; or that this power of his is not ordinary and immediate both over all and each of the churches and over all and each of the pastors and faithful: let him be anathema. (1st Vatican Council).

•Conn: Therefore, Msgr Lefebvre was also guilty of an anathematic act of Schism.

  • Tradd: In the first place, it is disingenuous to treat Mgr Lefebvre's consecration of the bishops, against Papal orders, as though it were a simple matter of jurisdiction. That would be a valid argument if Bp Fellay had been told by the Pope to carry out the consecrations in Paris, but Bp Fellay decided to hold them in Berlin. The reality, as is hardly denied anywhere, is that Mgr Lefebvre was running the only Religious Congregation in the world at that time that had not launched into a completely novel and untried experiment. Indeed, the main original objection to his opening Econe was that there were already three other seminaries in Switzerland, and one more would be superfluous. By 1988, however, the other three 'Updated' seminaries had long since closed down as the supply of vocations dried up – whereas the SSPX were slowly but steadily increasing each year. In these circumstances, Mgr Lefebvre insisted that it was a question of defending the Faith to perpetuate the one remaining Traditional Religious Order.

  • A bishop has a duty to preach and to ensure the continuation of the Church. The implications of denying his duty [to maintain and foster his religious congregation and to appoint successors] to the one bishop who was remaining faithful to the "default" spiritual life of the Western Church as envisaged by Quo Primum, cannot remain in the category of discipline. Mgr L. saw clearly that the Novus Ordo (sensu lato) constituted a grave danger to the Faith. I submit that he is vindicated by developments, starting from the precipitous collapse within a single year of the close of the Council. "When obedience is in conflict with the Faith, one must choose the Faith". Similarly, if an officially-printed prayerbook spelled "God the Son" as "God the Sun" and then protested that this was a typological change, not a doctrinal one, and that new spelling guidelines now permitted this new spelling, it would be correct to reply "It is true .. but this is not the whole truth. "

    • Tradd: The same document you have quoted, states immediately afterwards: "For the Holy Spirit was not promised to the successors of Peter that by His revelation they might disclose new doctrine, but that by His help they might guard the revelation transmitted through the Apostles and the deposit of Faith, and might faithfully set it forth [Denzinger, 1836].

The "Ottaviani Intervention" presented to Pope Paul by Cdls Ottaviani & Bacci [& to which Mgr Lefebvre was a major contributor] points out:

<< ¶ Despite its brevity, the study shows quite clearly that the Novus Ordo Missae--considering the new elements widely susceptible to widely different interpretations which are implied or taken for granted--represents, both as a whole and in its details, a striking departure from the Catholic theology of the Mass as it was formulated in Session 22 of the Council of Trent. The "canons" of the rite definitively fixed at that time erected an insurmountable barrier against any heresy which might attack the integrity of the Mystery.

¶ The pastoral reasons put forth to justify such a grave break, even if such reasons could still hold good in the face of doctrinal considerations, do not seem sufficient. The innovations in the Novus Ordo and the fact that all that is of perennial value finds only a minor place--if it subsists at all--could well turn into a certainty the suspicion, already prevalent, alas in many circles, that truths which have always been believed by the Christian people can be changed or ignored without infidelity to that sacred deposit of doctrine to which the Catholic faith is bound forever. The recent reforms have amply demonstrated that new changes in the liturgy could not be made without leading to complete bewilderment on the part of the faithful, who already show signs of restiveness and an indubitable lessening of their faith. Among the best of the clergy, the result is an agonizing crisis of conscience, numberless instances of which come to us daily.>>

    • Tradd: Therefore to attempt to stifle the work of a bishop [to foster his congregation and to take measures to provide successors] for refusing to follow such novelties is not an exercise of jurisdiction but an abuse of authority.

•Conn: The authority to govern the Church was given to Peter by Christ with the promise that the hell shall not prevail against the gates of Heaven.

    • Tradd: ..but not that he would make no mistakes, even disastrous ones. The Saints state clearly that in such cases it is lawful to ignore the commands of the pontiff but not to judge him, as the latter would belong to a superior, of whom there is none on Earth. Mgr Lefebvre acted correctly in line with these principles.

•Conn: Msgr Lefebvre was acting outside of his jurisdiction, albeit in what he believed to be the best interests of the Church, because a contrary order had been given by the Pope who has full authority to govern Christ's Church on earth.

    • Tradd: See last comment:

  • Tradd: In the first place, it is disingenuous to treat Mgr Lefebvre's consecration of the bishops, against Papal orders, as though it were a simple matter of jurisdiction. (...)

    • A bishop has a duty to preach and to ensure the continuation of the Church. (...) "When obedience is in conflict with the Faith, one must choose the Faith".

•Conn: Msgr Lefebvre's actions seem to be saying to the Lord, ' Lord you have allowed the wrong man to lead your Church and I am going to take care of it for you until you appoint the right man to govern'.

    • Tradd: No, he never said that one mistake makes you the wrong man. Archbp. Lefebvre said "I will continue to carry out the ministry that was entrusted to me & that I swore to maintain. I will 'keep the pilot light going'. His action concerned the SSPX. He did not attempt to appoint anybody with jurisdiction over territory outside his juridiction over the SSPX.

•Conn: We should pray earnestly for the soul of Msgr Lefebvre and we should pray earnestly that the SSPX fellowship will be re-united with the Church under the Pope as head.

• Tradd: I always do.

Christ did not give us any alternative.

• But who moved?

Retrieved from "http://www.tradwiki.com/wiki/Dialogue_between_Conn_and_Tradd_on_the_SSPX_and_schism"