Catholic Info

Traditional Catholic Faith => Crisis in the Church => Topic started by: Telesphorus on November 28, 2010, 08:08:49 PM

Title: Krah chose Williamsons lawyer
Post by: Telesphorus on November 28, 2010, 08:08:49 PM
http://thoughtactioneire.blogspot.com/2010/11/maximilian-krah-and-menzingen-cause-for.html

Quote
Maximilian Krah and Menzingen: A Cause for Serious Concern?
The Timeline -
January 2009
A Corporate Attorney by the name of Maximilian Krah became publicly linked with the affairs of the Society of Saint Pius X.
January 20, 2009
Fr. Franz Schmidberger, Superior of SSPX in Germany, issued a press release in which it was stated: “We have not seen the interview given by Bishop Williamson to Swedish television. As soon as we see it we will submit it to scrutiny and obtain the advice of attorneys.”
But, in fact, the attorney to whom Menzingen would turn had already been put into place.
It was none other than Maximilian Krah of the Dresden Corporate Law company, Fetsch Rechtsanwälte: the partners being Cornelius J. Fetsch, Maximilian Krah and Daniel Adler.
Link: Fetsch Rechtsanwälte


http://www.dasoertliche.de/?id=10700323337...&arkey=14612000
January 19, 2009
One day before Fr. Schmidberger’s press release, Maximilian Krah was appointed as delegate to the Board, and manager, of the company Dello Sarto AG. The Chairman of the company is Bishop Bernard Fellay and the Board Members are First Assistant, Fr. Niklaus Pfluger, and the SSPX Bursar General, Fr. Emeric Baudot.
The purpose of the company is stated as being (Google translation):
“Advice on asset management issues and the care and management of assets of domestic and foreign individuals, corporations, foundations and other bodies, in particular of natural or legal persons which the Catholic moral, religious and moral teaching in its traditional sense of obligation and see, and the execution of projects for the mentioned persons, as well as advising on the implementation of these projects; whole purpose of description according to statutes.”


In other words, Dello Sarto AG appears to be an investment company that speculates, one has to assume, with SSPX funds in financial and other markets in the search for profits for various SSPX projects. But is it possible to get involved in today’s financial markets without being exposed to the risk and/or practice of usury?
The company was commercially registered on January 13, 2009 and issued 100 shares at 1,000 Swiss francs, giving it an initial capital of 100,000 Swiss francs.
As far as the checkbook is concerned, Maximilian Krah and Bishop Fellay alone are enabled individually to issue a payment of funds, while Frs. Pfluger and Baudot are required to obtain a co-signature to do so. Krah is not a cleric, but exercises greater financial powers than the First Assistant or Bursar. Curious.


Link: Dello Sarto AG
http://translate.google.co.uk/translate?hl...D813%26prmd%3Db
Maximilian Krah is a Board Member of other associations that control SSPX funds.
In the September 2010 edition of a publication issued by EMBA-Global we read that the “EMBA-Global programme is designed for experienced managers, professionals and executives who seek to develop the skills, knowledge and networks to operate as successful Global leaders, anywhere in the world,” and that it “brings together an elite international network of business professionals.”
Link: EMBA-Global
http://www.emba-global.com/EMBA-Global_Cla...tember_2010.pdf
Maximilian Krah is pictured on page 6 of the September 2010 publication along with the following, accompanying text:
“Maximilian Krah. German. Lawyer. Jaidhofer Privatstiftung, Vienna, Austria. Lawyer with substantial international experience. Currently a Board Member of an Austrian foundation. Responsible for wealth and asset management of the settlement capital, and for the project development of non-profit projects all over the world, which are sponsored by using the achieved funds.”
The full name of the company mentioned above is Jaidhofer Privatstiftung St. Josef and Marcellus. Jaidof is the seat of the SSPX District headquarters in Austria.


The fact that the SSPX appears to be involved in international financial markets will worry many of their faithful who would, rightly, believe that such activity is both risky on the material plane, and questionable on the moral level. There may, of course, be those who are less concerned, feeling that it is acceptable practice in the modern world, and aimed at “a final good.” Are the latter right?
Krah first made his appearance in the international sphere, as far as rank-and-file traditionalists are concerned, in the wake of what has been dubbed by the mainstream media as “the Williamson Affair.” His comments on the bishop were less than flattering, exuded a liberal view of the world, and poured oil on the fire of controversy that raged across the world, and against both the bishop and the SSPX, for months on end. It has been plain for a long time now that the “interview” and the “ensuing controversy” were a set-up, but it was, and still is, a matter of conjecture as to which person(s) and/or agencies engineered the set-up. Perhaps subsequent information in this email will throw more light on this troubling question?


What is beyond conjecture, however, is that Bishop Fellay’s attitude towards Bishop Williamson changed dramatically. Even those who will hear nothing against Bishop Fellay have noticed this change. The change has been public and persistent, and has been both insulting and humiliating for Bishop Williamson. It has also been largely carried out in the mainstream media, and, in Germany, the notoriously anti-Catholic communist magazine, Der Spiegel, has found a favored place, much to the astonishment of traditionalists everywhere. It has been there that we heard the shocking references to Bishop Williamson as “an unexploded hand grenade,” “a dangerous lump of uranium,” etc, as well as the insulting insinuations that he is disturbed or suffering from Parkinson’s Disease. The question, let it be remembered, is not whether one agrees or disagrees with Williamson, whether one likes or dislikes either Bishop Williamson or Bishop Fellay, but whether or not a man has a right to express a personal opinion on a matter of secular history. The ambush of Williamson by the Swedish interviewer, Ali Fegan, said by some Swedes to be a Turkish Jew, left Williamson on the spot: to get up and walk out in silence, thereby providing the media with the hook “that his refusal to speak is proof of his revisionist beliefs” or simply to lie. Williamson made his choice. Whether we agree or not is neither here nor there.


In the past, nearly two decades earlier in Canada, Williamson made “controversial comments” on the same subject at what was understood to be a private meeting of Catholics. A journalist, however, found out and made a story out of it. The relevance of this episode is that the attitude of Archbishop Lefebvre contrasts remarkably with that of Bishop Fellay. The first just ignored the “controversy,” treating a secular and anti-Catholic media with total disdain, and the matter quickly became a dead issue. The latter played to the media gallery, broke corporate unity with his brother in the episcopacy (specifically warned against by Archbishop Lefebvre during the 1988 consecrations), and turned what should have been a molehill into a mountain.


ENTER KRAH
Krah is instructed to find an attorney to defend Williamson. He opts for Matthias Lossmann as defense attorney, a strange choice. It is strange, because Lossmann is a member of the extremist Die Grünen party (The Greens), an organization that is well-known in Germany as a water melon: green on the outside, red on the inside. A party that is pro-feminist, pro-homosexual, pro-abortion and harbors Daniel Cohn-Bendit, a member of the European Parliament in its ranks. Besides his frontline involvement in the 1968 Red turbulence in the universities in France, he is a known advocate of pedophilia, as his autobiography demonstrates. What was Krah thinking of, then, in choosing such an attorney to represent a Catholic bishop? Was Lossmann really the only attorney in Germany prepared to take this case?


Krah’s choice is strange for a second reason. Krah is a member of a political party, but not the Greens. Krah is a prominent political activist and officer in Dresden, in the east of Germany, of the liberal, pro-abortion, pro-homosexual Christian Democratic Union, led by Angela Merkel. Chancellor Merkel also comes from the east of Germany and is commonly referred to in that country as “Stasi-Merkel” after revelations and photographic evidence came to light hinting that she was recruited and formed by the Stasi, the former East German State Secret Police; a common approach made to young people, particularly those seeking professional careers, in the former Communist State of the German Democratic Republic. The same Merkel that publicly reproached Benedict XVI for having lifted the so-called “excommunication” of “holocaust denier” Williamson, and demanded that the Pope reverse the decision.


Krah is pictured on the editorial page, page 3, of a CDU publication, of May 2006, in the link below:
Link: Die Dresdner Union, May 2006.
http://www.cdu-dresden.de/index.php?mo=mc_...40107b868a48%7D
He portrays himself in the journal as some kind of Christian (though we are informed via SSPX faithful that he attends the SSPX chapel in Dresden), yet chooses an attorney for Williamson that could not have been worse.
Remember, too, that after the first Der Spiegel hatchet job on Williamson, Krah turned up at the British HQ of the SSPX in London at short notice and sought to get Williamson to do a second interview with the disreputable magazine. Williamson refused to do so, in spite of the fact that Krah had come with these journalists with the express sanction of Bishop Fellay! How in God’s name could Mgr. Fellay have thought that a second bite at the apple by Der Spiegel journalists would help the cause of Williamson or the SSPX? Go figure.
Moreover, consider the approach of both Krah and Lossmann in Williamson’s first trial. There was no attempt to defend him, though it is plain that Williamson had not broken German law, contrary to public perceptions generated by the media. What occurred, according to non-Catholics who attended the trial, was a shocking parody of a defense: Krah, unctuous, smug and mocking in respect of the bishop; Lossmann, weak, hesitating, insipid. Both effectively “conceded” Williamson’s “guilt,” but nevertheless argued for “leniency.” At no time did they address the legal questions at hand, questions that did not relate directly to the “Holocaust” and its veracity or otherwise, but as to whether or not the provisions of the law actually applied to the Williamson case. In other words, a Caiphas defense.


It can, therefore, come as no surprise that Williamson decided to appeal the Court’s decision, and to engage an independent attorney who would address the actual legal questions of the case. That Bishop Fellay, on the basis of media reports, ordered him publicly to sack this attorney or face expulsion is a great surprise, one might even say a scandal, for such situations require knowledge of all the facts, serious reflection, and sagacity. The Press Communiqué demonstrated none of these requirements, and merely represented one more example of Bishop Fellay’s unexplained public hostility to Mgr. Williamson. It is significant that the DICI statement referred to Williamson’s new attorney as someone who was associated with “neo-nazis,” this being a reference to the German National Democrats, an organization that has been in existence for about 50 years and has elected members in some regional German parliaments. If it had been “Nazi” it would have been banned under the German Constitution a long time ago – as many such groups have found out over the years in Germany. Moreover, while DICI chose the term “neo-nazi,” the British Daily Telegraph chose “far right,” as did those well-known anti-semitic journals, The Jerusalem Post and Haaretz.


