Author Topic: Resistance Laymen Banned from SSPX Chapels in Germany (Read 6191 times)

Ethelred · « **Reply #15 on:** June 18, 2013, 09:45:12 AM »

Quote from: Raphaela

Do they have charitable status in Germany, Ethelred? They're an "e. V.", a registered association, but do they get any tax benefits, as charities do in England and America?

Unfortunately I don't know. I'm going to ask. If I get answers, I'm going to quote them here.

Quote

The two laymen have even promised not to hand out leaflets on SSPX property and are still banned.

Yes. Their sacrifice to endure an unjustified ban, has its worth. I heard that the case is discussed amongst more German SSPX priests, and that also some priests who're on the side of Menzingen usually, don't support this ban because they see it's a perversion of justice and see that Prof May is correct.

Also laypeople who would never oppose Menzingen and Stuttgart got angry when they've learned about the ban, and took their priests or priors to task.

Then the brave Fr Zaby, chaplain of the brave Carmelites, wrote a very fiery open letter in German, in which amongst other things he also comments this banning from the sacraments, and he used the word "sect" for it. Here on Poschenker blog. (Careful, it's a bit polemical, probably because of the nasty things Fr Schmidberger wrote about him and the Carmelites.)

So, although probably Menzingen & Stuttgart won't change their wrong course, there could be a moral victory.

And in order to underline that it's not a problem of the German district, but a Neo-SSPX wide one, I've just got message from some friendly person in America who says that other districts are affected as well, keyword: Resistance laymen banned from sacraments.

Ethelred · « **Reply #16 on:** June 18, 2013, 09:54:30 AM »

Quote from: I

Then the brave Fr Zaby .. open letter ... he also comments this banning from the sacraments

Sorry, it seems I linked to the wrong letter. Can't link to my meant letter from memory at the moment. Maybe later. :-)

Tiffany · « **Reply #17 on:** June 18, 2013, 09:58:34 AM »

Quote from: Neil Obstat

Quote from: Frances
It's just WRONG to use the Mass and the Sacraments as a political weapon. The priests who knowingly do so will be punished by God.

My priest told me that it is a mortal sin for any priest to withhold the
sacraments for a nefarious purpose.

There are very specific rules that apply. Only a narrow demographic
qualifies as those who would be so affected. One of them is a public
sinner who scandalizes the community by his unCatholic life or
behavior in a public capacity, such as Nancy Peℓσѕι or Biden receiving
Communion while they are pro-abortion, or Mel Gibson while he is
living in sin with a woman who is not his wife.

But for anyone to be opposed to the political leanings of a pious
union of priests that has no jurisdiction over the Faithful -- there is
no way that can ever qualify as a public sinner. No way, Jose.

Same thing the NO Bishops do to homeschooled children who do not attend their full of filth "CCD" or "retreats."

Raphaela · « **Reply #18 on:** June 18, 2013, 10:28:18 AM »

Quote from: Neil Obstat

I am very interested in seeing a list of the priests who had the fortitude
to hold out against the Newmass. I have never heard of this one. Now,
I have to wonder, how is his name pronounced? How can I speak it to
people without mispronouncing it?

I think "Hans Milsh" would be the nearest.

Quote

Was Fr. Hans Milch an influence on Fr. Gregorius Hesse?

Very unlikely. Fr. Milch was murdered in 1987 at the age of 63 (by an Italian vagrant he was trying to help), when Fr. Hesse was still secretary to Cardinal Stickler.

There are many sermons, talks and writings by him, but nothing translated. Also many audio recordings on Youtube (under Hans Milch, Pfarrer Milch, Pfarrer Hans Milch), but only two with English subtitles:

"The Second Vatican Council Unmasked"

(6 parts - 78 min.)

"The Church and the Imminent Fall of Europe"

(3 parts - 35 min.)

He was a convert from Protestantism in an interesting way. He was in the German Army in Italy in 1944-45, was captured by the Americans and was then in a POW camp in France for 20 months. He was converted there by the French chaplain and received into the Church in the local parish church. As soon as he was freed he started training for the priesthood and was ordained in 1953.

