Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => SSPX Resistance News => Topic started by: John Grace on July 04, 2011, 03:45:25 PM
-
It seems the Menzingen lawyer, who likes to show up at Jєωιѕн fundraising events has been critical of the Bishop yet again.
http://www.sueddeutsche.de/bayern/prozess-gegen-bischof-williamson-plaudern-ueber-gaskammern-1.1116124
Viel weiter kann sich eine katholische Priestergemeinschaft wohl nicht von einem ihrer Mitglieder distanzieren. Ein Exzentriker sei Bischof Richard Williamson; einer, der ein "nachhaltiges Problem mit der Realitätserkennung" habe und in "schöner Regelmäßigkeit alle zwei Jahre an den Weltuntergang glaubt". So sprach am Montag in Regensburg Maximilian Krah, der Rechtsvertreter der deutschen Pius-Sektion, über Williamson, einen der eigenen Gemeinschaft. Und fasste schließlich zusammen: "Bunter Vogel, das trifft's, glaub ich." Was vom Landgericht Regensburg als Zeugenvernehmung gedacht war, war zugleich eine öffentliche Distanzierung des Ordens von ihrem gefallenen Mitbruder, über dessen Treiben wieder einmal ein Gericht zu befinden hatte. Wieder ging es um die Frage: Ist es für einen britischen Staatsbürger strafbar, wenn er in einem Interview mit einem schwedischen Fernsehsender auf deutschem Boden den h0Ɩ0cαųst leugnet?
Google translate
See also the post from the Bishop
ELEISON COMMENTS CCVI (June 25, 2011) : CHOOSING LAWYERS
These "Comments" do not usually tell of things personal, but on the eve of their writer's Appeal being heard in Germany (July 4), an UNTRUTH is circulating which needs to be set straight, amongst other things to allay unwarranted anxieties. The untruth is that I wish my defence against the German State's accusation of "racial incitement" to be based on the truth or falsehood of what actually happened in the most controversial episode of recent German history.
In fact from the moment I knew that I might be accused in Germany of "racial incitement" for remarks made in English to Swedish journalists in November of 2008, I also knew that if I repeated the remarks in front of a German law-court, I risked being immediately thrown into jail. Such is the present state of German law. However, I would rather not be decorated with chains, if I can help it.
So from the beginning I heeded the advice to defend myself on the basis that my remarks were self-evidently in no way intended for a German audience, and thus the German law did not apply to my situation. This much is clear from the last minute of the famous video-clip available on YouTube, which is the last several minutes of the one-hour interview with the Swedes. Moreover, immediately after those remarks, but off camera, I went up to the Swedes and earnestly asked them to be "discrete" in the use they would make of the last part of the interview. This much they would have to admit if they were to testify, but they cannot be forced to come to Germany, so they decline to do so.
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. He was conscientious but perhaps not too enthusiastic about the case. Through friends, I discovered a lawyer enthusiastic and highly successful in defending such delicate cases, Wolfram Nahrath, but Lossmann was unwilling to work with him. Seeking only the best legal counsel available to me in my quandary, I switched from Lossmann to Nahrath.
However, when the Superior General was informed by aides of Nahrath's political position, he ordered me to find someone else again, believing in good faith no doubt that any public association between the SSPX and "an extreme rightist" would be detrimental. He approved of the elderly and honourable Dr. Norbert Wingerter, a conservative Novus Ordo Catholic, but it appears that it could be Wingerter who is unwittingly the source of the untruth now in circulation. I do not know why, but he seems to be under the mistaken impression that I wanted to go, in front of the court, into the truth or untruth of that episode in German history. Fortunately the Superior General had already approved of yet another lawyer, who now understands correctly how I wish to be defended.
Dear readers, if you think that the interests of God are in any way at stake (not everybody thinks so), do say a prayer between now and July 4 for my latest lawyer who has been for several months working hard on the case, but who is liable to come under fierce pressure from anti-Catholic interests and their powerful servants.