Did Krah have an input into this communiqué? We cannot know for sure, but we do know something about Krah that is not common knowledge. Maximilian Krah is Jewish. He presents himself as some sort of ‘Christian’ in the link provided above, yet we find a more revealing picture of Maximilian Krah, at this link below, in attendance at a fundraising event in New York during September 2010.


Link: American Friends of Tel Aviv University
http://www.aftau.org/site/PageServer?pagen...0_AlumniAuction
The attendees of this fundraising party are alumni of Tel Aviv University. They are raising scholarship funds to assist diasporan Jews to travel to the Zionist State of Israel to receive a formation at Tel Aviv University. Look at the photographs. Every single person is identified and every single one is clearly Jewish. There is no problem whatever with this, Krah included.


However, Krah is at the financial center of the SSPX; he has done no favors to Williamson and his case by his statements and actions; and may be responsible for things yet unknown or unseen.
Since his arrival on the scene, traditionalists have witnessed
1) The abrupt disappearance of important theological articles from District websites regarding Judaism and the pivotal role played by our “elder brothers,” as Bishop Fellay referred to them this year, in Finance, Freemasonry and Communism, none of which could have been construed as “anti-semitic” by the time honored standards of the Catholic Church.
2) Bishop Williamson being continuously and publicly denigrated, humiliated and grossly insulted.
3) The communist journal, Der Spiegel, being favored with arranged interviews and stories to keep the “Williamson Affair” on-the-boil, thereby tending toward the “marginalization” of Williamson.
4) A scandalous and erroneous article being published in The Angelus, in which the faithful were taught that a Talmudic rabbi was a saint, and that the said rabbi was positively instrumental in preparing the Incarnation of Our Lord Jesus Christ and the conversion of St. Paul.
All these facts combined necessarily raise a whole series of questions. These questions can only be answered by those in a position to know all the facts. In this case that person is Bishop Fellay, since he is the Superior General, has unrestricted access to all aspects of the Society’s work, and obviously has taken Mr. Krah into his confidence on both the financial and legal levels.


This writer is making no accusations or insinuations against Bishop Fellay at any level. He is simply requesting that he make public reply to the following questions in order that the doubt and worry, which is widespread among the clergy and faithful since the events of last year, is allayed, and soothed by the balm of Truth.


Your Excellency,
1) Were you aware that Maximilian Krah, who currently has significant power and influence in important areas of the internal workings of the SSPX, was Jewish when he was taken into your confidence?


2) Who introduced, or recommended, Maximilian Krah in his professional capacity to the Society of Saint Pius X?


3) If you were not aware of Krah’s background and political connections, why was he not carefully investigated before being brought into the inner-circle and inner-workings of SSPX?


4) Why does Krah, who is not a cleric of the SSPX or even a longtime supporter of the Society, have such singular power to handle SSPX funds?


5) Who are the shareholders of Dello Sarto AG? Are they all clergy of the SSPX or related congregations? Are the shares transferable through purchase? In the event of the death, defection or resignation of a shareholder, how are the shares distributed? Who in any of these cases has the power to confer, designate, sell or otherwise dispose of these shares? You? The Bursar? The Manager? The Board Members? The General Council?


6) Why is the Society of Saint Pius X engaged in financial activities which may be common in modern society, but which are hardly likely to be in conformity with Church teaching pertaining to money, its nature, its use and its ends?


7) Why was Krah allowed to keep the pot boiling in the “Williamson Affair” by arranging interviews and providing stories for Der Spiegel magazine? How could an alleged Christian Democrat be the intermediary with a notorious communist journal?


8) Why was Krah permitted to impose upon your brother bishop an attorney belonging to the extreme left-wing Die Grünen?


9) Why was your brother bishop threatened with expulsion from SSPX for merely hiring an attorney who was actually interested in fighting the unjust and ridiculous charge of incitement? Is it not the case that those of the Household of the Faith must take precedence over those who are without?


10) Can you explain why your public attitude to Williamson has changed, why you have continuously belittled him in public – while he has not responded in kind at any time?


11) What do you intend to do about Mr. Krah given that his position within the Society is one of influence, but who cannot seriously be regarded as someone who has the best interests of Catholic Tradition at heart? Will you move as quickly to resolve this question as you have in respect of Williamson?
There is no malice meant or intended in this communication. There is quite simply a tremendous fear for the future of the SSPX and its direction


POST SCRIPT
For those who think that the writer is muckraking, I would like to point out that it was me that made public the impending sell-out of the Transalpine Redemptorists several months before it took place. I received brickbats for the relevant post at the time, and some calumniated me – but I was shown to be correct after a short period. This writer has not posted anywhere since that time. He does so now because he possesses information, as he did in regard to the Redemptorists, which needed to be made known widely for the good of Catholic Tradition. Nothing would please me more than to have Bishop Fellay answer these serious questions and put Catholic minds everywhere at rest.
Title: Krah chose Williamsons lawyer
Post by: Telesphorus on November 28, 2010, 08:13:45 PM
Quote
The attendees of this fundraising party are alumni of Tel Aviv University. They are raising scholarship funds to assist diasporan Jews to travel to the Zionist State of Israel to receive a formation at Tel Aviv University. Look at the photographs. Every single person is identified and every single one is clearly Jewish. There is no problem whatever with this, Krah included.


(is William of Norwitch being facetious?)

http://thoughtactioneire.blogspot.com/2010/11/maximilian-krah-and-menzingen-cause-for.html

If this story is true and this is the same Krah then Bishop Fellay could very well be under sinister influence.
Title: Krah chose Williamsons lawyer
Post by: stevusmagnus on November 28, 2010, 08:38:42 PM
Found these quotes on Clare's site regarding "EtCumSpirit220" and Angel Queen. They are right on.

Quote
Angelqueen moderator (and resident pompous coward), Et Cum Spirit 220, has already redacted the post and locked the thread over there.


Quote
I find it very strange that whenever anything gets posted on AQ that has any real importance, any real substance, or any real consequence about things that go on in the world, it inevitably gets closed down or immediately erased. Either that or a thread gets completely diverted and destroyed with the irrelevant posting of stupid cartoons, jokey pictures and comments encouraging such nonsense. That seems to be about the level of Angelqueen. Utterly pathetic. No wonder Catholics are losing this war.


Thread on the topic is here:

http://z10.invisionfree.com/Ignis_Ardens/index.php?showtopic=6405&hl=

Who knows if the charges are true or not, but AQ gives yet another example of why they are completely worthless as a site where Trads can have a free discussion. The only Trad site I know of is still Cath Info.
Title: Krah chose Williamsons lawyer
Post by: Telesphorus on November 28, 2010, 08:46:41 PM
Clare kept the thread open.
Title: Krah chose Williamsons lawyer
Post by: stevusmagnus on November 28, 2010, 08:48:30 PM
Don't know much about IA, but Clare is already better than the AQ mods. Of course that's not saying much.
Title: Krah chose Williamsons lawyer
Post by: stevusmagnus on November 28, 2010, 08:55:55 PM
John DeLallo has some good posts..

Quote
Catholicam,

You are right when you say the SSPX is not the Church and can fail.

I have been with the Society for around thirty-two years now. During this time I heard countless times how the Society was becoming liberal, modernist, extreme and who knows how many other things.

I heard (when I was in the Seminary) that the Archbishop was selling us out. I also heard that he had been a liberal before the Council and still had some liberal tendencies.

I heard (when I was in the Seminary) how the Society was going to accept the Novus Ordo any time now.

I heard the Archbishop was lacking sound theology by laity and priests alike.

I heard (when I was in the Seminary) the complaint over and over again that the Archbishop needed to consecrate Bishops immediately (1978).

I heard that the Archbishop was guilty of compromise by dialoging with Rome.

I heard (by some priests of the Society) that the Archbishop privately believed that there was no Pope and would only publicly acknowledge the Pope to keep the support of the people.

I heard (by a priest of the Society) the Archbishop was guilty of heresy concerning Baptism of Desire.

I heard it all.

Now, when I look at those who were making these accusations I see that they, almost without exception, have gone off the deep end.

No, the Society is not the Church, and yes, the Society can fall away. But, before I listen to anyone claiming impending doom, an abdication, a betrayal, an unfaithfulness to Archbishop Lefebvre, a lack of theological or doctrinal clarity, etc., etc., I only have to look at the Society’s past. I know that this is only my opinion, but I have not seen any deviation from the mission of the Society as understood by Archbishop Lefebvre by the current Superiors of the Society.

There have been problems in the Society to be sure (there have always been problems that needed to be addressed and (eventually) corrected), but never the predicted calamitous results from those problems.

QUOTE
They are only a group within the Church who are likeminded with us.


You are mistaken here; The Society is much more than a likeminded group. They are a legitimately erected religious Society of priests. The Archbishop created the Society for the continuation of the priesthood and the preservation of the Faith.

Now, if you believe as I do, that God chose the Archbishop to defend the Faith and to restore and continue the priesthood by the establishment of the Society, then we should become more interested in praying for the Superiors in their efforts to continue the Archbishop’s work. We should not be constantly trying to find “evidence” to support our opinion of how the Society is failing based upon our “own” understanding of what the Society’s mission is and how the Society is supposed to be fulfilling that mission.



Quote

The conference was recorded. It is for sale from the Immaculata Bookstore here in St. Mary’s for around $15.00 + tax, shipping, handling. It is a two disc set on the relations between Rome and the Society – disc 1, Bishop Williamson (the media storm) and a sermon on temptation – disc 2.

I think you misunderstand Fr. Pfluger. Having attended the conference and then re-listening to it today (my memory needed a good bit of jogging), I can tell you there wasn’t (isn’t) a contradiction. The main theme of Fr. Pfluger's talk was the imprudence of the comments and their consequences.

There are two points he is making at this point of the conference:
•   1) There are some who consider the Holocaust the new Sacrifice and Redeemer. Instead of Our Lord Jesus Christ, the Jewish People and the Sacrifice is the Holocaust – the first quote you gave.
•   2) The historical accuracy of numbers, method and intention (Hitler’s) are not the issue. This is not the fight – the additional quotes I provided.

