For those interested, I thought you might find the response of Fr. Laisney to Fr. Pfeiffer to be insightful. - Let each make of it what he will.


To: Father Joseph Pfeiffer

 

Very dear Reverend Father,

 

I listened with great interest to your four sermons posted on the net. You are very right to point out the great confusion of the present times. You very well expose how within the very same docuмents you have sometimes contradictory statements.

And in the midst of this confusion, you are very right to insist on the duty of keeping the Faith.

It is precisely on these two points that all the priests and bishops of the Society of Saint Pius X fully agree. Remember that it is the very first principle that guides Bishop Fellay, as he wrote in Cor Unum: no compromise on the Faith!

In these sermons, you mention that there are many rumours, and “the leak of the leak of the leak of the leak of the leak of the leak of the leak of the leak, which is admitted to be true.” That last word really comes indeed as most unexpected: how could you trust such rumours, after so many repetition/distortions? If there is something true in it, should not one also fear that it be mixed with error? And a half truth is also a half lie: how could it be trusted? And how could one judge and condemn the superiors based on half-truths and half-lies?

Of course you – and I – would sometime wish to know what is going on. But it is quite normal that the superior’s counsels remain discreet and sometimes secret: in this, human authority simply imitates the model of all authority, i.e. divine authority (as St Thomas explains): “For who hath stood in the counsel of the Lord, and hath seen and heard his word?” (Jer 23:18). Remember in April 1988, when Father Laroche and the then Father Tissier de Mallerais talked with the two Roman theologians in preparation of the protocol: it was ALSO secret talks. And we all trusted Archbishop Lefebvre to make the right final decision. The goodness of a decision ought to be considered in itself; it is not necessary that all the steps of the counsels that lead to this decision be public. This is particularly true in the present situation, when the final decision is not yet made: the superior made public his guiding principles, and these are clearly good: no compromise on the faith and full freedom for the traditional apostolate. On another hand, it is also good for our humility that we be kept out of the counsels of the superiors. Remember: “God resisteth the proud, and giveth grace to the humble” (Jac 4:6). So Fr Couture very well says: “truth will be made known to souls who humble themselves before God.” When the final decision of the superior will be set out (likely to be at the end of the General Chapter, not before), then – IF it is clearly against the Faith – it will be time to resist it; but if it is not against the Faith then we should not be rebellious.

You rightly pointed out the confusion of our times. Indeed! This confusion should put us on our guard: we are not dealing with a black and white situation, we are not dealing with people who are all good or all bad. And in particular that applies to the present Pope. Some people tend to think, when they like a Pope, that he can do no wrong; others, when they dislike him, tend to think he can do no right. Such a black and white situation would be much less confusion than our present mixture. Let us therefore be careful as Our Lord Himself teaches us, that in resisting the evil we do not cast out the good together: “And he said to them: An enemy hath done this. And the servants said to him: Wilt thou that we go and gather it up? And he said: No, lest perhaps gathering up the cockle, you root up the wheat also together with it” (Mt 13:28-29).

In such a confusion, grey area, it is a great error to say: everything that is not white is black! I am afraid that, listening to your sermon, most of the time you fall in this trap. And thus you jump to condemning our superior for things which he did NOT say (it would be too long to point out every single instance, but to give just one: he said that “with the Discussions, we see that MANY things, which we would have condemned as being from the Council, are in fact, not from the Council, but the common understanding of it”: in other words, there are some errors in the council, and other many errors in the interpretations of the council. But you jump to the conclusion that Bishop Fellay said there was nothing wrong with the Council: this bishop Fellay did not say, and it is most certainly against his thinking. So please, in such complex situation, do not make simplifications which are distortions of reality. Such simplifications come from passions, not from reason.

The above passage of the Gospel on the cockle and the good grain reminds me of a very important principle of St Augustine, precisely based on these words of Our Lord: in the Church there are found good and bad people; communion of the good with these bad people does not harm the good so long as they do not consent with the evil deeds of the bad. This very important principle of Faith underlines bishop Fellay attitude, an attitude of Faith in the Church as Our Lord instituted it. St Augustine uses another parable of Our Lord to make the same point: on the threshing floor, there are both good grain and chaff, and at the end of the world “he will thoroughly cleanse his floor and gather his wheat into the barn; but the chaff he will burn with unquenchable fire” (Mt 3:12). St Augustine insists with the Donatists that, if they leave the threshing floor before the end of the world in order not to be with the rest of the chaff, they simply prove themselves to be chaff, since only the chaff is carried away by the winds!