Kyrie eleison.
http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,,15209337,00.html
A bishop convicted of denying the h0Ɩ0cαųst has skipped the start of his own appeal in a German court. Richard Williamson was convicted of ѕєdιтισn and fined for denying the h0Ɩ0cαųst.
British bishop Richard Williamson was not present at the opening of his appeal on Monday in Germany.
Williamson, a member of the ultra-conservative Saint Pius X Society, was fined 10,000 euros ($14,000) last year by a Regensburg court for statements he made to a Swedish TV station denying the h0Ɩ0cαųst.
His lawyer Edgar Weiler said that the interview, which was widely circulated over the Internet, was never intended to be seen by the German public.
Weiler said the appeals process did not concern the substance of the comments, but "exclusively the jurisdiction of the German judiciary and the issue of public utterance."
In the interview with Swedish TV at the beginning of last year, Williamson suggested that the number of Jews murdered by the nαzιs was actually 200,000-300,000 - far lower than the six million historians say were killed. Williamson also suggested that "not one" of them was killed in a gas chamber.
Protest from Merkel
h0Ɩ0cαųst denial is a criminal offense in Germany and Austria. Williamson had asked the Swedish station to ensure that the footage was never shown in Germany.
Williamson's views have caused problems for the Catholic Church. The January 2008 reversal of Williamson's excommunication by Pope Benedict XVI drew criticism from many, including German Chancellor Angela Merkel, who demanded that the pope "clarify unambiguously that there can be no denying" that the nαzιs killed six million Jews.
Author: Sarah Harman (KNA, dpa)
Editor: Nancy Isenson
-
Another opportunity to belittle the bishop, courtesy of Menzingen's substantial legal fund. With a brotherhood like that, who needs enemies?
-
Another opportunity to belittle the bishop, courtesy of Menzingen's substantial legal fund. With a brotherhood like that, who needs enemies?
Clearly, the record shows that no such opportunity has been left unused. It must be, that Menzingen approves of the latest public derogation by its legal representative.
-
Ethelred posted the following on Ignis Ardens but the post with a quotation from Archbishop Lefebvre has been removed.
http://cathinfo-warning-pornography!/Ignis_Ardens/index.php?showtopic=7525&st=0
Marcelle, this small point "outside of their jurisdiction" is the crux of the matter. Because the "German" court argues that since the interview happened on German territory -- the SSPX seminary in the castle Zaitzkofen near the Bavarian German town Regensburg -- it would be their jurisdiction.
Whilst the interview physically happened on German territory, it was done in English language and for the Swedish TV audience. Most Germans don't speak English well enough in order to understand what the Bishop said.
But your comparison is good insofar, because the "German" courts also try to persecute web servers outside Germany containing German texts which are not compatible with the h0Ɩ0cαųst "dogma". So they try to bring the Jєωιѕн dominated "German" law to other countries, and since they can't really do it, they forced several big German Internet providers to ban the Internet addresses of these foreign web servers. So many Germans can't browse to these web servers from within Germany. Well, the nєω ωσrℓ∂ σr∂єr bosses like Rockefeller already said they want the Internet to be cut globally.
Unfortunately, we cannot expect justice coming from a "German" court or government, because the high finance is in control of Germany's governments (plural!) and so the country.
This will end soon, however. The Jew's and their helper's massive hysteria around the "Bishop Williamson case" shows that they're past their "best". Thank God. The Bishop helped well in underlining this fact. So his suffering for justice is not for nothing.
The forum thread on Ignis Ardens has been closed with Clare citing it
This is looking set to become a counterproductive thread, so I think I'll lock it.
http://cathinfo-warning-pornography!/Ignis_Ardens/index.php?showtopic=7525&st=25
The quotation from Archbishop Lefebvre posted by Ethelred is:
"Since Israel refused the true Messiah, it would give itself another messianism that is temporal and earthbound, dominating the world by money, Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ, Revolution, and social democracy.
We must not, however, forget that those Jews who were disciples of the true Messiah founded the true Israel, the spiritual kingdom, which prepares the heavenly kingdom.
