FIRST SIGN OF INDEPENDENT THINKING OR HYPOCRISY?
(transl. by Gladys Resch)
In the February issue (No. 50) of his MITTEILUNGSBLATT (communication letter) Fr. Schmidberger writes: "After the intensive conversation of the Very Reverend Archbishop Lefèbvre in Rome with various cardinals of the Papal See, at the beginning of December, that much is sure: the true Catholics and the fraternity of priests St. Pius X are far from being at the end of their sufferings. Though the general restoration of the traditional holy Mass is allegedly imminent, it appears that it is more likely that one wants to take this measure in order to separate the faithful from the fraternity of priests, by demanding inacceptible conditions. Furthermore one dreams of dividing our work into small units and to subordinate them to the local bishops, respectively the bishop conferences. Judge yourself: would not such a "solution" make all our sacrifices during these last years appear to be absolutely absurd? What we aim at, from our side, is the complete freedom for the true holy Sacrifice of the Mass, the traditional form of the administration of the sacraments, the pontificals and the breviary, the acknowledgement of the fraternity of priests as of 'papal right' and the institution of personal parishes as they actually exist now in our priories."
Naturally it is quite true, if Fr. Schmidberger fears that most of his (seduced) faithful, who up till then went to Ecône's provisionary Mass (or 'Mass') would after the restitution of the so-called "old" Mass come out of the catacombes and return to the beautiful old church buildings. Why not? The side by side of the holy Mass and the "NOM" is insignificant according to Lefèbvre, who represents already for years this opinion and has indoctrinated continually his followers in this way. (on dissidents, repressive measures were inflicted; remember only one of the most prominent victims, Rev. Dr. Katzer).
But what is Schmidberger after, as of a sudden? Why do all the "sacrifices of the last years" appear "as absolutely absurd" to him, in view of the impending restoration of the holy Mass! Has he disowned all his previous activities, and especially the programme of his boss? - and so risked, like cand. phil. Klaus Wodsack, to be relegated to the kitchen for the peeling of potatoes?
Remember! In his LETTER TO THE FRIENDS AND BENEFACTORS, No. 16, Mgr. Lefèbvre has demanded in 1979: "Holy Father, (meaning Wojtyla) for the glory of Jesus Christ, for the benefit of the Church and for the salvation of souls, we beseech You earnestly as successor to Peter, as shepherd of the whole Church, to address to the bishops of the whole world our single word, the only watch-word: "Let them carry on"; "We authorize the free implementation of what the Tradition of many centuries practised for the sanctification of souls". "What difficulty would arise from suchan attitude? none at all. The bishops would determine the places and times which would be reserved for this Tradition. The unity would immediately be restored at the level of the diocese". (In spite of severe repraoches from all over the world, Mgr. Lefèbvre has never revised this position. He rather forces his followers to recognise the so-called "NOM" as a valid Mass and the occupant Wojtyla as the legitimate holder of the See of Peter.)
In a large scale collection of signatures - the folio was attached to the September issue of Informations 1980 - Schmidberger ventured to express to Wojtyla, whom he addressed "Your Holiness" the earnest request for the official restoration of the traditional Mass, "And above that be assured, in the love of the Church and in gratitude and loyalty to the successor of Peter, we shall not be surpassed by anybody."
One month later (middle October 1980) Lefèbvre had presented to Ratzinger in Rome a so-called "reconciliation paper", in which he had proposed to close his houses if the bishops so wished, and to recognise in principle the so-called "NEW MASS" (see Münchener Merkur of 3lrst October 1980, and 2nd November 1980). To be remembered this so-called 'attempt of reconciliation' failed at that time, not for theological reasons but only for positions of power.
According to Schmidberger, all that Ecône demanded, respectively its decisive demands are now soon to be granted to the Lefèbvrians, to whom meanwhile also Father P.S. from S. has joined, after having at one stage condemned the co-existence of the holy Mass and the so-called "NOM". To express it with our own words: Lefèbvre has reached his goal and handed the resistance over to Rome. Why then the lamentations about the absurd sacrifices? (To cite Schmidberger) Judge yourself: Are there first signs of independent thinking or is it plain hypocrisy?
HIGHLY IMPORTANT SUPPLEMENT.
A few days ago I was informed about a discourse given by Professor Dr. Wigand Siebel at Saarbrücken on January lrst, 1983. The disclosures contained therein regarding Schmidberger's attitude towards holy Mass, representing also (or even primarily) the opinion of his - as traitor known chief - will never again allow any doubt regarding the answer to the foregoing question.
During a managing commitee meeting of the supporting association of the Mass Centre in Saarbrücken, in May 1982, Schmidberger demanded of Prof. Siebel and Mr. Kohl to be conceded the right
IF NECESSARY, TO SAY MASS IN A DIFFERENT WAY, THE CANON ALSO MUST BE CHANGED IF THE OCCASION ARISES, IT MUST EVEN BE ALLOWED TO SAY MASS IN THE NEW LITURGY!
This attitude Schmidberger has not altered, although he had signed in the meantime an obligation not to introduce any changes, as he had "withdrawn his signature" to these and other regulations, stimulated by contracht. (Compare KE Jan./Febr. 1983)
Which consequences do we have to draw from this?
1) Contracs made with those of Ecône have the same value as those made with Russia! It is the mentality of Khoumeni.
2) With this the Econists have betrayed not only the ecclesiastical but also the dogmatic position.
3) It is very doubtful whether someone, who is prepared to say the so-called "NOM", has at all the intention necessary for a valid holy Mass - quite apart from whether Schmidberger's ordination was valid!
4) The chain of evidence that Ecône planned right from the beginning an extensive betrayal not only of the Church but also of the dogmatic and the sacraments, is constantly becoming narrower: Already during the winter of 1973 (!) - if I remember correctly - Wodsack, in the presence of witnesses, refused the donation of a house which was offered on condition that only the (tridentine) Mass may be said.
5) He, who knows this and continues to work with Ecône, becomes implicated in the betrayal of the Lefèbvre organisation.
6) We shall, from now on, publish the names of all the priests, of whom we know for certain, that they collaborate with the Ecône traitors, to avoid that the faithful are no longer deceived by these clergymen under the mask of Orthodoxy.
7) Everyone should endeavour to enlighten his fellow-men and fellow-faithful regarding this outrage upon one's faith.