He always worked in the Frankfurt area and from 1962 was parish priest of Hattersheim, a small town on the edge of Frankfurt. He managed to keep saying the traditional Mass in the parish church and was the only priest to do that. There were a handful of retired priests who continued to say the TLM at convent chapels and side altars, but even these were clamped down on by the German Bishops Conference in Lent 1976 and all stopped doing so. So from February to August 1976 Fr. Milch was the only priest saying the Traditional Mass in Germany. That August the SSPX opened a chapel in Munich, but with just one priest, Fr. Klaus Wodsack. (Fr. Schmidberger was teaching at the German-speaking house of studies in Switzerland.)

Fr. Wodsack had said his First Mass in Fr. Milch's church that July. Archbishop Lefebvre had also said a Pontifical High Mass there in April 1975, but Fr. Milch's bishop turned a blind eye until 1979, when he started more openly supporting Archbishop Lefebvre and he was then suspended.

He then built a new church in Hattersheim, St. Athanasius, and worked as an independent priest together with the SSPX, who have used the church since he died.

Ethelred · « **Reply #19 on:** June 18, 2013, 10:46:54 AM »

Quote from: Raphaela

Fr. Milch was murdered in 1987 at the age of 63 (by an Italian vagrant he was trying to help)

If I remember correctly, this Italian vagrant was possessed. And brave Fr Milch did several (Latin) exorcism on him. Then, one day when Fr Milch thought the devil would finally be gone, he laid down arms so to speak. This was a deadly mistake, because at the next occasion the vagrant who was very likely still being possessed, killed the poor father: he or rather his demon crucified Fr Milch actually.
Later, when the police questioned the vagrant, he couldn't remember anything, which makes it very likely that indeed he was possessed when he or rather his demon murdered the father. Because possessed people don't remember what they did during a session, as a possession outbreak is being called sometimes.

Very moving story. I'm sure there's a detailed text somewhere on the Internet.
As moving as the apostolate of brave Fr Milch was. He would be turning in his grave if he knew that his independent chapel now follows the Neo-SSPX' joining Newrome and banning faithful Catholics.

Those staying faithful are really just the remnant of the remnant (of the remnant)...

Raphaela · « **Reply #20 on:** June 18, 2013, 10:46:59 AM »

Quote from: Raphaela

"The Church and the Imminent Fall of Europe"

(3 parts - 35 min.)

In this video, the sermon starts at 3:40. The beginning is Fr. Milch talking about the recent death of his 90-year-old mother whom he had converted, which isn't translated. The "subtitles" for that bit are an apparently sedevacantist introduction to Fr. Milch (he was never a SV himself).

Raphaela · « **Reply #21 on:** June 18, 2013, 11:18:09 AM »

Quote from: Ethelred

he or rather his demon crucified Fr Milch actually.

There's a detailed description of his murder in his two-volume biography which the German District recently published. I ordered a copy - 1730+ pages!! (Mostly sermons and writings.) But I don't know how long it will be for sale. Fr. Milch was always 100% against any "deal" with Rome and spoke and wrote against it very forcefully throughout the 1980's. He gives very thorough reasons. He said conservative and pseudo-traditionalist Catholics were the worst enemies of the Church. I'll try and translate some more of what he said. Give me a day or two!

Fr. Milch wasn't actually crucified, but it was clearly a ritual murder. He'd been having a meal with the man in his appartment in Wiesbaden and the man killed him by stabbing him in the head, then drove a wooden stake into his chest. It turned out that the man, who'd recently tried to perform an exorcism, believed himself to be Moses and had wanted Fr. Milch to declare the Pope deposed. The wooden stake, he believed, was Moses' staff which he'd found 4000 years later in the River Main.

Neil Obstat · « **Reply #22 on:** June 18, 2013, 01:01:04 PM »

.

PLEASE NOTE:

I have started a new thread for the topic of Fr. Hans Milch:

Fr-Hans-Milch-never-said-the-Newmass-only-priest-in-Germany-to-do-so

So as to keep these two important subjects from confusion, please make
an effort to put discussion relating to Fr. Milch in the new thread.

The topic is obviously very important and could on its own turn into a
very large thread when members who knew him personally or even knew
others who knew him post their testimony.