Concerning these points:
•   1) If the question put to the Bishop had been something like; “Do you accept the redeemer as the Jewish people and the sacrifice as the Holocaust?” Then the Bishop would have been defending the Faith from an attack on the Faith; the type of attack Fr. Pfluger is referring to. The defense of an attack like this could have been done by re-iterating the Catholic Doctrine of Redemption. The question of the historical accuracy need never have been addressed since, accurate or not, the Jews are not the redeemer nor is the Holocaust the sacrifice.

•   2) This is not what happened. The Bishop was asked a question concerning his opinion on the historical accuracy of the holocaust. It had nothing to do with a question of the Faith and need not have been answered. Now the Society is being attacked because of a question of historical accuracy and of anti-Semitism rather than a question of Faith.

I realize that you are of a different opinion. That is your prerogative. But please do imply a compromising or a weakness of Faith on the part of the Superiors because they do not agree with you.

As for me, I will follow the opinion of the Bishops of the Society over the laity or a few priests.

It must be remembered that even Bishop Williamson believes the issue to be historical and would never have made the comments had he known the result of them –
QUOTE
Observing these consequences I can truthfully say that I regret having made such remarks, and that if I had known beforehand the full harm and hurt to which they would give rise, especially to the Church, but also to survivors and relatives of victims of injustice under the Third Reich, I would not have made them.

On Swedish television I gave only the opinion (…„I believe“…„I believe“…) of a non-historian, an opinion formed 20 years ago on the basis of evidence then available and rarely expressed in public since. However, the events of recent weeks and the advice of senior members of the Society of St. Pius X have persuaded me of my responsibility for much distress caused. To all souls that took honest scandal from what I said before God I apologise.


Are you suggesting that you know more than the Bishop (and the Society) on this matter?

Like I said some place else; If this issue of the Holocaust is of such importance why did the Archbishop never address or acknowledge it?


john
Title: Krah chose Williamsons lawyer
Post by: Elizabeth on November 28, 2010, 09:01:19 PM
Tele, to me it seems that Norwitch is saying, "None of these people, Krah included, are hiding the fact that they are Jewish".

Title: Krah chose Williamsons lawyer
Post by: Telesphorus on November 28, 2010, 09:07:19 PM
Quote from: Elizabeth
Tele, to me it seems that Norwitch is saying, "None of these people, Krah included, are hiding the fact that they are Jewish".



If this article is true, then the Society needs to be reorganized pronto.

It is almost unbelievable that the Bishop Williamson's lawyer would be chosen by a Jew in charge of running SSPX finances.
Title: Krah chose Williamsons lawyer
Post by: stevusmagnus on November 28, 2010, 09:10:08 PM
Tele,

Nice try over at AQ but I see the resident pompous coward mod even went so far as to erase the relevant posts discussing the matter:

Quote
Not sure why, but a number of posts appearing on this thread seemed to be a continuation of a topic that was locked. This thread has been cleared of the posts, and can continue. I ask that folks please respect the decisions of the highly paid and well trained moderators.

That is all.


Unbelievable.
Title: Krah chose Williamsons lawyer
Post by: stevusmagnus on November 28, 2010, 09:18:49 PM
Now that the questions are out there, I think BF or an official Society response should at least address it.
Title: Krah chose Williamsons lawyer
Post by: Elizabeth on November 28, 2010, 09:30:29 PM
Well, thank goodness for Clare.  :pray:

The issue of who would represent Bp. Williamson might be difficult for an American to understand, unless he has been living there?

Maybe it spells instant ruin for one's family to even discuss certain things there?
Title: Krah chose Williamsons lawyer
Post by: MauricePinay on November 28, 2010, 09:43:30 PM
How ironic that Bp. Fellay who smeared Bp. Williamson with the "neonazi" epithet, in fact, has racial supremacist associations. But then, that comes with "communion with Rome" which is in communion with the racial supremacist state.

I also disagree with the author's suggestion that Mr. Krah's Zionist fundraising isn't problematic but I'm nevertheless very grateful for his uncovering this information.
Title: Krah chose Williamsons lawyer
Post by: Elizabeth on November 28, 2010, 10:14:43 PM
Maurice, if I understand the author, he does find Mr. Krah's fundraising to be at the very least a question which needs answering.
Title: Krah chose Williamsons lawyer
Post by: MauricePinay on November 28, 2010, 10:52:18 PM
Quote
"The attendees of this fundraising party are alumni of Tel Aviv University. They are raising scholarship funds to assist diasporan Jews to travel to the Zionist State of Israel to receive a formation at Tel Aviv University. Look at the photographs. Every single person is identified and every single one is clearly Jewish. There is no problem whatever with this, Krah included."


???
Title: Krah chose Williamsons lawyer
Post by: stevusmagnus on November 29, 2010, 12:10:12 PM
Quote from: stevusmagnus
Tele,

Nice try over at AQ but I see the resident pompous coward mod even went so far as to erase the relevant posts discussing the matter:

Quote
Not sure why, but a number of posts appearing on this thread seemed to be a continuation of a topic that was locked. This thread has been cleared of the posts, and can continue. I ask that folks please respect the decisions of the highly paid and well trained moderators.

That is all.


Unbelievable.


Tele,

A poster said that the mod clearing the comments would create more trouble than it solved.

So the mod promptly locked that thread as well.

 :laugh1:
Title: Krah chose Williamsons lawyer
Post by: Telesphorus on November 29, 2010, 12:25:16 PM
Maurice Pinay makes a good point, we haven't seen any confirmation that "Maximilian Krah" is Jewish.  However, it is very disquieting that someone who participates in fundraising for Tel Aviv university and for Jews making Aliya would be in charge of SSPX finances and choosing legal counsel for a society bishop.  Simply unbelievable.

The Krah at the Jewish fundraiser is the same one as the Krah in the CDU periodical.  Now do we have absolutely proof that this same Maximilian Krah is the one who is managing the good faith contributions of SSPX faithful?

To put the monies of SSPX faithful into such hands, knowingly, would deserve a long prison term, if there were justice in this world.
Title: Krah chose Williamsons lawyer
Post by: roscoe on November 29, 2010, 12:46:11 PM
i find it quite amusing that there are those who express surprise at the disclosure  Judaix are running SSPX.  :scratchchin:
Title: Krah chose Williamsons lawyer
Post by: hollingsworth1 on November 29, 2010, 12:49:26 PM
Quote
Now that the questions are out there, I think BF or an official Society response should at least address it.


He'd better address it, or he and the Society are going to see our tithes dropping off dramatically.  If +F is going to play this matter close to the vest, as is his wont, then maybe our money, or the great reduction of it into Society and chapel coffers, may force his hand.  Let the money speak.
Title: Krah chose Williamsons lawyer
Post by: hollingsworth1 on November 29, 2010, 12:51:31 PM
Quote
i find it quite amusing that there are those who express surprise at the disclosure Judaix are running SSPX


Well, I think a simple perusal of some of the latest copies of The Angelus would seem  to point in that direction.
Title: Krah chose Williamsons lawyer
Post by: Emerentiana on November 30, 2010, 02:03:29 AM
Quote from: Telesphorus
Quote
The attendees of this fundraising party are alumni of Tel Aviv University. They are raising scholarship funds to assist diasporan Jews to travel to the Zionist State of Israel to receive a formation at Tel Aviv University. Look at the photographs. Every single person is identified and every single one is clearly Jewish. There is no problem whatever with this, Krah included.


(is William of Norwitch being facetious?)

http://thoughtactioneire.blogspot.com/2010/11/maximilian-krah-and-menzingen-cause-for.html

If this story is true and this is the same Krah then Bishop Fellay could very well be under sinister influence.


Yeah, I would say that the SSPX is  being infiltrated by the Zionists, and they are going for the kill!
They will get Bishop Williamson expelled, because he just doesnt fit into their agenda, being "antisemitic in his views.
At the same time they will pilfer the society of its funds!
Wow how diabolical can it be!
At the end of all of this there will be a spilt in the Society.
One group will go with the Vatican !! church and the other group will become sedevacantists.
No Catholic will be spared in this final assault by Satan to destroy whats left of the Church!   Remember we are engaged in a BATTLE!  

Two questions to ask:
Is Bishop Fellay so stupid he doesnt know about the Zionist plot to take over the world?
OR
Is he part of it......or did he sell out somewhere along the way!
Title: Krah chose Williamsons lawyer
Post by: Dawn on November 30, 2010, 06:27:53 AM
Emerentiana I agree with you. I have always thought there would be a split. Anymore I do not know. They will all make excuses for Fellay you wait and see. I really am rather worn out with the double-minedness of those who defend all things of The NewChurch all the time. From condoms  to jews to masons. I think I am going to make a mini-retreat in my own home for Advent. Read St. Thomas of Aquinas and be at peace.
Title: Krah chose Williamsons lawyer
Post by: stevusmagnus on November 30, 2010, 07:15:38 AM
I don't think there is any reason to panic. BF doesn't want Tradition linked to revisionism, Nazi groups, etc. It would mean the enemy wins. He's simply being prudent and cautious. BW is complying.

I think everyone is blowing this out of proportion. There is no reason for BF to sell out his life's work for nothing. Have some Faith. The enemy wants us to turn on each other. Divide and conquer.
Title: Krah chose Williamsons lawyer
Post by: Matthew on November 30, 2010, 08:09:26 AM
Quote from: Emerentiana
Quote from: Telesphorus
Quote
The attendees of this fundraising party are alumni of Tel Aviv University. They are raising scholarship funds to assist diasporan Jews to travel to the Zionist State of Israel to receive a formation at Tel Aviv University. Look at the photographs. Every single person is identified and every single one is clearly Jewish. There is no problem whatever with this, Krah included.


(is William of Norwitch being facetious?)

http://thoughtactioneire.blogspot.com/2010/11/maximilian-krah-and-menzingen-cause-for.html

If this story is true and this is the same Krah then Bishop Fellay could very well be under sinister influence.