The worldwide designs of the Jews are being brought about in our time, but they started with the foundation of Masonry and the Revolution which has decapitated the Church and set up worldwide socialist democracy"
("Marcel Lefebvre" by Bishop Tissier de Mallerais, Angelus Press, pages 602-603)
-
Did she really delete the quote?
How bizarre. SSPX cultists are bizarre.
-
Did she really delete the quote?
How bizarre. SSPX cultists are bizarre.
The SSPX is not cultist but yes she did delete the quotation from Archbishop Lefebvre.
-
Did she really delete the quote?
How bizarre. SSPX cultists are bizarre.
Ignis-Ardens is basically a Menzingen cheering club and protecting Krah and his SSPX mentor Fr. Pfluger.
After the liberal Clare locked the thread because she had no arguments and just monkeys around anyway, she silently deleted three of my postings which replied to Wessex' good points and to pro Jєωιѕн Ashmo's rubbish. These three postings included the mentioned Archbishop Lefebvre's quote plus a confirming one from David Rockefeller.
Since my local cache still has got these three mentioned articles I'll try to post them here. They're a little bit out of context but maybe I can correct this with some quotes.
I am not interested in that British Krahgate denying forum anymore. They're no friends of Bishop Williamson. They just keep him as a pet. What a shame.
P.S. Thank you John for the pointer.
-
(Restoring deleted IA posting #1)
What is so surprising is the silence from so-called friends of the bishop; maybe the benefits from 'modernisation' are sufficient to bury him.
Since by now virtually all Western countries are controlled by the first and oldest enemies of our Lord, i.e. the Jews and their virtual fraud money, it's rather a strategic silence.
Let's just wait a little longer. Then the entire satanic 1789 anti-order will fall, and also its colossal lie named "h0Ɩ0cαųst" basing the nєω ωσrℓ∂ σr∂єr. This "new religion" won't "last a thousand years" (in quotation marks because Wessex used these expressions in another IA thread).
Of course it will cost very many casualties in our own rows, too, but there will be a "backslash" and more, i.e. God's chastisement. That's what the Bishop is talking about so many times and what Krah absolutely doesn't want to hear because he's part of this new globalist religion.
I'm amazed how the children of Satan (John VIII,44) can believe that their "world of lies" can persist. They use all of their skills and perfidy to make their lies work, but in the end these will just burst like a bubble.
Despite these interesting time and despite the Krahgate (http://krahgate.blogspot.com), Max Krah is still the SSPX' attorney and SSPX-officially allowed to bash the good British Bishop inside this "German" court all those high finance owned newspapers "report" about. What a shame!
-
(Restoring deleted IA posting #2)
Ethelred, Germany and by extension the EU have sold their souls to the new economic order with New York as their holy shrine.
That's true. So the perfidious Jews -- being the chosen people of Satan since their deicide -- indeed function as a Scourge of God.
Europeans seem mesmerised in the presence of the great "victims of history" that run this holy shrine and we all have to contribute dearly as a result. This is Bp. Williamson's essential message. Against him in their own ways are Merkel and Krah, both East Germans and both well-versed in political expediency and choosing the "right" side of history. One wonders who is the bishop's worse foe: the grinding political machine that is Germany or the obscene duplicity that is Menzingen.
Very well said. Thank you!
-
(Restoring deleted IA posting #3)
And make up your mind: are "the Jews" baffled, or pushing on to victory?
The Jews being the chosen people of Satan since their deicide, do share his fate on earth: they're thinking they could win but are baffled in all essential things and will fail miserably in the long run.
It's odd: "the Jews" are in control everywhere ... the "bubble" of lies is all-powerful and irresistable, but it's just going to burst ...
I never said the lies are all-powerful or irresistible. God alone is all-powerful. And that's the reason why the lies will burst. The lies are resistible for those who like to think to the end and so follow the Trinitarian God.
Unfortunately too many people don't like to think to the end. So indeed many people are ready to believe the lies. That's what makes these lies and hence Satan and his human lackeys powerful.
Without doubt the world domination of the Jews is very advanced today, which means the lack of catholic faith has reached a climax, too. So God alone can save us. "The worldwide designs of the Jews are being brought about in our time" said the wise Archbishop, but many of his so called "followers" don't want to know it anymore.