These two topics are closely related though, so it's easy to see that they
might cross paths often and that's okay, but if we could provide links to
the other thread in the process it would go a long way to keeping the
respective subjects easier to read for newcomers.

That is, someone might be looking for the unjust denial of sacraments
today to people in Germany because it's happening to them as we
speak, and they might not want to wade through pages and pages of
material on Fr. Milch.

On the other hand, someone (like me!) who is very interested in the
story of this unquestionable HERO in the Faith AND MARTYR for the
cause of Tradition and the one true Church outside of which there is no
salvation, may like to see posts all in a row that are devoted to this
topic without pages of material on the unjust denial of sacraments to
the Faithful of Germany.

You see, in each case, the other topic in a book might be relegated to
footnotes. That is, footnotes in book A would be the main theme of
book B, while footnotes in book B would be the primary content of
book A.

This thread is book A.

The Fr. Milch thread is book B.

Let's try to keep the footnotes where they belong!!

Incredulous · « **Reply #23 on:** June 18, 2013, 01:12:55 PM »

Quote from: Wessex

Fr. Schmidberger wields whatever power he has which I suspect may be now on the decline. The Swiss have a firmer control of the German zone. Also his day has come and gone along with his hero in Rome. How heavily some trads invested in Ratzinger; they reaped a paltry dividend. And now ABL's chosen leaders use all the tricks in the book to control their own personal fiefdoms! Are we surprised?

Wessex,

As you know, I always enjoy your novel take on neoSSPX issues.

How true the point about our delirious fellow Trads investing so much hope in the familiar face of Pope Benedict.

Pope Francis is bringing them to the full sobriety they deserve.

Ethelred · « **Reply #24 on:** June 19, 2013, 01:52:09 AM »

Quote from: Raphaela

There's a detailed description of his murder in his two-volume biography which the German District recently published. I ordered a copy - 1730+ pages!! (Mostly sermons and writings.) But I don't know how long it will be for sale.

It will surely "magically" be out of print, soon... as so many good old book formerly being available in the district.

Quote

Give me a day or two!

Take all the time you need. And many thanks in advance.

Quote

Fr. Milch wasn't actually crucified, but it was clearly a ritual murder. He'd been having a meal with the man in his appartment in Wiesbaden and the man killed him by stabbing him in the head, then drove a wooden stake into his chest.

OK, ritual murder then, thanks for the clarification!

Ethelred · « **Reply #25 on:** June 19, 2013, 01:54:46 AM »

Quote from: Raphaela

Do they [=SSPX] have charitable status in Germany, Ethelred? They're an "e. V.", a registered association, but do they get any tax benefits, as charities do in England and America? Here they have to be of public benefit to have that status,

Yes. I just checked, and my sources in the German Republic say that the SSPX in the German Republic is indeed an "e.V." aka "Eingetragener Verein" and "gemeinnützig", i.e. with charitable status. And that it gets certein benefits from the state, like the people who donate to this SSPX e.V. can offset their donated sum against tax. My understanding is that this applies to all e.V.'s.

So this is apparently similar to the Anglo-Saxon area.

Quote

so if they started banning people from chapels open to the general public, they would lose the tax-breaks and be deregistered, as I understand it. They could only ban people who were causing obvious disruption or threatening harm to the people or the building. (Charity law wouldn't be concerned with refusing the sacraments, of course, just access to the chapels.)

Interesting! However, I don't know if this also applies to the German Republic SSPX.

Now could those poor SSPX laypeople in the USA or United Kingdom who were banned, do something against the banning via charity law? I know, it's very Don Quixote like in any case, but let's say theoretically.

Incredulous · « **Reply #26 on:** June 19, 2013, 02:22:52 AM »

Quote from: Ethelred

Quote from: Raphaela
Do they [=SSPX] have charitable status in Germany, Ethelred? They're an "e. V.", a registered association, but do they get any tax benefits, as charities do in England and America? Here they have to be of public benefit to have that status,

Yes. I just checked, and my sources in the German Republic say that the SSPX in the German Republic is indeed an "e.V." aka "Eingetragener Verein" and "gemeinnützig", i.e. with charitable status. And that it gets certein benefits from the state, like the people who donate to this SSPX e.V. can offset their donated sum against tax. My understanding is that this applies to all e.V.'s.

