Perhaps Bishop Fellay is trying to prevent the Society, and even Bp. Williamson himself, from being prosecuted for hate crimes and possibly expelled from some countries where it now operates.

Could he be coordinating his efforts with Bp. Williamson?

Here is what another man said:
(As always, +W is shorthand for Bishop Williamson, and +F for Bishop Fellay. The "+" signifies Bishop)


This is a stretch. Anti-Semitism is the rejection or hatred of Semites
ON THE BASIS OF THEIR RACE. To say that some of the key marketing
points of the h0Ɩ0cαųst industry are rooted in lies is neither to
reject nor to hate any persons, let alone "the entire lot of the
Jєωs," and that on the basis of their race.

Bishop Williamson may or may not be correct in his views regarding the
h0Ɩ0cαųst. He may or may not harbor secret feelings of anti-Semitism.
We don't know. What we do know is that his words in the infamous
interview are in no way anti-Semitic. Yet the world is whipping itself
into a feeding frenzy by way of this false accusation. You can almost
hear the shrieking.

And, amazingly, the Bishop's superior seems willing, about once a day,
to throw them a few scraps of flesh. I am groping around, at the
moment, for good reasons why this might be so (because I want
desperately not to think poorly of +F). I can come up with only two:
1) +W is willing it, encouraging it even, either for what he perceives
to be the good of the Church or for some private inclination to
martyrdom. 2) +F knows something now that he did not know before, and
what he knows is forcing him to believe he must sacrifice one man in
an attempt to save many others--physically or spiritually or both.

Any other reasons I can come up with seem too unbearable to mention.

Perhaps Bishop Fellay is trying to prevent the Society, and even Bp. Williamson himself, from being prosecuted for hate crimes and possibly expelled from some countries where it now operates.

Could he be coordinating his efforts with Bp. Williamson?

I would be very surprised if that were the case.

Thought I would include some quotes from the sermons of Saint John Chrysostom, the "most prolific homilist in the history of the Church."

"The man who fast should be properly restrained, contrite, humbled-not drunk with anger. But do you strike your fellow slaves? In Isaiah's day they quarreled and squabbled when they fasted; now when fast, they go in for excesses and the ultimate licentiousness, dancing with bare feet in the marketplace. The pretext is that they are fasting, but they act like men who are drunk. Hear how the prophet bit them to fast. "Sanctify a fast", he said. He did not say: "Make a parade of your fasting", but "call an assembly; gather together the ancients". But these Jєωs are gathering choruses of effeminates and a great rubbish heap of harlots; they drag into the ѕуηαgσgυє the whole theater, actors and all. For there is no difference between the theater and the ѕуηαgσgυє. I know that some suspect me of rashness because I said there is no difference between the theater and the ѕуηαgσgυє; but I suspect them of rashness if they do not think that this is so. If my declaration that the two are the same rests on my own authority, then charge me with rashness. But if the words I speak are the words of the prophet, then accept his decision.

Many, I know, respect the Jєωs and think that their present way of life is a venerable one. This is why I hasten to uproot and tear out this deadly opinion. I said that the ѕуηαgσgυє is no better than a theater and I bring forward a prophet as my witness. Surely the Jєωs are not more deserving of belief than their prophets. "You had a harlot's brow; you became shameless before all". Where a harlot has set herself up, that place is a brothel. But the ѕуηαgσgυє is not only a brothel and a theater; it also is a den of robbers and a lodging for wild beasts. Jeremiah said: "Your house has become for me the den of a hyena". He does not simply say "of wild beast", but "of a filthy wild beast", and again: "I have abandoned my house, I have cast off my inheritance". But when God forsakes a people, what hope of salvation is left? When God forsakes a place, that place becomes the dwelling of demons.

But at any rate the Jєωs say that they, too, adore God. God forbid that I say that. No Jєω adores God! Who say so? The Son of God say so. For he said: "If you were to know my Father, you would also know me. But you neither know me nor do you know my Father". Could I produce a witness more trustworthy than the Son of God?

Let me tell you this, not from guesswork but from my own experience. Three days ago-believe me, I am not lying-I saw a free woman of good bearing, modest, and a believer. A brutal, unfeeling man, reputed to be a Christian (for I would not call a person who would dare to do such a thing a sincere Christian) was forcing her to enter the shrine of the Hebrews and to swear there an oath about some matters under dispute with him. She came up to me and asked for help; she begged me to prevent this lawless violence-for it was forbidden to her, who had shared in the divine mysteries, to enter that place. I was fired with indignation, I became angry, I rose up, I refused to let her be dragged into that transgression, I snatched her from the hands of her abductor. I asked him if were a Christian, and he said he was. Then I set upon him vigorously, charging him with lack of feeling and the worst stupidity; I told him he was no better off than a mule if he, who professed to worship Christ, would drag someone off to the dens of the Jєωs who had crucified him. I talked to him a long time, drawing my lesson from the Holy Gospels; I told him first that it was altogether forbidden to swear and that it was wrong to impose the necessity of swearing on anyone. I then told him that he most not subject a baptize believer to this necessity. In fact, he must not force even an unbaptized person to swear an oath.

The Jєωs frighten you as if you were little children, and you do not see it. Many wicked slaves show frightening and ridiculous masks to youngsters-the masks are not frightening by their nature, but they seem so to the children's simple minds-and in this way they stir up many a laugh. This is the way the Jєωs frighten the simpler-minded Christians with the bugbears and hobgoblins of their shrines. Yet how could their ridiculous and disgraceful ѕуηαgσgυєs frighten you? Are they not the shrines of men who have been rejected, dishonored, and condemned?

I urge you to keep my words in your minds in a special way. For I am not now speaking for show or applause but to cure your souls. And what else is left for me to say when some of you are still sick although there are so many physicians to effect a cure?"

(BEST PART EVER! Think Bishop Williamson in the second case..)

Tell me this. Suppose you were to see a man who had been justly condemned being led to execution through the marketplace. Suppose it were in your power to save him from the hands of the public executioner. Would you not do all you could to keep him from being dragged off? But now you see your own brother being dragged off unjustly to the depth of destruction. And it is not the executioner who drags him of, but the devil. Would you be so bold as not to do your part toward rescuing him from his transgression? If you don't help him, what excuse would you find? But your brother is stronger and more powerful than you. Show him to me. If he will stand fast in his obstinate resolve, I shall choose to risk my life rather than let him enter the doors of the ѕуηαgσgυє.


Why do I speak about the books and the ѕуηαgσgυєs? In time of persecution, the public executioners lay hold of the bodies of the martyrs, they scourge them, and tear them to pieces. Does it make the executioners' hands holy because they lay hold of the body of holy men? Heaven forbid! The hands which grasped and held the bodies of the holy ones still stay unholy. Why? Because those executioners did a wicked thing when they laid their hands upon the holy. And will those who handle and outrage the writings of the holy ones be any more venerable for this than those who executed the martyrs? Would that not be the ultimate foolishness? If the maltreated bodies of the martyrs do not sanctify those who maltreated them but even add to their blood-guilt, much less could the Scriptures, if read without belief, ever help those who read without believing. The very act of deliberately choosing to maltreat the Scriptures convicts them of greater godlessness.

(Part of Sermon 1)

I really hope people that have read this decide to read all of the sermons and get some guts. These tricks of the Jєωs are tricks of the devil.