Let us listen to Archbishop Lefebvre: remember how he insisted on the importance of the fact that the Society of Saint Pius X was “a work of the Church – une oeuvre d’Eglise”: he insisted on the importance of the canonical approval by Bishop Charrière on 1st November 1970, which he always considered to be the “birth” of the Society of Saint Pius X, though he started to work with the first nine seminarians in 1969. In other words, he considered a proper canonical situation to be a very good thing, which was unjustly denied later on; he suffered this situation, without ever desiring it. The reason is quite simple: order is a good thing, a very good thing. Our Lord Jesus Christ has instituted His Church precisely with order, with a hierarchical order founded precisely on a sacrament called “holy Orders.” That hierarchical communion is the third element of the external unity of the Church as described by St Robert Bellarmine and as has been always believed and taught by the Church. Now the abnormal situation that has been forced onto us (since 1975 with the illegitimate[1] suppression of the Society of Saint Pius X, and the 1976 suspension of Archbishop Lefebvre, then 1988) is in itself an evil, i.e. the privation of a due good: though we do recognise the successor of Peter and the successors of the Apostles, we are not recognised by them, our houses are not recognised by them: this is the absence of a due good. We are not responsible for this evil, which has been forced on us for years, yet we should not say that evil is good, it remains evil. The fact that God can (and did) draw good out of evil does not make evil good. To correct an evil and restore a due good is in itself a good thing: this is the good that Bishop Fellay pursues and before him Archbishop Lefebvre himself, who in 1987 went to great length to try to “make it work” then. Neither Archbishop Lefebvre was ready then nor is Bishop Fellay ready now to compromise the faith to obtain that good; but as Archbishop Lefebvre did pursue it then, so does Bishop Fellay pursue it today. Archbishop Lefebvre went so far in pursuing this good then that he signed the protocol of 5th May 1988[2].

Now that good in itself will have good consequences for Tradition; it will greatly strengthen our preaching. Indeed take your very example: the local bishop will not be able to dismiss your apostolate as if you were outside of the Church. It will close his mouth. He will complain against you, but will not be able to say that you are not Catholic. And this, without any compromise on your part. The very opposition of the modernists to this recognition of the Society of Saint Pius X manifests that they fear greatly the good that will come out of it.

True, they will also be dangers. But dangers there are everywhere, and there will continue to be everywhere. Our hope is in the name of the Lord, not in this or that situation. As it is well said, the whole effort of prayers that our superior general has asked cannot be without fruit; not that this would give a guarantee that whatever Bishop Fellay does will be good, but it gives the guarantee that the Good Lord will not abandon us. It is not in vain that He said: “ask and it shall be given to you; search and you shall find; knock and it shall be opened unto you.” Though they were not miracles[3], the motu proprio Summorum Pontificuм and the 2009 lifting of the excommunications were unexpected, and obtained against the opposition of the majority of the Vatican officials. It is not bad to see them as answers to our prayers; God does not have to make miracles to answer prayers; He can also move secondary (and imperfect) causes to His purposes: the defects of the effects are due to the defects of the secondary causes, but the good part in the effect is due to God, Who is the First Cause of all good.

Our hope is also in the intercession of the Blessed Virgin Mary. And in this regard, you said something both good and surprising. You said that we “wait for the Blessed Virgin Mary is her own miraculous way brings out the victory and the conversion of Russia, and the conversion of the bishops and the conversion of the Pope.” Yes, we do wait for this, but I think it will be in the reverse order: we “wait for the Blessed Virgin Mary is her own miraculous way brings out the victory and the conversion of the Pope, and the conversion of the bishops and the conversion of Russia.” Indeed Our Lord Jesus Christ built His Church from above, not from below: He first called the Apostles, trained them, and then sent them convert the people. And before having all the bishops converted, I think it is necessary that the Pope be converted. So it is, by the graces obtained by the Immaculate Heart of Mary, that first the Pope, then through him the Bishops will be converted, then the Consecration of Russia will be able to happen as She has requested, and then the people of Russia (and through Russia, the people of the rest of the world) will be converted.