Yeah, I would say that the SSPX is  being infiltrated by the Zionists, and they are going for the kill!
They will get Bishop Williamson expelled, because he just doesnt fit into their agenda, being "antisemitic in his views.
At the same time they will pilfer the society of its funds!
Wow how diabolical can it be!
At the end of all of this there will be a spilt in the Society.
One group will go with the Vatican !! church and the other group will become sedevacantists.
No Catholic will be spared in this final assault by Satan to destroy whats left of the Church!   Remember we are engaged in a BATTLE!  

Two questions to ask:
Is Bishop Fellay so stupid he doesnt know about the Zionist plot to take over the world?
OR
Is he part of it......or did he sell out somewhere along the way!


Why is it that "Post-SSPX, there must be Sedevacantism"

How does it follow that a hypothetical sellout by +Fellay would lead to a conclusion that the Pope isn't pope?

The same goes for Telesphorus -- he's very disillusioned with the SSPX, and so he feels like Sedevacantism is staring him down, beckoning him over, while doesn't know that he wants to be there.

WHY??

Why couldn't the SSPX split where half merges with the Conciliar Church and the other half does what it's been doing the past 40 years?

It is because Sedevacantism is the only other traditional movement? Is it because acknowledging the pope would get that much more difficult -- humanly speaking -- after the Pope just made a (we're talking hypotheticals here) premature, false deal with the SSPX?

Matthew
Title: Krah chose Williamsons lawyer
Post by: Wessex on November 30, 2010, 08:14:04 AM
No, there has been a change in the Society. Maybe not just over a couple of events but in a general direction. I would say the few shows of conservatism in Rome and those stillborn doctrinal talks have turned the heads of the leadership as it has for some other groups. At the same time a spring cleaning operation has been going on to make the Society more acceptable to a less hardline conservative audience, to make it easier for some accommodation to be made with Rome and to avoid potention friction with secular authorities. In this respect it is logicial for the leadership to want to see the back of those it welcomed in the old days, including Bp. Williamson. ABL has long gone and Menzingen wants a new corporate image and will employ modern methods to achieve its new goal. The Society is not a democracy and one man can decide its fate without too much difficulty.
Title: Krah chose Williamsons lawyer
Post by: Matthew on November 30, 2010, 08:15:46 AM
By the way, I probably know more about the SSPX than Telesphorus -- good and bad. I was in their seminary for 3 1/3 years.

And let's just say he's not the only one whose personal life was touched by the SSPX.

But I continue to attend their chapels because I know that each priest is a different man, which means that some can be holy while others have serious issues. AND getting the Sacraments in an atmosphere where the entire Catholic Faith is preserved is very important. Likewise, now that I have a family, it's important that the sermons be sound and the Catholic Faith be taught inviolate.

About the only flaw at my current chapel is that a bunch of the parishioners like things the way they are, and they don't want to expand to a larger facility, even though visitors have to watch Mass on a TV set in the parish hall because there's no room for them in the chapel. Such visitors seldom come back a 2nd time. We're also in flagrant violation of fire codes seven ways from Sunday.

Apparently, for some old people, it's more important to have "stability" and comfortable routine than it is to save souls.

Matthew
Title: Krah chose Williamsons lawyer
Post by: stevusmagnus on November 30, 2010, 08:26:52 AM
A lot of Sedes have been constantly squawking about a "sell-out" and using the Williamson affair as a chance to divide the Society, instill hopelessness in Society members and get them to become schismatics along with them. It seems they take every chance they get through whatever means necessary to ruin any possible doctrinal discussions with Rome. In my opinion Sedevacantism is poison and a false solution to the Crisis. Sedevacantism is the mirror image of Neo-Catholicism in that both mindsets delusionally ignore the crisis. The Neo-Caths say, what crisis? The Church is fine. The Sedes say, what crisis? There is no Pope. Only crisis is in a false church anyway. Neither mindset either recognizes the true nature of the crisis or encourages jack squat to actually be done about it. Neo-Caths passively await orders and what insanity they will defend next. Sedes passively sit there in their caves waiting for God to re-establish His Church miraculously while they take pot shots at the Society and other Trads who are actually trying to do something to resolve the crisis.

As I've said before, what possible basis do Society Catholics and Sedes have to discuss any crisis in the Church? The Sede response will be one or two lines saying "see I told you he's not Pope" or "there goes the anti-Church again", etc. There is nothing to discuss if you are a Sede except how miserable this anti-pope and false church is. If you are a Society Catholic there are very many substantive issues and distinctions to be discussed in what is happening in the true Church that REALLY is visible and does exist during this crisis.

I see a lot less activity on the forum lately and I'm afraid it is due to the large influx of Sedes who either kill or derail any intelligent non-Sede discussion of the crisis. This is why I  requested any Sede discussion limited to its own forum. Sedevacantist premises completely eviscerate the dialogue between non-Sedes. How can I have an intelligent discussion on anything the Pope did with someone who is working off the premise he is an evil usurper layman? We're not even on the same planet.
Title: Krah chose Williamsons lawyer
Post by: Matthew on November 30, 2010, 08:40:22 AM
I agree with much of your post, Stevus --

But I'm not going to make any changes to the Crisis subforum. Your summary makes sense in the abstract, but practically speaking they do have something to contribute.

And I disagree with the bit about "less traffic lately". Traffic comes and goes -- it completely depends on the presence/absence of a "hot thread". People participate in fits and starts. Traffic comes in bursts -- feast or famine. There's always an ebb and flow.

I wish I had a dime for every time someone predicted CathInfo's demise. I'd have a lot more time for CathInfo -- because I wouldn't have to work for a living anymore!  :laugh1:
Title: Krah chose Williamsons lawyer
Post by: Wessex on November 30, 2010, 08:44:14 AM
To be honest, I am not at all concerned with what goes on in apostate Rome and the Society is becoming a lost cause. Internal conflict seems to be the order of the day all round and the clutching of straws on many a blog is getting very depressing. I think I am going to see more spirituality in fly-fishing or rose-growing. I will pass on golf.
Title: Krah chose Williamsons lawyer
Post by: stevusmagnus on November 30, 2010, 08:50:00 AM
Fair enough, Matthew.

I didnt mean to say Cath Info is doomed or dying. I'm just saying a trend I noticed lately. I still like the forum.

As an aside, how was your time in the seminary? Why did you decide to leave? I've always been interested in Society seminary life. Any interesting classes that stood out?

Thanks!
Title: Krah chose Williamsons lawyer
Post by: ServusSpiritusSancti on November 30, 2010, 09:27:55 AM
I saw that article. No surprise that AQ deleted it either. They love locking and deleting threads over there.
Title: Krah chose Williamsons lawyer
Post by: stevusmagnus on November 30, 2010, 09:51:28 AM
Quote from: SpiritusSanctus
I saw that article. No surprise that AQ deleted it either. They love locking and deleting threads over there.


All interesting or pertinent and intelligent debate is immediately locked with a sarcastic quip.

It's like their mods have radar as to whenever substantive discussion is occurring and they feel compelled to stamp it out.
Title: Krah chose Williamsons lawyer
Post by: Belloc on November 30, 2010, 10:05:19 AM
Quote from: Emerentiana
At the end of all of this there will be a spilt in the Society.
One group will go with the Vatican !! church and the other group will become sedevacantists.
 


note sure where you got this conclusion from, other than wanting itto be true-in 70's, not like ABL went SV...if there is a split, if, then why do we not think those not going to Rome, per se, would not remain as they are now, but also, no SV????

again, wonder if for some SV is almost a religion in itself....
Title: Krah chose Williamsons lawyer
Post by: Emerentiana on November 30, 2010, 11:02:17 AM
Quote from: stevusmagnus
I don't think there is any reason to panic. BF doesn't want Tradition linked to revisionism, Nazi groups, etc. It would mean the enemy wins. He's simply being prudent and cautious. BW is complying.

I think everyone is blowing this out of proportion. There is no reason for BF to sell out his life's work for nothing. Have some Faith. The enemy wants us to turn on each other. Divide and conquer.


Like I told you before, Stevus.........you just cant connect the dots in this battle between the forces of Christ and Antichrist!    Clueless! :pop:
Title: Krah chose Williamsons lawyer
Post by: stevusmagnus on November 30, 2010, 11:11:31 AM
I'm clueless because I haven't "connected the dots" that Christ's promise was a lie and the Church defected, there is no Pope, problem solved?

No thanks. I fear "connecting the dots" = making rash and presumptuous assumptions based on scant or non-existant evidence.
Title: Krah chose Williamsons lawyer
Post by: Emerentiana on November 30, 2010, 11:13:26 AM
Quote from: stevusmagnus
A lot of Sedes have been constantly squawking about a "sell-out" and using the Williamson affair as a chance to divide the Society, instill hopelessness in Society members and get them to become schismatics along with them. It seems they take every chance they get through whatever means necessary to ruin any possible doctrinal discussions with Rome. In my opinion Sedevacantism is poison and a false solution to the Crisis. Sedevacantism is the mirror image of Neo-Catholicism in that both mindsets delusionally ignore the crisis. The Neo-Caths say, what crisis? The Church is fine. The Sedes say, what crisis? There is no Pope. Only crisis is in a false church anyway. Neither mindset either recognizes the true nature of the crisis or encourages jack squat to actually be done about it. Neo-Caths passively await orders and what insanity they will defend next. Sedes passively sit there in their caves waiting for God to re-establish His Church miraculously while they take pot shots at the Society and other Trads who are actually trying to do something to resolve the crisis.

As I've said before, what possible basis do Society Catholics and Sedes have to discuss any crisis in the Church? The Sede response will be one or two lines saying "see I told you he's not Pope" or "there goes the anti-Church again", etc. There is nothing to discuss if you are a Sede except how miserable this anti-pope and false church is. If you are a Society Catholic there are very many substantive issues and distinctions to be discussed in what is happening in the true Church that REALLY is visible and does exist during this crisis.

I see a lot less activity on the forum lately and I'm afraid it is due to the large influx of Sedes who either kill or derail any intelligent non-Sede discussion of the crisis. This is why I  requested any Sede discussion limited to its own forum. Sedevacantist premises completely eviscerate the dialogue between non-Sedes. How can I have an intelligent discussion on anything the Pope did with someone who is working off the premise he is an evil usurper layman? We're not even on the same planet.