God's intervention will indeed bring a true and saintly pope, a converted catholic Russia (as Our Lady said in Fatima), well a Reign of the Saints, but first we'll have to survive that "another Flood" which allows so and which Bishop Williamson mentioned many times.
Archbishop Lefebvre knew about this Jєωιѕн world domination, because it's a natural followup of their deicide which is uphold collectively by the Jews down to the present day (and to the end of time, to be accurate). You should read Archbishop Lefebvre and the former orthodox Popes and think about what they said. Much better than to hang around with your Jєωιѕн Friends. Krah's hanging around with his Jєωιѕн friends, too, that's why he really hates the following quote and actually most others from the good Archbishop, too.
Since Israel refused the true Messiah, it would give itself another messianism that is temporal and earthbound, dominating the world by money, Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ, Revolution, and social democracy.
We must not, however, forget that those Jews who were disciples of the true Messiah founded the true Israel, the spiritual kingdom, which prepares the heavenly kingdom.
The worldwide designs of the Jews are being brought about in our time, but they started with the foundation of Masonry and the Revolution which has decapitated the Church and set up worldwide socialist democracy.
("Marcel Lefebvre" by Bishop Tissier de Mallerais, Angelus Press, pages 602-603)
Now let's quote one of today's most powerful lackey of Satan, because he basically confirms what the Archbishop said.
For more than a century ideological extremists at either end of the political spectrum have seized upon well-publicized incidents such as my encounter with Castro to attack the Rockefeller family for the inordinate influence they claim we wield over American political and economic institutions. Some even believe we are part of a secret cabal working against the best interests of the United States, characterizing my family and me as "internationalists" and of conspiring with others around the world to build a more integrated global political and economic structure – one world, if you will. If that’s the charge, I stand guilty, and I am proud of it.
("Memoirs" by David Rockefeller, 2002, page 405)
That's one of the reasons why the "German" court in Jєωιѕн controlled Germany is going to have sentence the good Bishop Williamson. Surely the Bishop knows this. He's got a good humour, so I'm wondering if he's pulling their leg?
-
Did she really delete the quote?
How bizarre. SSPX cultists are bizarre.
The SSPX is not cultist but yes she did delete the quotation from Archbishop Lefebvre.
No. I archived the whole post of Ethelred's of which Archbishop Lefebvre's quote was a part. If the post had just been the Archbishop's quote, I would not have removed it. I did a bit of tidying earlier.
-
Many thanks for this, Ethelred. Catholics must stand for and by the truth even if it means the sacrifice of our very lives.
-
.
http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,,15209337,00.html
A bishop convicted of denying the h0Ɩ0cαųst has skipped the start of his own appeal
What does this mean? You can place a court docuмent into the docket instead of showing up? Is this what he did?
sheep
-
Did she really delete the quote?
How bizarre. SSPX cultists are bizarre.
The SSPX is not cultist but yes she did delete the quotation from Archbishop Lefebvre.
No. I archived the whole post of Ethelred's of which Archbishop Lefebvre's quote was a part. If the post had just been the Archbishop's quote, I would not have removed it. I did a bit of tidying earlier.
The British District notice about 'Krahgate' was up for several weeks before it was archived so very strange you archived the posts of Ethelred after a couple of hours. You stated the thread was counter-productive. It appears as if Ignis Ardens thinks the quotation from Archbishop Lefebvre is counter-productive.
-
After the liberal Clare locked the thread because she had no arguments and just monkeys around anyway, she silently deleted three of my postings which replied to Wessex' good points and to pro Jєωιѕн Ashmo's rubbish
Is it possible to view Ethelred's posts and the quote from the Archbishop on Ignis Ardens?