Our Lady said that Rome will lose the Faith: she did not say that every single person in the Vatican will lose the Faith, nor that they will lose it for ever. Remember that Our Lord also said: “I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not: and thou, being once converted, confirm thy brethren” (Lk 22:32). Our Lady is not against Our Lord!

In all this, I think we should do our duty where we are, and our present duty must be a call to holiness: it will be necessary whatever happens in the coming months, necessary so that we may hold to the Faith, since if we do not live it we will lose it; it will be necessary also so as to lift us others, and not fall ourselves. And that call to holiness requires a call to prayer; holiness is impossible without prayer.

So let us keep the faith where we are, let us pray as we are requested to do by our superiors, let us give the good example of charity, humility and all virtues, let us correct our own defaults, let us encourage our faithful to do the same, and let us trust in God and in our Lady’s intercession.

Cor unum in Christo et Maria,

 

Father François Laisney



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[1] Of course, these illegitimate sanctions were not valid in the sight of God, and in His holy sight we are still attached to the Catholic Church: yet this is the invisible bond; it remains that there is something lacking to the visible bond.

[2] Which protocol he did not reject the next day: the very reading of his letter of 6th May says that he was “very satisfied” in signing the day before. That letter of May 6th, far from rejecting the protocol, asks principally for the prompt implementation of it by fixing a date for the Consecrations. It was only when the date he had asked was rejected and new candidates were requested and an impossible date was offered (impossible since, as Archbishop Lefebvre explained, Rome knew full well that it could not be kept, there was not enough time to prepare another terna and have it approved), only then Archbishop Lefebvre decided to go ahead without the Pope’s approval. Read all the docuмents in my book “Archbishop Lefebvre and the Vatican”.

[3] I do not know who says that they were.

Pro - at least the letter was civil and more charitable than what we've seen so far.

Con - Nothing new and the objections really not answered, just more admonitions against pride and mistrust, while not refuting the actions that caused the mistrust. Resisting the deal after it is signed and announced at the General Chapter will be too late.

They know what the agreement is and this can be solved tomorrow by releasing it.

Makes you wonder why ABL bothered in the first place ..... instead of leaving it to "divine authority" to sort out Rome over time.

Good point.

You actually debunk Bp. Fellay's and his team's (including Fr. Lasney's) error in one sentence. But it's a too practical approach for people who lost touch with reality...

The public statements of Bp. Fellay and his team prove that the New-SSPX is opposed to Archbishop Lefebvre and his society. The modern leadership uses verbose and ambiguous sentences to camouflage their opposition to the Archbishop a little. Once the French SSPX modernist Fr. Celier will also have re-educated the US-American SSPX laypeople on how to interpret the Archbishop (in Europe this re-education started earlier and is now nearly complete), the camouflage won't be needed anymore.

The principal opposition to Archbishop Lefebvre is for example proved in Bp. Fellay's now infamous . Fr. Pfeiffer used it well to underline what he was preaching on Pentecost, but the SSPX department for damage containment now removed this CNS video from the SSPX US website. But the Internet doesn't forget things as fast as Bp. Fellay wants us to.


In effect Bp. Fellay and now Fr. Lasney are saying that the poor Archbishop Lefebvre and his poor original SSPX got it all wrong for over 40 years. Because they just didn't get what the Vaticanum II really said and what the New-Popes really wanted. The Archbishop could have skipped the consecration of bishops in 1988 and instead joined New-Rome.

Unfortunately liberal minds are not capable of speaking in a direct and clear way, otherwise Bp. Fellay and now Fr. Lasney could really have said it much shorter and clearer:
Sorry guys, forget the Archbishop and his followers! It was just a big misunderstanding...


Well, let's not follow this satanic disorientation of Bp. Fellay and his team. Let's follow Bishop Williamson, Fr. Pfeiffer and the other brave followers of Archbishop Lefebvre, because they're on Our Lord's side!

Yes, Wessex, you hit the nail right on the head.

"... such minor things as doctrine ..."

Nicely said.