Maybe there is a lot less activity Stevus, because you have come in here and taken over the threads with your rediculous posts.  Get the BIG Pictutre.   Its a battle for souls out there, and ALL Catholics whetever persuasion are game  in this Battle! :fryingpan:
Title: Krah chose Williamsons lawyer
Post by: Elizabeth on November 30, 2010, 11:53:02 AM
Quote from: Matthew


But I continue to attend their chapels because I know that each priest is a different man, which means that some can be holy while others have serious issues. AND getting the Sacraments in an atmosphere where the entire Catholic Faith is preserved is very important. Likewise, now that I have a family, it's important that the sermons be sound and the Catholic Faith be taught inviolate.

 Yes!  Each priest is a different man!  That goes for each Roman Catholic priest of whatever group he belongs to.

Also, (speaking of SSPX) a lot of the newer ones are just radiant in their love for souls.
Title: Krah chose Williamsons lawyer
Post by: Belloc on November 30, 2010, 11:54:45 AM
Quote from: stevusmagnus
I'm clueless because I haven't "connected the dots" that Christ's promise was a lie and the Church defected, there is no Pope, problem solved?

No thanks. I fear "connecting the dots" = making rash and presumptuous assumptions based on scant or non-existant evidence.


some dots are not dots at all, some are dots because we want them to be..........that is why some are so led astray....
Title: Krah chose Williamsons lawyer
Post by: Emerentiana on November 30, 2010, 12:02:51 PM
Quote from: stevusmagnus
I'm clueless because I haven't "connected the dots" that Christ's promise was a lie and the Church defected, there is no Pope, problem solved?

No thanks. I fear "connecting the dots" = making rash and presumptuous assumptions based on scant or non-existant evidence.


Maybe you should study the history of the church!  Youll find that the church has had many many antipopes, and survived.  We just have a new series now.  This is the longest period of Interregnum in the church's history.  
The book Tumultuous Times by Fr Dominic and Fr Francisco Radecki spells it out.  You can get it on Amazon.com

BTW......spoken like a lawyer!    Cant see the forest from the trees.
Im a simple lady......you dont have to be a scholar to know whats happening today.  In fact, most scholars have been derailed
!

BTW, most lawyers are very busy and dont spend all day on  forums.  Whats your motive for all of this?  Being paid, maybe? :scratchchin:
Title: Krah chose Williamsons lawyer
Post by: Telesphorus on November 30, 2010, 12:07:07 PM
The Pope authorizes people in the Vatican to say condoms are acceptable in certain circumstances.

The Pope kisses a Koran.

The Pope invites representatives of other religions to worship at Assissi and an idol of Buddha is put on the altar there.

Now, how far down the path to corruption and heresy must a Pope go before we say the gates of hell have prevailed in his particular case?

Can we never say it, no matter what he does?  There is no conceivable case where we would have to say he cannot be Pope?  

And does it really follow that the Church defected if there was an invalid election in 1958?
Title: Krah chose Williamsons lawyer
Post by: Belloc on November 30, 2010, 12:14:55 PM
one has to prove the election in 1958 was wrong, though a lot of speculation.......

as I notd in hte past, and will note now as clear as  ican be, I could give a rats ass who is or is not a Pope......we have a crisis, one we would contend with whether a Pope is dead and were would be in-between reigns, one if Siri was elected or not,etc.....we are in crisis mode and debating who is or is not a Pope is detracting from the crisis worldwide on a whole....believe B16 is Pope or not, in the end of the day, do the flowers bloom, the birds sing and the sun shine? No, we have the dark of winter night regardless of B16 is a Pius the 10th, a Luther,etc.....

again, could really care......it is not important.imagine, if oyu will, Pius 10 dies and we did not get a new pope for 10 yrs-would that mean the crisises were abatted? no problmes?.....so Pope, no Pope, intergum of 52 yrs, does not amtter a hoot, at end of day, will be in crisis mode regardless......

lets finally move on.....
Title: Krah chose Williamsons lawyer
Post by: ServusSpiritusSancti on November 30, 2010, 05:00:35 PM
Quote from: stevusmagnus
A lot of Sedes have been constantly squawking about a "sell-out" and using the Williamson affair as a chance to divide the Society, instill hopelessness in Society members and get them to become schismatics along with them. It seems they take every chance they get through whatever means necessary to ruin any possible doctrinal discussions with Rome. In my opinion Sedevacantism is poison and a false solution to the Crisis. Sedevacantism is the mirror image of Neo-Catholicism in that both mindsets delusionally ignore the crisis. The Neo-Caths say, what crisis? The Church is fine. The Sedes say, what crisis? There is no Pope. Only crisis is in a false church anyway. Neither mindset either recognizes the true nature of the crisis or encourages jack squat to actually be done about it. Neo-Caths passively await orders and what insanity they will defend next. Sedes passively sit there in their caves waiting for God to re-establish His Church miraculously while they take pot shots at the Society and other Trads who are actually trying to do something to resolve the crisis.

As I've said before, what possible basis do Society Catholics and Sedes have to discuss any crisis in the Church? The Sede response will be one or two lines saying "see I told you he's not Pope" or "there goes the anti-Church again", etc. There is nothing to discuss if you are a Sede except how miserable this anti-pope and false church is. If you are a Society Catholic there are very many substantive issues and distinctions to be discussed in what is happening in the true Church that REALLY is visible and does exist during this crisis.

I see a lot less activity on the forum lately and I'm afraid it is due to the large influx of Sedes who either kill or derail any intelligent non-Sede discussion of the crisis. This is why I  requested any Sede discussion limited to its own forum. Sedevacantist premises completely eviscerate the dialogue between non-Sedes. How can I have an intelligent discussion on anything the Pope did with someone who is working off the premise he is an evil usurper layman? We're not even on the same planet.


Sedes are basically on the exact opposite end of the scale than the modernists on the whole crisis viewpoint. Arguing with the sedes on the subject of the crisis in the Church isn't as bad as doing so with the modernists because at least the sedes realize that there is a big problem. However, I agree that some sedes are only interested in debating on whether or not the Pope is really the Pope or not. I think we have much bigger issues to discuss than just that. I have respect for sedevacanism, but only basic sedevacanism. My opinion is that sedevacanism should start and stop at the fact that a person believes the Chair of Peter is vacant. What I don't have much respect for is extreme sedevacanism, which includes thinking the SSPX is so corrupt and twisted, thinking that numerous Popes were anti-popes when they were really good Popes, etc. I too would like to discuss something without the whole "Pope or anti-pope" argument coming up, but it's something you get used to after posting here a while. As far as this forum not being active, this place has actually been quite active the last week or so. As Matthew said, forum activity comes and goes just as it does with any forum. If CatholicInfo isn't active, it rarely ever-if ever-is due to the sedes.
Title: Krah chose Williamsons lawyer
Post by: MyrnaM on November 30, 2010, 06:00:49 PM
Stevus ---->says "schismatics along with them" regarding those who are taking the sede position.

May God have mercy on your soul, Stevus!
Title: Krah chose Williamsons lawyer
Post by: Emerentiana on November 30, 2010, 07:56:37 PM
Quote from: SpiritusSanctus
Quote from: stevusmagnus
A lot of Sedes have been constantly squawking about a "sell-out" and using the Williamson affair as a chance to divide the Society, instill hopelessness in Society members and get them to become schismatics along with them. It seems they take every chance they get through whatever means necessary to ruin any possible doctrinal discussions with Rome. In my opinion Sedevacantism is poison and a false solution to the Crisis. Sedevacantism is the mirror image of Neo-Catholicism in that both mindsets delusionally ignore the crisis. The Neo-Caths say, what crisis? The Church is fine. The Sedes say, what crisis? There is no Pope. Only crisis is in a false church anyway. Neither mindset either recognizes the true nature of the crisis or encourages jack squat to actually be done about it. Neo-Caths passively await orders and what insanity they will defend next. Sedes passively sit there in their caves waiting for God to re-establish His Church miraculously while they take pot shots at the Society and other Trads who are actually trying to do something to resolve the crisis.

As I've said before, what possible basis do Society Catholics and Sedes have to discuss any crisis in the Church? The Sede response will be one or two lines saying "see I told you he's not Pope" or "there goes the anti-Church again", etc. There is nothing to discuss if you are a Sede except how miserable this anti-pope and false church is. If you are a Society Catholic there are very many substantive issues and distinctions to be discussed in what is happening in the true Church that REALLY is visible and does exist during this crisis.

I see a lot less activity on the forum lately and I'm afraid it is due to the large influx of Sedes who either kill or derail any intelligent non-Sede discussion of the crisis. This is why I  requested any Sede discussion limited to its own forum. Sedevacantist premises completely eviscerate the dialogue between non-Sedes. How can I have an intelligent discussion on anything the Pope did with someone who is working off the premise he is an evil usurper layman? We're not even on the same planet.


Sedes are basically on the exact opposite end of the scale than the modernists on the whole crisis viewpoint. Arguing with the sedes on the subject of the crisis in the Church isn't as bad as doing so with the modernists because at least the sedes realize that there is a big problem. However, I agree that some sedes are only interested in debating on whether or not the Pope is really the Pope or not. I think we have much bigger issues to discuss than just that. I have respect for sedevacanism, but only basic sedevacanism. My opinion is that sedevacanism should start and stop at the fact that a person believes the Chair of Peter is vacant. What I don't have much respect for is extreme sedevacanism, which includes thinking the SSPX is so corrupt and twisted, thinking that numerous Popes were anti-popes when they were really good Popes, etc. I too would like to discuss something without the whole "Pope or anti-pope" argument coming up, but it's something you get used to after posting here a while. As far as this forum not being active, this place has actually been quite active the last week or so. As Matthew said, forum activity comes and goes just as it does with any forum. If CatholicInfo isn't active, it rarely ever-if ever-is due to the sedes.


There you go again Stevus!
You seem to know how to project the Sede mindset, but you are not a Sede!  Have you ever researched what Sedes truly believe?
We   DO care what goes on in Holy Mother Church!  We just believe that Holy Mother Church is no longer represented by the Novus Ordo church of the beast!