-
.
http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,,15209337,00.html
A bishop convicted of denying the h0Ɩ0cαųst has skipped the start of his own appeal
What does this mean? You can place a court docuмent into the docket instead of showing up? Is this what he did?
sheep
ELEISON COMMENTS CCVI (June 25, 2011) : CHOOSING LAWYERS
These "Comments" do not usually tell of things personal, but on the eve of their writer's Appeal being heard in Germany (July 4), an UNTRUTH is circulating which needs to be set straight, amongst other things to allay unwarranted anxieties. The untruth is that I wish my defence against the German State's accusation of "racial incitement" to be based on the truth or falsehood of what actually happened in the most controversial episode of recent German history.
In fact from the moment I knew that I might be accused in Germany of "racial incitement" for remarks made in English to Swedish journalists in November of 2008, I also knew that if I repeated the remarks in front of a German law-court, I risked being immediately thrown into jail. Such is the present state of German law. However, I would rather not be decorated with chains, if I can help it.
So from the beginning I heeded the advice to defend myself on the basis that my remarks were self-evidently in no way intended for a German audience, and thus the German law did not apply to my situation. This much is clear from the last minute of the famous video-clip available on YouTube, which is the last several minutes of the one-hour interview with the Swedes. Moreover, immediately after those remarks, but off camera, I went up to the Swedes and earnestly asked them to be "discrete" in the use they would make of the last part of the interview. This much they would have to admit if they were to testify, but they cannot be forced to come to Germany, so they decline to do so.
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. He was conscientious but perhaps not too enthusiastic about the case. Through friends, I discovered a lawyer enthusiastic and highly successful in defending such delicate cases, Wolfram Nahrath, but Lossmann was unwilling to work with him. Seeking only the best legal counsel available to me in my quandary, I switched from Lossmann to Nahrath.
However, when the Superior General was informed by aides of Nahrath's political position, he ordered me to find someone else again, believing in good faith no doubt that any public association between the SSPX and "an extreme rightist" would be detrimental. He approved of the elderly and honourable Dr. Norbert Wingerter, a conservative Novus Ordo Catholic, but it appears that it could be Wingerter who is unwittingly the source of the untruth now in circulation. I do not know why, but he seems to be under the mistaken impression that I wanted to go, in front of the court, into the truth or untruth of that episode in German history. Fortunately the Superior General had already approved of yet another lawyer, who now understands correctly how I wish to be defended.
Dear readers, if you think that the interests of God are in any way at stake (not everybody thinks so), do say a prayer between now and July 4 for my latest lawyer who has been for several months working hard on the case, but who is liable to come under fierce pressure from anti-Catholic interests and their powerful servants.
Kyrie eleison.
-
Ignis-Ardens is basically a Menzingen cheering club and protecting Krah and his SSPX mentor Fr. Pfluger.
I would have to disagree with the claim Ignis Ardens is a cheering club for Menzingen but their moderating staff got it wrong in removing 'The Complete Krah File'. As for the nasty letter Fr Pfluger sent to Bishop Williamson. The majority of faithful were angered by this.Others were not aware such a letter was sent. Bishop Fellay has evaded questions in relation to Krah and other matters.
-
I am not interested in that British Krahgate denying forum anymore. They're no friends of Bishop Williamson.
Ignis Ardens has shot itself in the foot.There is no doubt about that. I wouldn't regard Ashmolean as being representative of the English faithful and the Bishop has many friends in Britain and Ireland and all over the world.
I would agree though that participating on Ignis Ardens is a waste of time. They shot themselves in the foot removing 'The Complete Krahgate File' and Ashmoleans' ramblings have alienated many away. There is work to be done.
-
.
http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,,15209337,00.html
A bishop convicted of denying the h0Ɩ0cαųst has skipped the start of his own appeal
What does this mean? You can place a court docuмent into the docket instead of showing up? Is this what he did?
sheep
ELEISON COMMENTS CCVI (June 25, 2011) : CHOOSING LAWYERS
These "Comments" do not usually tell of things personal, but on the eve of their writer's Appeal being heard in Germany (July 4), an UNTRUTH is circulating which needs to be set straight, amongst other things to allay unwarranted anxieties. The untruth is that I wish my defence against the German State's accusation of "racial incitement" to be based on the truth or falsehood of what actually happened in the most controversial episode of recent German history.
