ANSWER OF REVEREND FATHER HANS MILCH
TO THE OPEN QUESTIONS ADDRESSED TO HIM.
(translated by Gladys Resch)
In the publication of the EINSICHT of April 1980, Dr. Heller has asked me several questions, which I shall answer in briefness and in headings. A thorough answer, with the expected understanding, would certainly be too long for the framework of the periodical. But I shall give it in the near future in the framework of a larger scale.
Answer to question 1
"Are you, Reverend Father, of the same opinion as Mgr. Lefebvre, that the 'NOM' can be celebrated at the same altar as the holy Mass is being celebrated?"
To be able to understand question and answer, one must start out to say, that the inside space of the holy Church is occupied. The interior room of the occupied Church is therefore our room, of which we, the remaining faithful Catholics, have the legitimate right before God! The altars belong to us, and ours are the sanctuaries,* on our altars, is in itself a terrible, sacrilegious state; and the coexistence of holy Mass and 'NOM' in the same sanctuary is an abomination, which we will and can never tolerate! That we, as the true sovereign and owner, should accept the offer to celebrate the holy Mass in the violated an still in violation used sanctuary, would mean to dare and to assume responsibility in the sign of Elias - as a provoking 'Experiment' of a sign of God on the Mount Carmel. The 'NOM' is an abomination in the eyes of the Lord of hosts. When we undertake to celebrate the true Mass on our altars, it never means an approval of equal rights of the 'NOM' in the sign of pluralism, but the confident invocation of God's trial. - Mgr. Lefebvre knows, as well as I do, that there are dangers and misunderstandings connected with it. The whole situation is a matter of consideration of possessions and points of views.
Answer to question 2:
"Are you, like Mgr. Lefebvre, of the opinion, that the apostate Wojtyla, who de-facto is occupant of the Cathedra Petri, is the legitimate Pope?"
It would be a waste of time to examine whether 'Wojtyla' is a formal or substantial (material) heretic. - I am aware of the not only heretical but also objective anti-christian passages, as for instance in "Redemptor hominis". We cannot judge whether Wojtyla himself is aware of the anti-christian and respectively heretical character of his utterings. An only substantial (material) heretic can, without doubt, be a legitimate occupant of the Apostolic See. It is only the formal heretic, who knows about the anti-catholic bearing of his conviction, who cannot - by this very fact - be Pope anymore. In any case John Paul II is committed up to now to the occupied and overgrown structure of the Church. So, when Mgr. Lefebvre starts out from the legitimacy of Wojtylas Papacy, he does it - as it were in the sense of "in dubio pro reo" - to keep alive the spiritual attention on the essential spiritual and consisting points of views.
Answer to question 3:
"Finally, do you discard - as Mgr. Lefebvre has already done it with the Reverend Father Dr. Katzer and others - from your group all those, 'who object to pray for the Pope', e.g. for Wojtyla, who certainly is not the Holy Father?"
As long as the invalidity of the Papacy 'Wojtyla' is not an established fact, I must suppose its validity. To pray for him, even in the Canon of the Holy Mass, is certainly considered to be imperative under the given circumstances - and even more so as his administration of office is at least so burdened, so open to suspicion, so removed from the fulfillment of the true commission to Peter. The sure and absolute statement that 'Wojtyla' is not the Holy Father proves of a refusal to apply the healthy, thousand year old principles of Catholic knowledge. The Archbishop's practice to exclude those, who think that way, is rightly his imposed duty.
I myself have no power of jurisdiction to 'exclude' from a community.
(sign.:) Hans Milch
*That the "NOW' is being celebrated in our sanctuaries.
***
COMMENT TO PRECEDING ANSWERS
Reverend Father!
Thank you very much for the precision of your position in the thesis you sent to us. So far we have not received from Econe such an opened and clear answer to our questions.
Allow me, for objective reasons, to enter again into your explanations.
To answer 1:
To define a point of view at the time, one must first set down that Mgr. Lefebvre favors the simultaneous celebration of the so-called 'NOM' and holy Mass under the jurisdiction of the competent Reform'bishops'. (Compare letter No. 16.) This means: he recognises the so-called 'NOM' aside the affirmed (tridentine) Rite of Pius V, as absolute valid holy sacrifice of the Mass! Would you, Reverend Father, approve of this view?