Where is Holy Mother the church today?  It is represented by true Catholic clergy and laypeople that believe ALL the truths which the  Church has always taught!
What are Trad groups doing to restore the Church ? Basically, they are KEEPING the faith of our Fathers.  There is no dialogue with the Modernist Church
Title: Krah chose Williamsons lawyer
Post by: hollingsworth1 on November 30, 2010, 08:13:53 PM
All this railing at the sedes!  I have to say that the sedes on this forum, (or at least those whom I perceive to be sedes), don't bother me at all.  They seem to me to be as Catholic as anyone.  I would say that if forum input is down, it's the fault, not so much of the sedes, but of those who go on endlessly about them.  But then, I'm pretty new.  So we'll have to see.  I'll tell you one thing that may discourage participation:  It's those endlessly long posts that quote whole articles,  essays and books.  One scrolls down on these forum offerings until the mouse begins to smoke.  Make them shorter already!  No one's going to read all that stuff.
Title: Krah chose Williamsons lawyer
Post by: Emerentiana on November 30, 2010, 08:20:50 PM
 :roll-laugh1:
Title: Krah chose Williamsons lawyer
Post by: ServusSpiritusSancti on November 30, 2010, 09:06:55 PM
Quote from: Emerentiana
Quote from: SpiritusSanctus
Quote from: stevusmagnus
A lot of Sedes have been constantly squawking about a "sell-out" and using the Williamson affair as a chance to divide the Society, instill hopelessness in Society members and get them to become schismatics along with them. It seems they take every chance they get through whatever means necessary to ruin any possible doctrinal discussions with Rome. In my opinion Sedevacantism is poison and a false solution to the Crisis. Sedevacantism is the mirror image of Neo-Catholicism in that both mindsets delusionally ignore the crisis. The Neo-Caths say, what crisis? The Church is fine. The Sedes say, what crisis? There is no Pope. Only crisis is in a false church anyway. Neither mindset either recognizes the true nature of the crisis or encourages jack squat to actually be done about it. Neo-Caths passively await orders and what insanity they will defend next. Sedes passively sit there in their caves waiting for God to re-establish His Church miraculously while they take pot shots at the Society and other Trads who are actually trying to do something to resolve the crisis.

As I've said before, what possible basis do Society Catholics and Sedes have to discuss any crisis in the Church? The Sede response will be one or two lines saying "see I told you he's not Pope" or "there goes the anti-Church again", etc. There is nothing to discuss if you are a Sede except how miserable this anti-pope and false church is. If you are a Society Catholic there are very many substantive issues and distinctions to be discussed in what is happening in the true Church that REALLY is visible and does exist during this crisis.

I see a lot less activity on the forum lately and I'm afraid it is due to the large influx of Sedes who either kill or derail any intelligent non-Sede discussion of the crisis. This is why I  requested any Sede discussion limited to its own forum. Sedevacantist premises completely eviscerate the dialogue between non-Sedes. How can I have an intelligent discussion on anything the Pope did with someone who is working off the premise he is an evil usurper layman? We're not even on the same planet.


Sedes are basically on the exact opposite end of the scale than the modernists on the whole crisis viewpoint. Arguing with the sedes on the subject of the crisis in the Church isn't as bad as doing so with the modernists because at least the sedes realize that there is a big problem. However, I agree that some sedes are only interested in debating on whether or not the Pope is really the Pope or not. I think we have much bigger issues to discuss than just that. I have respect for sedevacanism, but only basic sedevacanism. My opinion is that sedevacanism should start and stop at the fact that a person believes the Chair of Peter is vacant. What I don't have much respect for is extreme sedevacanism, which includes thinking the SSPX is so corrupt and twisted, thinking that numerous Popes were anti-popes when they were really good Popes, etc. I too would like to discuss something without the whole "Pope or anti-pope" argument coming up, but it's something you get used to after posting here a while. As far as this forum not being active, this place has actually been quite active the last week or so. As Matthew said, forum activity comes and goes just as it does with any forum. If CatholicInfo isn't active, it rarely ever-if ever-is due to the sedes.


There you go again Stevus!
You seem to know how to project the Sede mindset, but you are not a Sede!  Have you ever researched what Sedes truly believe?
We   DO care what goes on in Holy Mother Church!  We just believe that Holy Mother Church is no longer represented by the Novus Ordo church of the beast!

Where is Holy Mother the church today?  It is represented by true Catholic clergy and laypeople that believe ALL the truths which the  Church has always taught!
What are Trad groups doing to restore the Church ? Basically, they are KEEPING the faith of our Fathers.  There is no dialogue with the Modernist Church


Stevus did not post that, that was my reply to the post he made earlier about sedes ruining the forum. Also nowhere in my post did I attack sedevacanists, I attacked extreme sedevacanism.
Title: Krah chose Williamsons lawyer
Post by: Emerentiana on December 01, 2010, 07:32:14 PM
LABELS!  LABELS!   What, pray tell us Spiritus is EXTREME Sedevacantism?


I hardly classify myself as an extremist.  The CMRI, whos congregation Ive been associated with for over 40 years, state that  
Valid Priests say valid masses
We can go to any valid mass
We simply believe that the  Chair is Vacant in Rome, but that there are valid priests and bishops throughout the world.  

Some sede groups have become "cultish".  They think they are the only SEDE group out there!  They are STILL simply SEDES....... with a warped prospective!  No  papal authority is there to tell them differently.  
The Vatican imposter says Bishop williamson is not a "Catholic in the true sense", and the SSPX are schizmatic.  Those are his pronouncements.
Then you have the SSPX calling the Sedes schizmatic!!!!!!!   Everyone crowing and fingerpointing!  If it wasnt so serious, it would be hilarious.
SSPX is SO afraid to loose its members......less money to give Bishop Fellay for his "investments"

 :pop:
Title: Krah chose Williamsons lawyer
Post by: hollingsworth1 on December 02, 2010, 08:14:24 AM
Emerentiana:
Quote
Then you have the SSPX calling the Sedes schizmatic


No, Emerentiana, not all SSPXers. I can point you to a number of Society faithful who make no such judgment, including myself.  I enjoyed your post, BTW
Title: Krah chose Williamsons lawyer
Post by: Emerentiana on December 02, 2010, 11:39:21 AM
Quote from: hollingsworth1
Emerentiana:
Quote
Then you have the SSPX calling the Sedes schizmatic


No, Emerentiana, not all SSPXers. I can point you to a number of Society faithful who make no such judgment, including myself.  I enjoyed your post, BTW


I  know the SSPX do not all feel that way about the sedes.  Each priest I have talked to has a different opinion.  The current priest we have at the local chapter is an  "extreme". SSPX  (here I go with the labels.ha ha).  He gave three tyranical sermons on sedevacantism  before I was booted from the chapel.  The priest before him did not have that opinion.
Title: Krah chose Williamsons lawyer
Post by: Alexandria on December 02, 2010, 11:46:19 AM
Quote from: Emerentiana
Quote from: hollingsworth1
Emerentiana:
Quote
Then you have the SSPX calling the Sedes schizmatic


No, Emerentiana, not all SSPXers. I can point you to a number of Society faithful who make no such judgment, including myself.  I enjoyed your post, BTW


I  know the SSPX do not all feel that way about the sedes.  Each priest I have talked to has a different opinion.  The current priest we have at the local chapter is an  "extreme". SSPX  (here I go with the labels.ha ha).  He gave three tyranical sermons on sedevacantism  before I was booted from the chapel.  The priest before him did not have that opinion.


And I knew an SSPX priest that was a sedevacantist!  Maybe that is why they shipped him back to France in a hurry.    :thinking:
Title: Krah chose Williamsons lawyer
Post by: ServusSpiritusSancti on December 02, 2010, 04:38:40 PM
Quote from: Emerentiana
LABELS!  LABELS!   What, pray tell us Spiritus is EXTREME Sedevacantism?


I hardly classify myself as an extremist.  The CMRI, whos congregation Ive been associated with for over 40 years, state that  
Valid Priests say valid masses
We can go to any valid mass
We simply believe that the  Chair is Vacant in Rome, but that there are valid priests and bishops throughout the world.  

Some sede groups have become "cultish".  They think they are the only SEDE group out there!  They are STILL simply SEDES....... with a warped prospective!  No  papal authority is there to tell them differently.  
The Vatican imposter says Bishop williamson is not a "Catholic in the true sense", and the SSPX are schizmatic.  Those are his pronouncements.
Then you have the SSPX calling the Sedes schizmatic!!!!!!!   Everyone crowing and fingerpointing!  If it wasnt so serious, it would be hilarious.
SSPX is SO afraid to loose its members......less money to give Bishop Fellay for his "investments"

 :pop:


Did I say you were an extremist? No. Extreme sedevacanism is sedevacanism taken to a much higher level. Extreme sedes believe that numerous Popes were anti-popes and also go nuts over the anti-pope debate. An extremist is someone like CM or AntiClimax.
Title: Krah chose Williamsons lawyer
Post by: Matthew on December 02, 2010, 04:47:34 PM
Then there are the dogmatic Sedevacantists --

Those who believe that if you set foot in a non-sedevacantist chapel, you might as well be attending a protestant service. You are a sellout and possibly a heretic.

They think that attending a Mass where the 1962 Missal is used --or Benedict XVI's name is uttered -- makes you odious to God.

They believe that "the See is vacant" is another dogma of the Catholic Faith -- just like the Incarnation, perpetual virginity of Mary, or the Particular Judgment.

Such people are NOT sanguine about people making other choices in this Crisis -- in fact, they often condemn fellow Sedevacantists who are not "dogmatic" about it as they are.

Needless to say, such people are not welcome on CathInfo.


Title: Krah chose Williamsons lawyer
Post by: Caminus on December 02, 2010, 06:57:28 PM
http://truerestoration.blogspot.com/2010/02/das-ist-geschehen-responding-to-herr.html

It seems this has already been covered back in February.  
Title: Krah chose Williamsons lawyer
Post by: Emerentiana on December 02, 2010, 07:32:32 PM
Quote from: SpiritusSanctus
Quote from: Emerentiana
LABELS!  LABELS!   What, pray tell us Spiritus is EXTREME Sedevacantism?


