http://vaticaninsider.lastampa.it/en/homepage/the-vatican/detail/articolo/lefebvriani-lefebvrians-lefebvrianos-vatican-vaticano-18576/10/ 2/2012
Rome needs to change its demands if it wants to reach an agreement with SSPXGermany’s Lefebvrian Superior Franz Schmidberger says “We cannot recognise the continuity of the Second Vatican Council and the lawfulness of the new mass.” New revelations have been made about the Pope’s letter to Fellay
Andrea Tornielli
vatican cityFranz Schmidberger, Society of St. Pius X Germany district Superior and Mgr. Lefebvre’s first successor, gave an update on the Fraternity’s relations with the Holy See, revealing new details regarding the letter which Benedict XVI sent to Bishop Bernard Fellay last June. A transcript and the original video of the interview, held last 18 September, can be viewed here.
Schmidberger highlighted the Fraternity’s 3 requests for the “normalisation” of relations with Rome: “Firstly that we can continue to point out certain errors of the II. Vatican Council, which means that we can speak openly about it. Secondly, that we may only use the liturgical books from 1962, especially the Missal, and thirdly that there will always be a bishop in the ranks of the society that is chosen from the ranks of the society.”
In the interview, the German district superior, who is close to Fellay and represents the section of the Fraternity that is more open to dialogue, referred to a change which took place on 13 June, when the last meeting between Fellay and Cardinal William Levada, the then Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, was held. “Levada presented Fellay a new doctrinal docuмent, which on the one hand accepted the text offered by Bishop Fellay, but on the other hand contained significant change where it poses a real problem from our perspective – and an entirely new situation.”
Franz Schmidberger confirmed that Benedict XVI’s letter to Fellay is a response to a question the Society of St. Pius X asked the Pope. Schmidberger revealed the content of this letter for the first time: “we asked the pope if these new demands were truly added with his approval, if this really was from him or rather from some of his assistants.” The Lefebvrians requested an audience with the Pope and asked whether the Pope really asked for the new preamble. “He assured us that it was his own wish that these demands were met.”
The German district superior summarised the preamble content as such: “Especially, this is about us recognizing the permissibility of the new liturgy. I think what is meant is the legitimacy of the new liturgy. Also, that it may be possible to continue discussions about a few nuances of the Second Vatican Council, but that we had to be ready to basically accept its continuity, meaning to see the Second Vatican Council as a part of the unbroken chain of other councils and teachings of the church. And this simply will not do. There are inconsistencies in the Second Vatican Council that cannot be denied. We cannot accept this hermeneutic of continuity like that.”
“I think we will tell the roman institutions that we have our difficulties with them and that they will have to abandon these demands if they truly wish normalization. It has become evident in the talks that took place since October 2009 until April 2011 that there are significant differences of perspective concerning the second Vatican Council, certain texts of the council and the post-conciliar magisterium.”
During the interview, Schmidberger criticised the new Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Archbishop Gerhard Ludwig Müller, describing him as “hostile” towards the Fraternity. He expressed his appreciation for the vice-President of the “Ecclesia Dei” commission, Archbishop Augustine Di Noia, whom the Fraternity is in contact with. He then attacked the new secretary of the Congregation for Divine Worship, Mgr. Arthur Roche, referring to him as “a known adversary of the Motu proprio supporting the old mass.
He added that he did not believe another excommunication was possible should the Society of St. Pius X reject two of the preamble’s demands: the permissibility of the new mass and the continuity of doctrine: Since the pope himself took back the excommunication of the society’s four bishops in 2009, it would imply inconsistency in his thinking and in his actions.” “Since the Society of St. Pius X “is, in a way, the backbone, the point of reference, of all those supporting tradition in the church. If this reference point were discredited in such a way, it meant a tremendous demoralization of all restorative and conservative forces in the church. This would be a catastrophe. Not so much for the society, but for the church.”