In fact from the moment I knew that I might be accused in Germany of "racial incitement" for remarks made in English to Swedish journalists in November of 2008, I also knew that if I repeated the remarks in front of a German law-court, I risked being immediately thrown into jail. Such is the present state of German law. However, I would rather not be decorated with chains, if I can help it.
So from the beginning I heeded the advice to defend myself on the basis that my remarks were self-evidently in no way intended for a German audience, and thus the German law did not apply to my situation. This much is clear from the last minute of the famous video-clip available on YouTube, which is the last several minutes of the one-hour interview with the Swedes. Moreover, immediately after those remarks, but off camera, I went up to the Swedes and earnestly asked them to be "discrete" in the use they would make of the last part of the interview. This much they would have to admit if they were to testify, but they cannot be forced to come to Germany, so they decline to do so.
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. He was conscientious but perhaps not too enthusiastic about the case. Through friends, I discovered a lawyer enthusiastic and highly successful in defending such delicate cases, Wolfram Nahrath, but Lossmann was unwilling to work with him. Seeking only the best legal counsel available to me in my quandary, I switched from Lossmann to Nahrath.
However, when the Superior General was informed by aides of Nahrath's political position, he ordered me to find someone else again, believing in good faith no doubt that any public association between the SSPX and "an extreme rightist" would be detrimental. He approved of the elderly and honourable Dr. Norbert Wingerter, a conservative Novus Ordo Catholic, but it appears that it could be Wingerter who is unwittingly the source of the untruth now in circulation. I do not know why, but he seems to be under the mistaken impression that I wanted to go, in front of the court, into the truth or untruth of that episode in German history. Fortunately the Superior General had already approved of yet another lawyer, who now understands correctly how I wish to be defended.
Dear readers, if you think that the interests of God are in any way at stake (not everybody thinks so), do say a prayer between now and July 4 for my latest lawyer who has been for several months working hard on the case, but who is liable to come under fierce pressure from anti-Catholic interests and their powerful servants.
Kyrie eleison.
So, because he has a new lawyer , Bp probably put in for an extension. I do not know why they said skipped?
sheep
-
.
http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,,15209337,00.html
A bishop convicted of denying the h0Ɩ0cαųst has skipped the start of his own appeal
What does this mean? You can place a court docuмent into the docket instead of showing up? Is this what he did?
sheep
ELEISON COMMENTS CCVI (June 25, 2011) : CHOOSING LAWYERS
These "Comments" do not usually tell of things personal, but on the eve of their writer's Appeal being heard in Germany (July 4), an UNTRUTH is circulating which needs to be set straight, amongst other things to allay unwarranted anxieties. The untruth is that I wish my defence against the German State's accusation of "racial incitement" to be based on the truth or falsehood of what actually happened in the most controversial episode of recent German history.
In fact from the moment I knew that I might be accused in Germany of "racial incitement" for remarks made in English to Swedish journalists in November of 2008, I also knew that if I repeated the remarks in front of a German law-court, I risked being immediately thrown into jail. Such is the present state of German law. However, I would rather not be decorated with chains, if I can help it.
So from the beginning I heeded the advice to defend myself on the basis that my remarks were self-evidently in no way intended for a German audience, and thus the German law did not apply to my situation. This much is clear from the last minute of the famous video-clip available on YouTube, which is the last several minutes of the one-hour interview with the Swedes. Moreover, immediately after those remarks, but off camera, I went up to the Swedes and earnestly asked them to be "discrete" in the use they would make of the last part of the interview. This much they would have to admit if they were to testify, but they cannot be forced to come to Germany, so they decline to do so.
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. He was conscientious but perhaps not too enthusiastic about the case. Through friends, I discovered a lawyer enthusiastic and highly successful in defending such delicate cases, Wolfram Nahrath, but Lossmann was unwilling to work with him. Seeking only the best legal counsel available to me in my quandary, I switched from Lossmann to Nahrath.