I hardly classify myself as an extremist.  The CMRI, whos congregation Ive been associated with for over 40 years, state that  
Valid Priests say valid masses
We can go to any valid mass
We simply believe that the  Chair is Vacant in Rome, but that there are valid priests and bishops throughout the world.  

Some sede groups have become "cultish".  They think they are the only SEDE group out there!  They are STILL simply SEDES....... with a warped prospective!  No  papal authority is there to tell them differently.  
The Vatican imposter says Bishop williamson is not a "Catholic in the true sense", and the SSPX are schizmatic.  Those are his pronouncements.
Then you have the SSPX calling the Sedes schizmatic!!!!!!!   Everyone crowing and fingerpointing!  If it wasnt so serious, it would be hilarious.
SSPX is SO afraid to loose its members......less money to give Bishop Fellay for his "investments"

 :pop:


Did I say you were an extremist? No. Extreme sedevacanism is sedevacanism taken to a much higher level. Extreme sedes believe that numerous Popes were anti-popes and also go nuts over the anti-pope debate. An extremist is someone like CM or AntiClimax.


I gottcha!............however.....they are still sedes.  That group are extreme independent thinkers who have gone into the abyss because they wont listen to priests, but will listen to "lay popes" interpretations.
Sedes are not confused for the most part.  They KNOW whats going on in the Church, and that we are in the great apostacy predicted by St Paul!

Good post!
Title: Krah chose Williamsons lawyer
Post by: ServusSpiritusSancti on December 05, 2010, 08:20:31 PM
Quote from: Matthew
Then there are the dogmatic Sedevacantists --

Those who believe that if you set foot in a non-sedevacantist chapel, you might as well be attending a protestant service. You are a sellout and possibly a heretic.

They think that attending a Mass where the 1962 Missal is used --or Benedict XVI's name is uttered -- makes you odious to God.

They believe that "the See is vacant" is another dogma of the Catholic Faith -- just like the Incarnation, perpetual virginity of Mary, or the Particular Judgment.

Such people are NOT sanguine about people making other choices in this Crisis -- in fact, they often condemn fellow Sedevacantists who are not "dogmatic" about it as they are.

Needless to say, such people are not welcome on CathInfo.




Basically dogmatic and extreme sedevacanism is the same thing, I just choose to call it extreme. I agree with you, though.
Title: Krah chose Williamsons lawyer
Post by: Matthew on December 16, 2010, 04:16:57 PM
This particular thread is VERY popular today with several hundred visitors from Kreuz.net.

I can't find a link there, however.

Nevertheless, welcome to all those from Kreuz.net!

Matthew
Title: Krah chose Williamsons lawyer
Post by: Telesphorus on December 16, 2010, 05:06:03 PM
Last time I checked the page doesn't link anymore, so here is a screenshot:

(http://img32.imageshack.us/img32/2283/maximiliankrahtelavivun.th.jpg) (http://img32.imageshack.us/i/maximiliankrahtelavivun.jpg/)

Uploaded with ImageShack.us (http://imageshack.us)
Title: Krah chose Williamsons lawyer
Post by: MyrnaM on December 16, 2010, 08:01:11 PM
Quote from: Matthew
Then there are the dogmatic Sedevacantists --

Those who believe that if you set foot in a non-sedevacantist chapel, you might as well be attending a protestant service. You are a sellout and possibly a heretic.

They think that attending a Mass where the 1962 Missal is used --or Benedict XVI's name is uttered -- makes you odious to God.

They believe that "the See is vacant" is another dogma of the Catholic Faith -- just like the Incarnation, perpetual virginity of Mary, or the Particular Judgment.

Such people are NOT sanguine about people making other choices in this Crisis -- in fact, they often condemn fellow Sedevacantists who are not "dogmatic" about it as they are.

Needless to say, such people are not welcome on CathInfo.




I'll drink to that!   :cheers:
Title: Krah chose Williamsons lawyer
Post by: John Grace on December 28, 2010, 11:55:20 AM
I just found this on Ignis Ardens.It seems Maximilian Krah has made a reply. This is the link
http://z10.invisionfree.com/Ignis_Ardens/index.php?showtopic=6517&st=100
Title: Krah chose Williamsons lawyer
Post by: Telesphorus on December 28, 2010, 07:00:53 PM
Real Catholics know that Zionism is opposed to Catholicism and do not raise funds for Zionist Universities.  And if they do, out of some misguided thinking, they are not then appointed to make decisions regarding the defense of Society bishops in questions pertaining the Jews!

Some Catholics haven't forgotten the Gospels, and they know that the Jews have from the very beginning attacked the Church, and that they still do attack our Church.

If Bishop Fellay were really loyal to the Church and to Archbishop Lefebvre's mission for the society, this would be crystal clear to him.

It is patently obvious now, he is not loyal. Bishop Fellay is guilty of a terrible betrayal.
Title: Krah chose Williamsons lawyer
Post by: Wessex on December 29, 2010, 02:43:51 PM
Why little comment on Krahgate? Angelqueen has banned the topic, while Ignis Ardens is full of it.
Title: Krah chose Williamsons lawyer
Post by: MauricePinay on December 30, 2010, 10:08:04 AM
Could it be that the Fellayite bureaucracy has a stronger hold in the U.S. than the U.K.?
Title: Krah chose Williamsons lawyer
Post by: Telesphorus on December 30, 2010, 11:47:59 AM
Krah defenders aren't very active on this board, hence, there's no real controversy here.
Title: Krah chose Williamsons lawyer
Post by: Ethelred on December 31, 2010, 10:44:49 AM
I think there's several answers to "Why little comment on Krahgate?" here :

- the British people are more liberal (than the USA), I think
- the British Ignis Ardens forum definitely is more liberal than Cathinfo, so there are more "pro Krah" and "pro anti-christian Jew" guys over there.
- The Bishop is British. :-)   On the other hand, he likes the American catholics and spent most of his priestly time in America (US and South America), so probably he's better known amongst the US traditional catholics than in Europe?


Another interesting question is:
Why zero comment on Krahgate in the German zone Internet?
(One possible answer: Because it's a highly liberal zone and the Fellay/Schmidberger/Pfluger zone...)


To all devout catholics I wish a blessed New Year 2011.
Title: Krah chose Williamsons lawyer
Post by: Elizabeth on December 31, 2010, 02:06:24 PM
I put it down to the advanced command of English they have over at IA.  

The good writers over there seem to have it all nailed down!

And a blessed 2011 to you, Ethelred.
Title: Krah chose Williamsons lawyer
Post by: Wessex on January 05, 2011, 03:00:23 PM
Not sure about that. They are going through all kinds of emotions: shock, disbelief, denial, understanding .... plus the usual threats to ban people. We trads have to navigate a minefield of illusion and suspicion.
Title: Krah chose Williamsons lawyer
Post by: Telesphorus on January 05, 2011, 03:12:02 PM
Quote from: Wessex
Not sure about that. They are going through all kinds of emotions: shock, disbelief, denial, understanding .... plus the usual threats to ban people. We trads have to navigate a minefield of illusion and suspicion.


Well, it's important to be realistic.  They way Bishop Fellay has been behaving is going to neutralize the SSPX.  It's not going to restore the Church.  It's going to end up in the collapse of the Faith inside the SSPX itself.  That's what's at stake here.  Calling someone a slanderer or detractor isn't changing the reality of Bishop Fellays' behavior, or its very grave implications.

There's only so much phoniness that people can tolerate before they know, instinctively, inside, what's going on.
Title: Krah chose Williamsons lawyer
Post by: Ethelred on January 05, 2011, 03:12:17 PM
I think Wessex is right. Also, thank you Elizabeth.

A kind person finally translated William of Norwich' opening of the Krahgate into German. Deo gratias! Vergelt's Gott.

There's a copy posted on IA forum, as well as on the German summarize of the Krahgate:

krahgate.blogspot.com (http://krahgate.blogspot.com)
Title: Krah chose Williamsons lawyer
Post by: Emerentiana on January 05, 2011, 07:17:57 PM
I have heard that Bishop Williamson is going to let SSPX pay the fine he owes the court and not defend himself.  Has anyone else heard this?
Title: Krah chose Williamsons lawyer
Post by: hollingsworth on January 07, 2011, 01:20:30 PM
Telesphorus:
Quote
Well, it's important to be realistic.  They way Bishop Fellay has been behaving is going to neutralize the SSPX.  It's not going to restore the Church.  It's going to end up in the collapse of the Faith inside the SSPX itself.  That's what's at stake here.


I'm waiting for a restoration of the 'Society militant.'  Right now we have the 'Society semi-benign,'  the 'Society willing-to-talk.'  Presently speaking, I view the Society's war against modernist Rome as little more effective than trying to fell a huge Oak with a pen knife.  To put to flight and eventually destroy the huge post-V2 monster, one needs more than a reluctant attack chihuahua.  I agree, +F's 'behavior,' if you will, is not going to restore the Church.  But then, maybe we should be looking for something other than Church restoration.  The consecration of Russia and the revelation of the 3rd Secret would not hurt.
Title: Krah chose Williamsons lawyer
Post by: roscoe on January 07, 2011, 01:50:22 PM
In case no one has heard, the consecration of Russia implored at Fatima actually refers to the whole world-- so says Pius XII(XIII).
Title: Krah chose Williamsons lawyer
Post by: ServusSpiritusSancti on January 07, 2011, 02:26:06 PM
Quote from: roscoe
In case no one has heard, the consecration of Russia implored at Fatima actually refers to the whole world-- so says Pius XII(XIII).


So what you are saying is that the Consecration has already taken place? If that's what you are saying, then I will counter by saying that is false. The three days of darkness have not come yet, so the Consecration hasn't yet taken place.
Title: Krah chose Williamsons lawyer
Post by: Elizabeth on January 07, 2011, 03:58:24 PM
It was surprising to read on Ignis Ardens that none of the German SSPX schools had been closed as the result of crack-downs following +W's interview.

What was most surprising was the SSPX schools get financial assistance from the German Government!  (according to Pilgrimage of Grace).

Also, there had been problems with one of the school's treatment of students some 15 years ago.  IMO, that could be what has people walking on eggshells.