We also agree like you that nearly all Catholic churches are occupied illegitimately by the Reformers and that God's possession is being misused for sacrileges. You yourself recognise, as we do, the celebration of the so-called 'NOM' as sacrilegious and the side by side of the holy Mass an 'NOM' in the same sanctuary as an abomination. That's why I find it even more ununderstandible, that you can possibly accept an offer to celebrate the holy Sacrifice of the Mass in a "violated and still in violation used sanctuary".
The formerly Catholic churches are at the time being in the hands of the Reformers and in Germany there are no juristical grounds to chase them out of them. When those, whose strongest desire is to prevent holy Mass, should offer you for its celebration some special rights, it would only be to prompt you on this matter to make compromises and concessions to the 'Reformed Church', (which N.B. Mgr. Lefebvre did the latest with his letter No. 16) or to put under control your resistance to the reforms, which the officious administration could not prevent, so to let - as Mister Ratzinger puts it - the holy Mass be "terminated" in the framework of the 'Reformed Church'.
Accepting such an offer, you would not only "risk an, as God's sign provoking 'experiment' on the Mount Carmel", but only provoke new sacrileges and the total desecration of the Sanctuary. It is not without reason that Canon 823 § 1 of the CIC mentions: "No Mass may be said in a church or chapel of heretics or schismatics, not even, if in previous time they had been validly consecrated or blessed." Even Mgr. Lefebvre named once (!) the Reformed'church' "schismatic and heretic" - in a statement connected with his suspension on 29.7.1976.
Incidentally, the prelate from Econe does not, contrary to your assumption, see the admitted dangers of such a side by side. While one could call your intention an inadmissible attempt of an 'illegal' reconquest; (in the view of the Reformers) the admission of holy Mass side by side with the 'NOM' means for Mgr. Lefebvre a 'legal' act in the responsibility of the Reform'church', by which the "unity (...) would be found immediately on the grounds of the diocese"! (Campare letter No. 16.)
To answer 2:
As - according to your opinion - we cannot judge if Wojtyla is a formal heretic or not, we should - according to you - hold on to the Papacy of Wojtyla; as a substantial (material) heretic can well be in legitimate possession of the Apostolic See.
While you agree that Wojtylas official statements contain (substantial, material) heresies, Mgr. Lefebvre stays away from such a statement. According to his official statements, Wojtyla is just a "liberal" Pope. This theological, unspecific depiction of character does not mean anything dogmatically or canonically.
a) According to CIC, can. 16 § 2a, one should - especially with highly esteemed office-holders! - not expect, that someone is in error without knowing that he is erroreous. Wojtyla was still consecrated bishop by Pius XII. On that occasion his orthodoxy and qualification had especially to be proved for this office, according to the laid down information and definition process. (Compare CIC, can. 333 and 331.) On his consecration to become bishop Wojtyla was once more obliged to pronounce the Vatican profession of Faith. Now, if this Wojtyla changes the decisive meaning of God's Revelation, as e.g. in "Redemptor hominis" - (which substantial heresy you have stated as well as we have, to the contrary of Mgr. Lefebvre who has not done it) - or uses falsified words of Consecration, (like in Mexico: "por todos") one must conclude, that he is conscious of these heresies, which he has made repeatedly publicly to the world, and especially, because by his office, he is engaged with the position of the Traditionalists, and that he therefore - also according to your presupposition - is no (more) Pope. By this the problem of the validity of his election remains unconsidered.
b) For more than twelve years already the debate, concerning the validity of the so-called 'NOM' and the permission of falsified words of Consecration is being held world-wide publicly. I personally do not know of any priest, including those of the Reformed'church', who does not know the decisive arguments. Here, in Munich, for instance, even a high-ranking office-bearer of the Reformed'church' admits explicitly the consequences of this falsification. It is impossible that the globe-trotter Wojtyla, who used to have and still is in close contact with the German clergy, could have missed the argument.
c) The cunning involvement of traditional and progressive comprehension in his encyclical "Redemptor hominis" and certain relativities of his (heretic) statements, are the best indication, that John Paul II is well aware of his divergent conception of the Church's teaching. (The concealment of his heresies, also in the encyclical "Dominicae cenae", with his traditional vocabulary, is masterly. Concerning this, one should compare the investigation of Abbé de Nantes, Prof. Lauth und Prof. Siebel in the EINSICHT IX(6) and IX(7).)