"... re-education of first the priests then the laity has to be a priority of the reformers... "

Yes. In reality however the SSPX leadership are deformers. Like Luther never was a reformer, but a deformer. Still the whole world calls him the Great Reformer today. Let's just wait until the almighty God reforms the deformations radically, any time.

Well, we could never stand re-educations, isn't it?

The King is dead, long live the King!

Zorayda, did the Truth Ministry in Menzingen already announce that it is a grave sin to read the leak of the leak of the leak Fr. Laisney letter?

Because if so, I'm instantly deleting it from my harddisc.

... wait, I didn't save it in the first place.
Well then, let's use use the forum's "DELETE" button, right to the original poster's article.

:-)

Quote from: Matthew

There are several so-called "traditional" organizations in the bosom of Rome today: The FSSP, Institute of Christ the King, Institute of the Good Shepherd, Campos Brazil, etc. If they haven't functioned as the "leaven" to root out Modernism from Rome, what makes anyone think the SSPX will succeed today if it tries?

Does that mean that the SSPX should not try? If something is difficult or appears impossible, does that mean that one should not try? Our Lord Himself teaches that finding salvation will be difficult. Perhaps we ought not to even try.

This kind of logic makes me go huh?!

If there is a bond fire going and twenty people decide to get in line and touch it because they are sure they will not get burned, touch it and then suffer third degree burns, how can it stand to reason that the guys behind them will not get equally burned?

Should the ones who have not yet touched the fire say, "hey we should at least try, we might not get burned, God will protect us".

Stupid analogy maybe, but hope it gets the point across that your thinking may be lacking in simple sense.

I don't find it very insightful. It totally glosses over the crucial points made by +Williamson, +de Mallerais, Fr. Pfeiffer, and countless others.

It's garden variety propaganda.

He twists Scripture (in just about every paragraph) to fit his own hollow argumentation -- reminds me of the Protestant modus operandi.

I'm sorry, but the parable of the wheat and the cockle is NOT meant to teach us that every person has good and bad points, and that you can equally focus on either. On the contrary, Our Lord said, "Judge a tree by its fruits."  That sounds pretty binary (on/off) to me.

I'm judging the works of Pope Benedict XVI to be evil. He has not built up the Church; he has done everything he can to undermine Tradition. There is plenty of concrete evidence visible to the naked eye. It doesn't require reading hearts to see it. Any thinking man with his eyes open can see it.

There are several so-called "traditional" organizations in the bosom of Rome today: The FSSP, Institute of Christ the King, Institute of the Good Shepherd, Campos Brazil, etc. If they haven't functioned as the "leaven" to root out Modernism from Rome, what makes anyone think the SSPX will succeed today if it tries?

I would have no confidence or admiration for Fr Laisney. The same cleric who stated

Maximilian Krah is one of our faithful, and an competent attorney that has helped us many times before in cases mainly dealing with legacies in our favour, contested by others. He successfully defended our rights. He gives us competent "legal counsels" especially in matters of legacies in the German speaking world; there is nothing unusual at that at all, on the contrary (we have similar legal counsels in each big district: France, USA... usually our faithful. Honesty and competence is the criteria, not political views). 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... Mr Krah is not a Jєω, though he may have some Jєωιѕн friends, which is not uncommon in the legal world.

The comment from Fr Laisney raised these questions. Veritas1961 put the following questions to Fr Laisney.Have they ever been answered?

A FEW QUESTIONS

1. Can you please confirm for me that you are the author of this letter?

2. If the answer is in the negative, can you explain why anybody would undertake to write a letter in your name given that hitherto your name had not been mentioned in the matter of what is now known as “Krahgate”?


If you did not write this letter, your reply will be put into “The Complete Krahgate File” which is to be found highlighted in red under the “Pinned Threads” section of the “General Discussion” category of Ignis Ardens at http://cathinfo-warning-pornography!/Ignis_Ardens/i...php?showforum=1 Should you not be the author of the letter, you may rest assured that members of Ignis Ardens and others will begin an exhaustive search for the perpetrator of this wanton lie.


However, knowing you, I believe that the language and content does appear to coincide with your style, while some of the information given in this letter demonstrates knowledge that was not previously in the public arena and therefore demands explanation. I will as a result present a list of questions to you based exclusively on “your” letter and invite you to reply publicly to them. If I prove to be wrong in this matter of authorship, I will apologise to you on this forum without any kind of mental reservation, and offer a rosary for your intentions by way of reparation.