(I hope I am remembering this correctly.)
Title: Krah chose Williamsons lawyer
Post by: roscoe on January 07, 2011, 04:35:55 PM
Quote from: SpiritusSanctus
Quote from: roscoe
In case no one has heard, the consecration of Russia implored at Fatima actually refers to the whole world-- so says Pius XII(XIII).


So what you are saying is that the Consecration has already taken place? If that's what you are saying, then I will counter by saying that is false. The three days of darkness have not come yet, so the Consecration hasn't yet taken place.


SS is attributing to moi words that I have not said-- this is not the first time.
Title: Krah chose Williamsons lawyer
Post by: John Grace on April 13, 2011, 01:18:54 PM
Quote from: Elizabeth
Tele, to me it seems that Norwitch is saying, "None of these people, Krah included, are hiding the fact that they are Jewish".


Maximilian Krah never denied being Jewish.He declared himself to be an 'unimpeachable Catholic'
Title: Krah chose Williamsons lawyer
Post by: Telesphorus on April 13, 2011, 01:24:27 PM
"William of Norwich" seems to assume that because Krah was attending a Tel Aviv University fundraiser that he is Jewish.

There's no evidence that I've seen that Krah is Jewish.  He grew up in East Germany.

The problem is that the man is clearly a kind of pro-Zionist neocon.  His way of thinking is clearly not traditional.  He's posted on Kreuznet for years, as Ethelred tells us.  Surely the SSPX knew what sort of man they were putting into such an important position.
Title: Krah chose Williamsons lawyer
Post by: John Grace on April 13, 2011, 01:33:41 PM
Quote from: Telesphorus
"William of Norwich" seems to assume that because Krah was attending a Tel Aviv University fundraiser that he is Jewish.

There's no evidence that I've seen that Krah is Jewish.  He grew up in East Germany.

The problem is that the man is clearly a kind of pro-Zionist neocon.  His way of thinking is clearly not traditional.  He's posted on Kreuznet for years, as Ethelred tells us.  Surely the SSPX knew what sort of man they were putting into such an important position.


Have you viewed the photograph of those present at the fundraiser?
http://www.aftau.org/site/PageServer?pagename=recentevents_Sept2010_AlumniAuction
Those present look particularly Jewish or was Maximilian Krah the only non Jew present?
Title: Krah chose Williamsons lawyer
Post by: Telesphorus on April 13, 2011, 01:34:56 PM
Quote from: John Grace
Have you viewed the photograph of those present at the fundraiser?http://www.aftau.org/site/PageServer?pagename=recentevents_Sept2010_AlumniAuction
Those present look particularly Jewish or was Maximilian Krah the only non Jew present?


Why do you assume from that picture that he is Jewish?  If he were of Jewish ethnicity, that, in and of itself, would not be relevant.

There's a much more serious problem.  Why would a Catholic attend a fundraiser for an anti-Christian university? (or post that he's a fan of the blasphemous "Madonna" and the film 9 1/2 weeks?)  Why would someone who clearly had such sympathies be put in such an important position regarding Bishop Williamson's legal affairs?  On the board of a Catholic girls' school?  Managing society funds?
Title: Krah chose Williamsons lawyer
Post by: John Grace on April 13, 2011, 01:39:56 PM
Quote from: Telesphorus
Quote from: John Grace
Have you viewed the photograph of those present at the fundraiser?http://www.aftau.org/site/PageServer?pagename=recentevents_Sept2010_AlumniAuction
Those present look particularly Jewish or was Maximilian Krah the only non Jew present?


Why do you assume from that picture that he is Jewish?  If he were of Jewish ethnicity, that, in and of itself, would not be relevant.

There's a much more serious problem.  Why would a Catholic attend a fundraiser for an anti-Christian university? (or post that he's a fan of the blasphemous "Madonna" and the film 9 1/2 weeks?)  Why would someone who clearly had such sympathies be put in such an important position regarding Bishop Williamson's legal affairs?  On the board of a Catholic girls' school?  Managing society funds?


These are questions for Bishop Fellay and Menzingen to answer.
Title: Krah chose Williamsons lawyer
Post by: Telesphorus on April 13, 2011, 01:41:36 PM
Quote from: John Grace
These are questions for Bishop Fellay and Menzingen to answer.


Well it's pretty clear they think they're above giving explanations.

Title: Krah chose Williamsons lawyer
Post by: John Grace on April 29, 2011, 05:00:38 PM
I see Ignis Ardens removed the Krah file. I hope Cath Info stand firm and keep it available.
Title: Krah chose Williamsons lawyer
Post by: John Grace on May 01, 2011, 10:37:54 AM
District notice concerning Ignis Ardens
http://z10.invisionfree.com/Ignis_Ardens/index.php?showtopic=7195
Quote
From the latest GB district newsletter:


QUOTE  
IGNIS ARDENS

The Ignis Ardens website states that 'it is a Taditionalist Catholic forum with a pro-SSPX bias... but that 'this forum's support for SSPX is not to be taken as evidence of the SSPX's support for this forum.'

The latter part of this statement is certainly true with regard to Ignis Ardens' involvement to date in a campaign which undermines the authority of the Society's General House.

I refer to the section entitled 'Krahgate,' which, under the cover of anonymity, raises serious allegations against Menzingen's lawyer, Maximilian Krah, and, by extension, against the Superior General himself.

Whilst this file, which apparently originated elsewhere, was recently removed at the initiative of the Ignis Ardens moderator, the damage caused will be much more difficult to repair given the public nature of the internet and the propensity for calumny and detraction to spread.

In this regard Bishop Fellay does not exclude having recourse to judicial process, and this should serve a warning to those who think they can commit public slander via the internet with impunity.

Father Paul Morgan.




Title: Krah chose Williamsons lawyer
Post by: Telesphorus on June 26, 2011, 09:33:00 AM
Krah, the man who attends Zionist fundraisers chose the Bishop's lawyer:

Quote
As for my changing lawyers four times, the Society's Superior General originally entrusted my defence to the Society's lawyer, Maximilian Krah, who chose to engage Matthias Lossmann, a member of the, alas, anti-Catholic Green Party.


from Bishop Williamson's weekly column.
Title: Krah chose Williamsons lawyer
Post by: JPaul on June 26, 2011, 12:30:26 PM
Quote
the Society's Superior General originally entrusted my defence to the Society's lawyer, Maximilian Krah, who chose to engage Matthias Lossmann, a member of the, alas, anti-Catholic Green Party.




 :applause: :applause: :applause:.....well done!
Title: Krah chose Williamsons lawyer
Post by: the smart sheep on June 26, 2011, 03:52:16 PM
Quote from: hollingsworth1
 It's those endlessly long posts that quote whole articles,  essays and books.  One scrolls down on these forum offerings until the mouse begins to smoke.  Make them shorter already!  No one's going to read all that stuff.


Oh no, don't make them shorter, I read that stuff. :reading:

the smart sheep
Title: Krah chose Williamsons lawyer
Post by: John Grace on June 27, 2011, 08:49:05 AM
Quote from: J.Paul
Quote
the Society's Superior General originally entrusted my defence to the Society's lawyer, Maximilian Krah, who chose to engage Matthias Lossmann, a member of the, alas, anti-Catholic Green Party.




 :applause: :applause: :applause:.....well done!


It reminded me of the part of ‘Veritas1961’ reply to Fr Laisney.

Quote
10. In your letter you comment: “Note that Mr. Krah's involvement with the CDU consisted in a donation to a convent (Kloster St Marienthal): if that is the only thing you found against him, that is not much to worry.” My dear Father Laisney, this one sentence alone leads to several questions and which, at the same time, raises questions about your actual knowledge and intimacy with the whole affair. Let me explain. Mr Krah’s involvement with the CDU was NOT limited to seeking a donation for the convent of St. Marienthal. If you went to the link given by “William of Norwich” concerning Mr Krah and his actual relations with the CDU, you would see that according to the “Journal of the Dresdener Union” (the July/August 2005 number) Mr Krah was elected the Pressesprecher, Press Officer, for Dresden’s CDU governing committee in June 2005 with 81.66% of the branch’s membership. Moreover, the May 2006 number of the same “Journal” reveals that he had by then become a member of the editorial board of the “Journal.” Mr Krah’s involvement with politics does not concern me greatly beyond the fact that the CDU is neither Christian in any sense worthy of the name, nor is it democratic in any profound sense. But it is clearly anti-Catholic when it wishes to be, as the occasion when Angela Merkel publicly rebuked the Pope about the so-called “rehabilitation” of Mgr Williamson demonstrates – a public scandal about which the SSPX has said little or nothing, made all the more worrying given the cant of the CDU about the “benefits” of the separation of Church and State. I would invite you to check these details for yourself, but since “William of Norwich” posted the CDU/Krah link it has mysteriously disappeared from the internet. However, one brave Catholic soul had the foresight to save the two files about the CDU cited, and they will be posted to”The Complete Krahgate File” in the near future so that you and others may see the facts for yourself.


Quote
11. There is, however, one surprising thing in your sentence. You make reference to the Kloster St. Marienthal and say that Krah’s only involvement in the CDU was to seek donations for it. Let us leave aside the fact that the St. Marienthal Convent, the oldest women’s Cistercian monastery in Germany, is a conciliar structure and seems to be more a place for hosting conferences on “Justice, Peace, Ecology” and the rest of the conciliar agenda, than a place full of nuns working out their salvation in prayer and sacrifice; let us leave aside also the fact that one wonders why a person who claims to be a traditional Catholic would seek to raise money for a conciliar structure when undoubtedly there are better claims to be made for SSPX structures in Germany; let us leave aside as well that the Convent in question is less than a hour’s drive from Krah’s home, is incredibly beautiful, a glory to the faith, clearly worth a financial fortune if put on the market, and is run by a “Board of Trustees,” the composition of which I have not been able to identify as yet, and come to one crucial question. At NO POINT in “The Complete Krahgate File” or anywhere else on Ignis Ardens was ANY REFERENCE MADE TO THIS CONVENT AND KRAH MAKING AN APPEAL FOR FUNDS FOR IT! The convent is not mentioned in either of the two CDU files that were available online until they disappeared. So your statement is a piece of information that none of us were aware of, and we would invite you to let us know how you came across this information? It may be of little importance, but given that Mr Krah appears to have many fingers in many pies, one can never be sure that that is so.