An Interview with Fr. Schmidberger

Bulletin (Mitteilungsblatt - MB): Father Schmidberger, you witnessed the apostolic visitation of the seminary in Écône in 1974 and the subsequent statement by Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre. What was it like at that time?

Father Franz Schmidberger: One Monday, the Archbishop summoned us to the lecture hall in Écône. He explained to us that a visitation was about to take place, that the gentlemen from the diocesan office in Sion were staying nearby but would come to visit us during the day. And soon after, they arrived.

MB: They came that suddenly?

Fr. Schmidberger: I can't say whether the Archbishop had known about it for a long time or had only just learned of it shortly before. In any case, two Belgian prelates arrived, Archbishop Descamps and Monsignor Onclin. They questioned the Archbishop, all the professors, and a selection of seminarians about everything, from studies to the spirit of the seminary, etc. But what is crucial is that these two prelates made strange statements during the visitation: that celibacy would be abolished or at least be up for discussion; that truth was not absolute, but could change; and that the bodily resurrection of Christ was not entirely certain. This naturally spread quickly. The prelates did say they were satisfied with the visitation, but they did not leave behind a protocol, which is actually customary. All of this greatly angered the Archbishop.

MB: And then he went to Rome?

Fr. Schmidberger: Exactly. He wanted to address the issue there. On the evening of November 21, he wrote the statement in Rome. When he returned, he read it out to us. And even before he had finished, the seminarians began to applaud—it was that much of an excitement.

MB: Were some not concerned that there might be a harsh reaction from Rome?

Fr. Schmidberger: Yes, there was concern about that. But the majority, including myself, were thrilled. The statement exactly captured the spirit for which we, two Germans (Klaus Wodsack and I), had entered the seminary in 1972. However, the recently deceased Bishop Tissier de Mallerais mentioned in his lectures that he did not applaud—not because he disagreed with the statement, but because he feared a strong reaction from Rome.

MB: And that reaction came.

Fr. Schmidberger: Exactly. The Archbishop was summoned to Rome twice afterwards. This can be seen as a direct response. According to the Archbishop, the conversations with three cardinals felt more like a tribunal. The visitation itself was no longer even discussed—only the statement. One of the cardinals even accused the Archbishop of being crazy and of positioning himself as the second Athanasius. This clearly shows the atmosphere there. The statement was actually not meant for the public, but rather for internal use. It was made public through a friendly priest and was then seen as a sensational declaration of war against the spirit of the Council.

MB: So, it was originally meant more as a kind of position paper?

Fr. Schmidberger: You could say that. But not only that. I think it was also a kind of personal testimony. The Archbishop told us seminarians that if it was only about the statement, they would need to attack him personally, not the Society. In fact, the local bishop, Pierre Mamie, had received permission from Rome to dissolve the Society of Saint Pius X.

MB: Some see in the statement a sedevacantist tendency, distinguishing between the true Church and the official Church.

Fr. Schmidberger: Only those who want to see it that way see that. It's complete nonsense. In reality, the statement is very clear and a strong confession of loyalty to Rome. It begins with that right away. It is not a canonical document, but a philosophical and theological one. The Archbishop points out tendencies that lead astray and present a great danger to the Church. He warns against this in the clearest terms and emphasizes that the salvation of the Church lies in returning to its Tradition or remaining faithful to it.

MB: Other critics see it as having Protestant characteristics, in that the Archbishop places his own judgment above everything.

Fr. Schmidberger: That has always been a constant accusation. “How could one defend the Pope if one criticizes the Pope?” This well-known kind of dialectic. These people did not understand that the Archbishop was attacking the errors of the Pope, not the papacy itself—and he made a fundamental distinction. The critics who made these accusations simply could not grasp the Archbishop’s level of thought.

MB: Shortly after, there was a great pilgrimage to Rome. That surely was also related to the statement.

Fr. Schmidberger: Of course, that was in the background. But the Archbishop simply moved on from it. However, there was a curious incident in Rome. The Archbishop wanted to— and did—celebrate the Holy Mass at the church of Santa Maria Maggiore. Two Monsignors were standing beside him and tried to force him to celebrate the New Mass. They simply handed him a new missal and didn’t have an old one available. We were incredibly angry in the nave about these two. But the Archbishop celebrated the Traditional Mass from memory. It was truly a battle for the Old Mass at the altar!

MB: That’s unbelievable. But the permission to celebrate the Holy Mass there was given, wasn’t it?

Fr. Schmidberger: Yes, that’s right. The Archbishop also celebrated at other places in Rome, for example, in a catacomb. At that time, there were no problems. All the processions also took place normally.

MB: Could the statement also be understood in the sense of St. Ignatius of Loyola, who, in his discernment of spirits, advises not to make changes in times of great confusion, but to remain steadfast in what is traditional?

Fr. Schmidberger: Yes, it’s about perseverance in the firm foundations.

MB: How did the Archbishop view the statement afterwards?

Fr. Schmidberger: He must have written it in great agitation—in one go, as the story goes. But he said that even if he had to write it again, he might choose different words, but the content would remain exactly the same. The statement is of exceptional clarity; it identifies the great challenges the Church and its faithful face. For that, we must be eternally grateful to the Archbishop.