1. The opening sentence begins: “I am apalled at the art to raise unsubstantiated suspicions and calumnies!” Forgive me, Father, but I have to ask you to highlight the alleged “calumnies.” In “The Complete Krahgate File,” there are no calumnies of any kind. What has been laid out, by myself and others, are facts that are IN THE PUBLIC DOMAIN, CAN BE ACCESSED BY ANYONE ANYWHERE IN THE WORLD, ARE SITES ABOVE SUSPICION OF ANY KIND (no blogs, no questionable websites etc) AND HENCE ARE IRREFUTABLE. It is upon these substantiated facts (please note, Father, the word “substantiated”) that a series of important questions have been directed towards the final authority in the SSPX, Bishop Fellay. Furthermore these questions have avoided accusation, smear, charge, personal denigration, slander or defamation. Indeed the original posting by “William of Norwich” on this matter at the end of November 2010 ended with this statement: “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.” Respectful questioning of authority, based upon public docuмentation of unquestionable authenticity and transparency, does not in Catholic moral teaching amount to “calumny.” So: please substantiate by proofs, by examples, not assertions, that these docuмents posted by faithful members of Catholic Tradition contained calumnies.

2. The second sentence states: “Two of his fellow senior Bishops, Bishop Williamson and Bishop Tissier de Mallerais do not appear to be on any boards representing SSPX assets, which indeed appears odd.” I have used the “Find” function on my computer to seek this sentence within the docuмentation that comprises “The Complete Krahgate File” and I can find it only once: in the letter that you purportedly wrote and which was placed under the heading “Putative Replies.” I can only assume that this phrase appeared in some comment or other of the many hundreds of comments that have been made on Ignis Ardens, or that you have seen this phrase elsewhere in the blogosphere. If it came in such a comment on Ignis Ardens, I have no memory of it. But the issue is that it is only that: a comment and no more. It no more comprises the information brought to light on a number of vital matters concerning the SSPX than your statement that “calumny” appears as information. So: perhaps you can identify the source of this phrase for us?

3. More importantly, however, is a statement that you make: “But in the SSPX, we hold positions in companies by virtue of our office in the SSPX, not in our personal name; so when we change office, our successor takes our place in these companies. NOTHING ODD there at all, on the contrary!” I think, Father, that you have misunderstood the concerns of the faithful in a number of ways. First, nobody has questioned the need for the SSPX to possess legally established structures to protect its assets so as to further the mission of the Society. Second, most of us who have been SSPX supporters for decades are well aware of the fact that such structures have existed for decades as well. Third, nobody has suggested that there was or is anything irregular in SSPX personnel holding office at different times, for differing durations, and in different legal structures. What is being questioned, and which you have studiously avoided in my honest but respectful opinion, are the following points: First, why is someone like Mr Krah, a layman, of only a few years attendance at SSPX masses, who has a known political profile in Germany, and who has questionable contacts for someone who describes himself as “an unimpeachable catholic” in a position of such important authority? Second, and more importantly, the questions posed about business structures were directed almost exclusively to discovering something about two legal structures, Dello Sarto and the Jaidhofer Privatstiftung, in which Mr Krah is involved, whose role in both is vague at best, and both of which structures are of very recent origin. Dello Sarto was established in 2009 and the Jaidhofer Privatstiftung in 2006, the timeframe during which Mr Krah appeared on the SSPX scene. That you chose not to address these questions, THE ESSENTIAL QUESTIONS OF THE WHOLE KRAHGATE AFFAIR, but talked about various small legal associations in different districts, has not calmed the fears among the faithful worldwide at all. On the contrary, the apparent evasion of such questions has heightened the very “suspicions” that you have deplored! It may be, naturally, that you read the essential posts rapidly and fired off your reply to your unknown correspondent too rapidly. If that is so, you have the opportunity now to present a more considered response to these important matters, and I would urge you to do so because silence will only encourage further speculation – something that is not desired nor desirable.