So this is apparently similar to the Anglo-Saxon area.

Quote
so if they started banning people from chapels open to the general public, they would lose the tax-breaks and be deregistered, as I understand it. They could only ban people who were causing obvious disruption or threatening harm to the people or the building. (Charity law wouldn't be concerned with refusing the sacraments, of course, just access to the chapels.)

Interesting! However, I don't know if this also applies to the German Republic SSPX.

Now could those poor SSPX laypeople in the USA or United Kingdom who were banned, do something against the banning via charity law? I know, it's very Don Quixote like in any case, but let's say theoretically.

Maybe it would be more effective to hire a good attorney to enjoin the SSPX in class action lawsuit for racketeering?

The misrepresentations, lies, and intimidations used to tie-up real-estate, invest in the stock market and use the faithful's offerings for something other than the perpetuation of Traditional Catholic Faith can be docuмented.

The data base for proving the conspiratorial nature of Bp. Fellay's "Bait & Switch religions" plot is right here at Catholic Info.

Raphaela · « **Reply #27 on:** June 20, 2013, 02:40:05 PM »

Quote from: Ethelred

Now could those poor SSPX laypeople in the USA or United Kingdom who were banned, do something against the banning via charity law? I know, it's very Don Quixote like in any case, but let's say theoretically.

As far as I know, except in Germany, no one has been banned from entering chapels, just from receiving the sacraments. Is that the case? I think it is in England. (And it hasn't actually happened here, it was just a threat that Bishop Fellay had made to Clare and Gregorio Sarto.)

I assumed this was why in Australia the XSPX threated people who attended Fr. Pfeiffer's Mass that they would no longer come and say Mass for them, rather than banning them from a specific chapel.

But a charity, and I assume in Germany as well, has to show it is benefitting the general public, hence the tax breaks (although it can be limited by its aims - a charity that helps alcoholics can't treat drug addicts, for example). But if one of the aims of a charity is to promote and further the traditional Mass, they can't stop people attending when their chapels are open to the public. A Buddhist monk in robes who is thinking of converting might want to come, or even an abortionist who is starting to have doubts about his ideas.

Anyone can be banned for disrupting the Mass or disturbing or threatening people, but it would have to be very clear and possibly a police matter.

Matthew · « **Reply #28 on:** June 20, 2013, 03:18:13 PM »

Quote from: Raphaela

But if one of the aims of a charity is to promote and further the traditional Mass, they can't stop people attending when their chapels are open to the public. A Buddhist monk in robes who is thinking of converting might want to come, or even an abortionist who is starting to have doubts about his ideas.

Anyone can be banned for disrupting the Mass or disturbing or threatening people, but it would have to be very clear and possibly a police matter.

Exactly. The civil law says that they lose their tax-exempt status if they start behaving as a private "club".

And they can't take refuge in "well, if only the Catholic Church were given her proper deference by the civil authorities" either -- the Catholic Church law is against them as well.

According to Catholic Church law, only notorious public sinners can be denied the Sacraments -- and sorry, but a man who publicly posted a harsh criticism of Bishop Fellay (signing it with his own name) does NOT count as a sin, much less a notorious one.

Only a cult leader would equate "he disagrees with me" and "notorious sinner".

I've said this before -- but this whole "Resistance = notorious sin" thing makes very little sense, unless they consider us in schism (from Bishop Fellay, the Pope) or Bishop Fellay is approved by Rome, but the Resistance is not so they're schismatic (like the SSPX used to be).

They certainly can't point to anything we're doing against the Faith or morals. If we disagree about Vatican II, then it's just that -- a disagreement. Bishop Fellay has no infallibility, under ANY circuмstances.

Matto · « **Reply #29 on:** June 20, 2013, 03:20:47 PM »

Quote from: Matthew

Bishop Fellay has no infallibility, under ANY circuмstances.

One of the problems I have with Bishop Fellay is that he acts like he has jurisdiction when in truth he has none and he should act like he has none.