However, when the Superior General was informed by aides of Nahrath's political position, he ordered me to find someone else again, believing in good faith no doubt that any public association between the SSPX and "an extreme rightist" would be detrimental. He approved of the elderly and honourable Dr. Norbert Wingerter, a conservative Novus Ordo Catholic, but it appears that it could be Wingerter who is unwittingly the source of the untruth now in circulation. I do not know why, but he seems to be under the mistaken impression that I wanted to go, in front of the court, into the truth or untruth of that episode in German history. Fortunately the Superior General had already approved of yet another lawyer, who now understands correctly how I wish to be defended.
Dear readers, if you think that the interests of God are in any way at stake (not everybody thinks so), do say a prayer between now and July 4 for my latest lawyer who has been for several months working hard on the case, but who is liable to come under fierce pressure from anti-Catholic interests and their powerful servants.
Kyrie eleison.
So, because he has a new lawyer , Bp probably put in for an extension. I do not know why they said skipped?
sheep
A controlled media is hardly going to depict a Catholic Bishop who tells the truth in a favourable light.
-
[
A controlled media is hardly going to depict a Catholic Bishop who tells the truth in a favourable light.
True, I had a funny feeling inside that he shouldn't show up on the 4th. I am glad he didn't. I'll keep praying. How does one email him or his people?
sheep
-
The British District notice about 'Krahgate' was up for several weeks before it was archived so very strange you archived the posts of Ethelred after a couple of hours. You stated the thread was counter-productive. It appears as if Ignis Ardens thinks the quotation from Archbishop Lefebvre is counter-productive.
No. as I said, I removed it because of Ethelred's words, not the Archbishop's.
-
I am not interested in that British Krahgate denying forum anymore. They're no friends of Bishop Williamson.
Ignis Ardens has shot itself in the foot.
Of course. I think that happened a few months before closing Krahgate. I think it happened when we opened it in the first place!
Still, it's not a mortal wound, and it would be nice if some people didn't keep shooting Ignis in the foot at regular intervals.
-
Of course. I think that happened a few months before closing Krahgate. I think it happened when we opened it in the first place!
People who attend SSPX masses have a right to know what sort of characters Bishop Fellay puts in charge of the legal defense of society bishops. Bishop Fellay seems to think he's above criticism: sorry, but when a group like the SSPX makes the expansive claims that it does about its mission, it needs to be irreproachable, not arrogant.
-
The SSPX is not cultist but yes she did delete the quotation from Archbishop Lefebvre.
No. I archived the whole post of Ethelred's of which Archbishop Lefebvre's quote was a part. If the post had just been the Archbishop's quote, I would not have removed it. I did a bit of tidying earlier.
What a rank liberal you are. The good Bishop Williamson dedicated two recent ECs to guys like you: EC 185 (http://eleisonkommentar.blogspot.com/2011/01/ec-185-traditionelle-infektion.html) and EC 186 (http://eleisonkommentar.blogspot.com/2011/02/ec-186-liberale-verseuchung.html). Scroll down for the English text. Do you actually understand what you post when you're quoting these ECs on your liberal IA forum? I don't think so.
You're not even upright enough to admit that you deleted my three articles practically because they're deleted from the public forum space and you did so silently.
It took you about a day to do so. First you locked the "Bishop Williamson's appeal" thread because IA co-founder Wessex' and my replies disturbed your and Ashmo's liberal and pro Jєωιѕн worldview. The next morning you corrupted my link to the German Krahgate file (http://krahgate.blogspot.com) because you're a Menzingen cheerleader and betray the truth about the Zionist agent Krah and his helpers in Menzingen (like Freemason Churchill's motto: Right or wrong my country Menzingen!). And finally in the afternoon you deleted my three articles because how can a today's traditional catholic dare to repeat in own words what the today's SSPX "fig leaf" named Archbishop Lefebvre told 20 years ago! I suppose you had to discuss the whole procedure with another liberal "tradionalist" like the English version of Krah, Mr Ashmo.
In order to answer John's question:
Is it possible to view Ethelred's posts and the quote from the Archbishop on Ignis Ardens?
No, it's not. They're not viewable anymore for anybody in the world wide web.
So they have been deleted practically.