4. You state: “Another example of calumnies: “The fact that the SSPX appears to be involved in international financial markets...” Sorry, this is simply not true.” I take it that you mean that the SSPX is NOT involved in international financial markets, and for that information we are both grateful and relieved. However, there was no calumny involved at all. The poster, “William of Norwich,” just said that it “appears to be.” This is NOT a statement of fact, it is a CONDITIONAL statement based on what was found at Link: Dello Sarto AG
http://translate.google.co.uk/translate?hl...D813%26prmd%3Db

5. However another question logically arises. If Dello Sarto is only concerned with “asset management” in the limited sense that you give it, why was the company so recently set up at all and which employed the services of a Zurich based law firm? Their website, http://www.internationallawoffice.com/dire...47-4d5d5e739909 shows that this company is large, high-powered and clearly expensive. It seems to an outsider something like overkill. Moreover, another question remains: why were none of the other “asset management” companies set up years ago by the SSPX not used? What is it about the purpose of Dello Sarto that none of the other structures could cover? And what in the nature of Dello Sarto necessitated the employment of Mr Krah as its manager? Could not a suitably qualified cleric have done this job? After all your description of the work involved - “we strive to avoid the financial world; thus if a chapel has some savings, we organise that it be lent to another chapel that had a debt, either at no interest at all, or at low interest to offset devaluation. Thus even that low interest that one chapel pays still goes to help another chapel's future projects” - does not strike me as particularly onerous nor requiring the services of an internationally connected law firm. Perhaps you would like to clarify these matters in order that we, the faithful, the people who actually supply the money to the SSPX to allow “asset management” to become necessary, have our minds put to rest?

6. You make this statement: “Again, as previous bursar general, I can testify that the SSPX is NOT involved in financial markets speculation or usury of any kind!” With all due respect, I am sorry to tell you Father that that is not something that you can substantiate. You can certainly say that there was no speculation or usury DURING YOUR TIME as bursar, but you CANNOT testify to something after your bursarship finished. How long has it been since you ceased to be bursar? Five years? Eight years? Ten years? This is not an attack on you, it is only to say that NO PERSON once he has left any post can testify to what happened AFTER his departure. Your good faith is NOT being called into question here. What is being called into question is your competence to make such a wide-ranging assertion.

7. In reference to Mr Krah you say: “He gives us competent "legal counsels" especially in matters of legacies in the German speaking world.” Upon what do you base this statement regarding his alleged competence? Is it upon what you have personally witnessed through interaction with him, or is it based only upon what you have been told?

8. You write:“Mr Krah is not a Jєω, though he may have some Jєωιѕн friends, which is not uncommon in the legal world.” What is the basis of your statement that Mr Krah is not a Jєω? Mr Krah in a statement posted on December 28 2010, at 02:12 PM on Ignis Ardens made a number of statements, but at no point did he deny that he was a Jєω? He only asserted that he was a Catholic. Well, Cardinal Lustiger called himself a Catholic, did he not, but he equally asserted that he was a Jєω? Given that this was one of the more astonishing statements made by “William of Norwich” does it not strike you as significant that Mr Krah did not make plain his – according to you – non-Jєωιѕн status? It could hardly be construed as the oversight of a very minor detail can it? Moreover, while you assert that Mr Krah is not a Jєω, you give no evidence, circuмstantial or otherwise, to support this assertion. You cannot say that he denied it, because in his one and only public statement he has not done so. Nor can you retort that “William of Norwich” is in the same boat as you: making an assertion without any kind of evidence. “William of Norwich” gave the following link by way of support: Link: American Friends of Tel Aviv University
http://www.aftau.org/site/PageServer?pagen...0_AlumniAuction If you would care to look carefully at all of the photographs available at this link, you will see that every person has been named. I do not believe that one has to be an expert in family names to recognise that they are all Jєωιѕн, at a Jєωιѕн event, in the city with the highest Jєωιѕн population in the world (Israel notwithstanding), and supporting the work of an Israeli university that is dominated by the Israeli security forces which have a long history of anti-Catholic and anti-Christian activity of the most murderous kind. Is it really credible, in the absence of a forthright denial by Mr Krah of being Jєωιѕн, to believe, as you clearly believe, that he was the only NON-Jєω present?

