Father Georg: "The hardliners prevailed in the SSPX. But Rome should display flexibility on the Latin Mass."
The harsh judgment of Benedict XVI's long-serving secretary: "He extended his hand; they did not accept it. It is horrible… Their understanding of tradition is not tradition."
"I remember that Benedict XVI told me many times: it is precisely at the altar, where the center of our faith lies, that there is no union, no peace. We must do everything to find it again…"
Archbishop Georg Gänswein, for twenty years the private secretary of Joseph Ratzinger and now Apostolic Nuncio in the Baltic States, was departing from Vilnius to take part in a Marian procession in Lithuania when he followed the second act of the Lefebvrian schism from a distance. He lived at Benedict's side through the days in which the theologian-Pope attempted in vain to achieve a reconciliation in 2009 — "but now one sees that they are even harder and more entrenched than before. Incredible. It is truly terrible."
At Écône, a text was solemnly read which stated, among other things: "From the Second Vatican Council to the present day, the authorities of the Church have been animated by a spirit contrary to the faith and have acted against holy Tradition…"
"It is horrible… Their understanding of tradition is not tradition. Rather, they cement Catholic tradition up through Pius XII. After that, for them, everything is over — finished. From that moment on, there have been nothing but errors."
[Interview:]
In what way did Benedict XVI think he could bring them back?
"One must reread his letter to the bishops of the whole world. He wrote it in his own hand, word by word. He wanted to be a pontifex — literally: a builder of bridges. He who is excommunicated and repents, and sincerely wishes to return to communion with the Church, has the right to be absolved. He lifted the excommunication from the four bishops as a father who seeks to make peace. An extended hand that, unfortunately, they did not accept. There was a radical fringe that prevailed — it did not want reconciliation then, and does not want it now."
How does one explain the paradox of traditionalists who do not obey the Pope?
"It must be the famous coincidentia oppositorum — the coincidence of opposites. They are like the Protestants of five centuries ago. Cardinal Müller is right."
Do you think there is still room to bring them back?
"I must say that I am very disappointed… Grace can do everything, in time, but for now I see a distancing and a hardening even deeper than in the past. A rejection of that peace which, like Benedict, Pope Leo also desires. There is, however, one thing that must be clarified first: the Lefebvrian affair is not a liturgical question."
You mean the Tridentine Mass in Latin — the Missale Romanum promulgated by Pius V in 1570 and republished by John XXIII in 1962?
"Yes. In the Church there are faithful who celebrate with the Latin rite — for example, the Priestly Fraternity of Saint Peter — and they do so cum Petro and sub Petro: never against the Pope. The liturgical reform of the Council, with the use of national languages in the Mass, maintained the Latin language; there is also the Novus Ordo of Paul VI. Moreover, Sacrosanctum Concilium of 1963 was signed, as a conciliar father, by Archbishop Lefebvre himself."
And therefore?
"Speaking frankly, I believe that Rome can now open to the possibility of being more flexible, generous, and paternal with regard to the possibility of celebrating Mass in Latin."
Would that remove an argument from the Lefebvrians?
"That too — but it is not only a matter of that. A wrong decision can and must be corrected. Rome would show that it has the courage and the conviction to do so."
By "wrong decision" you mean the restrictions introduced by Francis on the letter Summorum Pontificum, through which Benedict had liberalized the Latin Mass in 2007?
"I believe that Pope Francis made a mistake, without realizing it…"
Francis said that the opening had been used "to increase distances, harden differences, and build oppositions"…
"Yes — but it had the opposite effect. Summorum Pontificum had borne fruit; ten years of positive experience demonstrated that. There had been abuses, it is true — but abusus non tollit usum: the fact that some abuses existed was not a good reason to forbid the Tridentine Mass to everyone. Moreover, the majority of bishops were in agreement with maintaining the openings. One would recover that liturgical peace that has been damaged."
