CathInfo.com

#36: Contradiction (Fr. Schmidberger vs Fr. Schmidberger):

In April of 1991, it was Fr. Franz Schmidberger (Superior General) who delivered Archbishop Lefebvre's funeral sermon, and in a wonderful statement of fidelity to the founder declared his continuity and fidelity to him:

"As long as the spirit of destruction blows in the bishoprics and the Roman dicasteries, there will be no possible harmonization or agreement. We want to work for the construction of the Church and not for its demolition."
http://syllabus-errorum.blogspot.com/2016/04/p-franz-schmidberger-el-sepulturero.html?m=1

By 2016, "the spirit of destruction" was "blowing in the bishoprics and the Roman dicasteries" as never before, under the worst pope in the 2,000 year history of the Church.

Obviously, talk of an agreement with ultra-modernist Rome would be even more preposterous than it was in 1991, right?

Wrong!

In a scandalous internal letter (originally composed in German, but leaked and translated into French, and eventually translated into English with the translation receiving the authorization of Fr. Schmidberger himself), he opined thusly:

"So it seems that the moment has come to normalize the situation of the Society for various reasons"
https://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2016/04/considerations-schmidberger-letter.html

It was a perfect contradiction:

An agreement, according to the new Fr. Schmidberger, was no longer impossible with ultra-modernist Rome.

#38: Compromise (The Story Surrounding the Suppression of Fr. Pivert's Book):

In 2013, Fr. Francois Pivert (then SSPX - France) amassed a remarkable compilation of Archbishop Lefebvre's writings, conferences, sermons, and interviews, and assembled them into a book called "Son Excellence Mgr. Lefebvre: Nos rapports avec Rome" ("His Excellency Monsignor Lefebvre: Our relations with Rome").  As Fr. Pivert explains, "The book that you have in your hands is composed essentially of texts of Monsignor Lefebvre."

350 pages of them, all of which tended to reject the possibility of ralliement with unconverted Rome, and by implication painted Bishop Fellay (and his supporters) in a very bad light.

In response, on December 20, 2013 the General House, via Fr. Christian Thouvenot (Secretary General - SSPX) issued an internal letter to Bishops, superiors, and the priests of the French District, stating:

"In addition, Circular Letter No. 2013 - 06/08 of 12 August 2013 contained a notice concerning an unauthorized book: "His Excellency Monsignor Lefebvre: Our Relations with Rome", published without authorization. Since then, our Superior General has written to our confrere, Father Pivert, a letter in which he prohibits this book from being distributed - despite a large number of texts by our founder - on the grounds that it is misleading and that it distorts the position that Monsignor Lefebvre had in his relations with the Holy See. He has sent him a study that substantially corroborates his own judgment, which I ask you to find attached. Therefore, I ask you to ensure that this book is no longer distributed in our chapels, press tables and catalogues."
http://img110.xooimage.com/views/2/4/a/lc-2013.12.2-page-001-55d3a68.jpg/

Very well.  What is in this study which "substantially corroborates" Bishop Fellay's own judgment?

Well, were it not for the courageous leak of Fr. Matthieu Salenave (then SSPX - France), who desired to expose the lies of Menzingen in pursuit of an accord which flagrantly violated the position of Archbishop Lefebvre, we might never have known!

For his courageous fidelity to Archbishop Lefebvre, and disseminating this docuмent, Fr. Salenave was expelled from the SSPX.

Why?

What was revealed in it that so infuriated Bishop Fellay and the accordists?

Here are a couple pertinent samples:

1. The study objects to Fr. Pivert's contention that all the talks Archbishop Lefebvre had with Rome were geared toward bring them back to Tradition:

"It is obvious that, in the eyes of the founder of the FSSPX, the real reason for these relationships - which Father Pivert never mentions in his comments - is to normalize the situation of the Fraternity. Rome is not for the Archbishop a movement or a party to be converted like any other, but rather the head of the Church. For him, Peter's primacy is not an optional article of faith and everything must be done to find common ground with the Apostolic See."  (Attached study, p. 9)

Yet to the bishops-elect in 1988, Archbishop Lefebvre said:

"As I wrote to them on June 2, however courteous our conversations have been, they have persuaded us that the moment for an understanding has not yet come. We must have some protection against the spirit of Assisi. They never tackle the basic problem, never! So all our efforts have gone for nothing. We have been at cross purposes in these conversations. On our side, we are expecting the return of Tradition to Rome.
http://www.sspxasia.com/Docuмents/Archbishop-Lefebvre/To_the_Four_Bishops_Elect_June_13_1988.htm

And in fidelity to this purpose of Archbishop Lefebvre's position, the 2006 SSPX General Chapter Declaration said:

"Likewise, the contacts made from time to time with the authorities in Rome have no other purpose than to help them embrace once again that Tradition which the Church cannot repudiate without losing her identity. The purpose is not just to benefit the Society, nor to arrive at some merely practical impossible agreement. When Tradition comes back into its own, "reconciliation will no longer be a problem, and the Church will spring back to life". "
http://archives.sspx.org/superior_generals_news/2006_general_chapter/declaration_of_2006_general_chapter.htm

Already, we can see it is Fr. Pivert, and not Bishop Fellay, who has the better grasp on Archbishop Lefebvre.  No wonder Bishop Fellay wanted to overturn the General Chapter Declaration!


Or this one:


2. Though we earlier quoted Archbishop Lefebvre as describing the Ecclesia Dei communities as betrayers of tradition, and doing the devil's work (See post #19 of this thread), Bishop Fellay has quite another idea"

"The attitude towards the Ecclesia Dei circles is counterproductive...Throughout the pages, we discover fairly harsh judgments against them that are not put into context...Between the consecrations and his death, [Arch]bishop Lefebvre had little time to see these communities evolve...Finally, the facts showed that they were able to resist the assaults. In 1999, they overcame an attempt by Rome to bring them into line and, gradually, almost all of the sixteen signatories of a letter advocating biritualism had to leave the FSSP. Today, there are 250 priests celebrating exclusively the ancient rite. No one can say that [Arch]Bishop Lefebvre would have maintained the same apprehension as in 1988 over the years. At the same time, if we look at [Arch]Bishop Lefebvre's correspondence, we can also find more moderate pieces towards the Ecclesia Dei communities, conceding the fact that they are not rallied in spirit and that they have the advantage of reminding the bishops daily of what Tradition is."

These two examples suffice to show the great divergence in the thinking of Archbishop Lefebvre and Bishop Fellay, both as regards the purpose of contacts with Rome, as as regards their thinking about the Ecclesia Dei communities (and consequently, why Fr. Salenave was expelled for revealing the contents of Bishop Fellay's thinking to an SSPX clergy and faithfulto whom  Bishop Fellay wanted hold out the illusion of continuity with the founder).