9. A small but related question: You said that “ he MAY have some Jєωιѕн friends.” “William of Norwich” showed beyond any doubt that he DOES through the link just cited. One question, since I assume that you must know Mr Krah to make these statements, is this: would he happen to be a friend of Mischa Morgenbesser, a lawyer with BADERTSCHER Rechtsanwälte AG (Zurich), who is the sole Hebrew speaker with the firm, the firm that advises the SSPX in relation to Dello Sarto? Do you know if this firm was suggested by Mr Krah to the leadership of the SSPX?

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.

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.

12. Although I could ask you another half dozen questions on the basis of your short letter, I will confine myself to just one more. You say in relation to Mr Krah, and by implication to others, that when the SSPX requires legal advice and assistance that “Honesty and competence is the criteria, not political views.” To that I am sure that I speak for all supporters of the SSPX when I say “Amen.” Thus, Mr Krah, if he were both honest and competent and available to the SSPX, would be a good choice irrespective of his political affiliation – and no traditionalist could or would argue with that decision. The problem, however, is twofold. First, Mr Krah’s choice of Matthias Lossmann as counsel for Mgr. Williamson in the trial of April 2010 did not show competence at all. What it demonstrated was a woeful inability or will to find someone who would address the issues pertaining to Williamson’s case: namely the manifest deficiency of German law as it pertained to this particular case. It had nothing effectively to do with so-called “h0Ɩ0cαųst denial” but everything to do with whether or not Mgr. Williamson fell within the bounds of the law being evoked by the Regensburg court. That woeful decision cost Mgr. Williamson a great deal, and we can only speculate as to whether Mr Krah’s clear incompetence was honest or dishonest. On that God alone knows. The second problem with your position of “Honesty and competence is the criteria, not political views” is contradicted by actual facts. Put simply if Mr Krah, appointed by Mgr. Fellay, was good enough for the job, in theory, to deal with Mgr. Williamson’s case in the first instance, despite his open affiliation with the CDU, why was Mr Nahrath, chosen by Williamson in the second instance, unacceptable to Mgr. Fellay. It cannot be seriously argued that Mr Nahrath was not competent in such delicate [in Germany] matters, for his success in Germany, even in 2010, in such questions is a matter of public record. Neither can his honesty be seriously impugned since it is evident that, unlike Messrs. Krah and Lossmann, he risks in a very real way his liberty every time he takes on a “controversial case.” You say that Mr Nahrath was not unacceptable, not because of his affiliation with the NPD, a legal political party in Germany, but with something called “Viking” though you could not remember the name that Mgr. Fellay mentioned to you. The name is, of course, “Viking Youth” which any Google search would have given you. What is remarkable is that Mgr. Fellay should make Nahrath’s political leadership of the Viking Youth the pretext for denying Mgr. Williamson good, honest and legal counsel. The Viking Youth was banned in 1994, sixteen years ago! Would anyone suggest that Fr. Schmidberger was unfit to hold high office in the SSPX because of his activity in a sedevacantist youth group many years ago? Would anyone suggest that Mgr. Lefebvre was unfit to be the founder of the SSPX because he praised Marshal Petain and a number of other political figures, now regarded as “politically incorrect”? I do not think so. Does it not strike you, my dear father, that what Mgr. Williamson required was a decent lawyer; and does it not strike you as unacceptable, as shown in “The Complete Krahgate File”, that Mr Krah – the self-confessed “unimpeachable catholic” - should have made Nahrath’s appointment known to Der Spiegel within the hour of his appointment?

My dear Father Laisney, I suspect that while you may believe what you have written in this letter, you are acting upon the basis of third hand information. If it was designed to bring serenity to Catholic souls it failed completely. The information and related questions outlined in this email prove, I believe, that there is much still to be unmasked in the Krahgate Affair in the quest for the truth, a truth that the praying, obeying and paying faithful have an absolute right to receive.

I reiterate what I said at the outset. There is no intention to accuse you of anything improper or immoral. Indeed your entry into the picture with your letter was a surprise to everybody since you had never been mentioned in connection with Krahgate. What I would exhort you to do is to furnish the faithful with answers to the above queries, and to the best of your knowledge and ability. Failing that, perhaps you could ask the SSPX leadership to answer these and other questions in order to bring a peaceful end to what is, quite frankly, one of the most disturbing episodes in the life of Society in decades.

It's garden variety propaganda.

Exactly.