d) But even if we want to accept, that Wojtyla is only a substantial (material) heretic, meaning, that he is in a state of mind, by which he would not be aware of the error of his propagated conception, it does not play any role at all for the judgement on his legitimacy as Pope! Even, if inwardly he should be orthodox, he must because of his official world-wide pronounced heresies in legal position, that is pro foro externo be treated as formal heretic or as an incapable administrator! (Compare P. Matthew Conte a Coronata: Institutiones IV; de delictis et poenis, n. 1856, Turin 1928; P. Heribert Jone: Code of the Canonical Rights, Vol. III, Paderborn 1940, Pg. 475; Mgr. Michael Buchberger: LThK, Vol. IV, Freiburg 1932, Col. 824.) That an obvious heretic cannot be Pope has been proved several times in this periodical. (Compare Dr. Katzer, Otto: "'Papa' haereticus", EINSICHT III(12) 1-5; Dr. Gliwitzky, Hans: "Relation between Dogma and Canon Law", EINSICHT II(7) 1-7.)
Thus it should be clear, that Mgr. Wojtyla has - also under the presumptions that you mentioned! - stopped to be Pope - if he had ever become one -: it means, that he is ipso facto depositus, sed tamen (by a Conventus) deponendus. By this clarification, there should now arise the duty for you, to revise your point of view with regard to the Pope's question. (By your decision, concerning this question, the faithful will also get a definite criterion for the judgement concerning your religious standing an position in the Church.) (Compare Paul IV: Bull "Cum ex apostolatus officio" of 15.3.1559; CIC, can. 985 n. 1; can. 2314 § 1n. 3; can.188 n. 4; Eduard Eichmann: "Textbook of Canon Law" Vol. 1, Paderborn 1934, pg. 183.)
To answer 3:
I must admit that I did not put question 3 accurately. I should have asked: "Do you discard all those from your group, who refuse to pray in the Canon of the holy Mass, that is in unity of faith and community "una cum Papa John Paul II"? I was mislead to quote the respective formula of Mgr. Lefebvre. But you have Reverend Father, answered my question chiefly according to the meaning I had in mind. Of course, one can and should pray for the conversion of heretics. But that one should pray in the Canon of the Mass una cum Wojtyla the heretic, as "Papa nostro", that is offering the holy Mass in his mission, is absolutely impossible. (Compare the detailed explanations of Mgr. M.L. Guerard des Lauriers: "Christus novum instituit Pascha se ipsum ab ecclesia per sacerdotes sub signis visibilibus immolandum" in EINSICHT August 1980 - special issue in French.)
The above discussions should have shown, who applies the "healthy, thousand year old principles of Catholic knowledge" and who does not. Everyone, who wants to judge, can decide, if it was the "imposed duty and right" of Mgr. Lefebvre to sack Rev. Father Dr. Katzer and many others of his confraternity. Not considering, for the time being, the problem of the validity of Lefebvre's own consecration by the apostate, freemason and satanist Lienart, it would have been and still is his true duty, as bishop, to accuse officially, in a formal act, the Reform'church', which, according to his own judgement, is "schismatic and heretic", instead of exposing faithful Christians to follow his course. Because I know - and now I am going a step forward in the critique of Mgr. Lefebvre's disposition, concerning this matter - that the Superior of the Econe Fraternity of Priests has been warned at length by the later sacked Reverend Dr. Katzer of the heretic position and the strange past of John Paul II, so his - as least substantial - heresy was known to him. Even, if Mgr. Lefebvre would argue like you, he would not have the possibility to judge if Wojtyla also is a formal heretic, as he would have had to try, under those circumstances, to find a clarification, and for reasons of honesty he should have tolerated the continueing position, as he could not have excluded, due to his precarious knowledge, the possibility of an unfailing judgement. Apart from this, his newest sayings, in which he misuses the Name of God in a blasphemous way to hide the betrayal of his previous point of view, prove that, under all circumstances, he is concerned only to achieve union with the apostate Rome. And he and his vassals stop at nothing to couple even by blackmail as many faithful as possible to this apostate church, and that is why he has eliminated all 'desobedient' elements.
N.B. Mgr. Lefebvre too has no jurisdiction!
With respectful greetings
(sign.:) Eberhard Heller
|