Clare's "archive" and her "archiving" are just the liberal wishy-washy "definition" for deleting/removing articles she doesn't like.
Actually I'm happy about it and say thank you, because I learned now finally that IA is a total waste of time. It's a hen party where the really important threads and articles just disturb the nice tee time. World War III and God's second Flood is imminent so let's monkey around all day and deny that the world is in the hands of Satan's lackeys.
Actually I'm amazed about the general liberalization of the so called traditionalists and their forums like IA. This is also happening in other language areas. I see it at our German language SSPX chapels and friends from overseas tell me so, too. Well, we are truly ripe for God's chastisement. It's our only rescue.
Now back to the topic: Bishop Williamson's Appeal and why is there an appeal at all.
-
Actually I'm amazed about the general liberalization of the so called traditionalists and their forums like IA. This is also happening in other language areas. I see it at our German language SSPX chapels and friends from overseas tell me so, too.
Yes, these people have found a nice social club, a sense of belonging. Once they were rejected for being too religious, now they're the ones who reject the devout.
-
This liberal use of the word "liberal" is getting ridiculous. It's an abuse of language.
-
This liberal use of the word "liberal" is getting ridiculous. It's an abuse of language.
The liberal defense of modern music, pants, and last but certainly not least, and SSPX lawyers who toady to Jews but insult Catholic bishops - while picking the bishop's lawyer - that is what is ridiculous and abusive.
-
This liberal use of the word "liberal" is getting ridiculous. It's an abuse of language.
You only have yourself (and others like you) to blame for that. It became ridiculous because some liberals wanted to be apart of the "right" side of the sphere without actually being apart of it. This is why you see neo-Catholics who would love to believe that they're "conservative" (far from it) and neo-Trads who would love to believe that they're "trad" (also far from it).
See, you can't be anything BUT a liberal if you have a liberal way of thinking. Hanging around traditionalists or conservatives won't change the fact that you're a liberal.
-
Many thanks for this, Ethelred. Catholics must stand for and by the truth even if it means the sacrifice of our very lives.
:applause:
How many Catholics today really stand for the pure truth! Thanks Ethel for posting these items, and thanks to Catholic Info for allowing them to be posted.
One of Our CMRI priests said to me last week. "When the time of persecution comes, then we will see how many have the courage to remain Catholic".
-
I am not interested in that British Krahgate denying forum anymore. They're no friends of Bishop Williamson.
Ignis Ardens has shot itself in the foot.
Of course. I think that happened a few months before closing Krahgate. I think it happened when we opened it in the first place!
Still, it's not a mortal wound, and it would be nice if some people didn't keep shooting Ignis in the foot at regular intervals.
Clare, why do you think IA keeps getting cut down? It wasn't fair that Ethelred's posts were deleted. Your forum seems to be very Bishop Fellay friendly. As soon as he got upset about that thread on your forum, you locked it and basically said "Sorry, won't happen again". Now it appears your forum members must suffer because of it.
-
The mention of lawyers reminded me of:
Krahgate Revisited
http://cathinfo-warning-pornography!/Ignis_Ardens/index.php?showtopic=6517&hl=
Re-reading recently the initial posting of William of Norwich, I came to realise that it was a positive gold mine of information. But, like gold mines, it was necessary to do a lot more digging so as to find the true nuggets of value present. Therefore, this posting may be quite long, but I hope that it will be fruitful and that it will serve the cause of truth.
The first thing that I would recommend to those who are disturbed or worried about the facts surrounding Krahgate is to take a look around the Emba-Global website in order to discover precisely what this Business School is all about. You may access it at www.emba-global.com
Here is how the sales pitch of this company starts:
“The EMBA-Global programme brings together an elite international network of business
professionals. Through the world-renowned faculty and unique global curriculum they have
exclusive access to the most illuminating ideas, ground-breaking research and innovative
international business practices. Whether students choose EMBA-Global Americas and
Europe or EMBA-Global Asia, together they will help create the future of global business.”
There is nothing unusual here folks, but take away with you that it is all about “going global.”
Under the section “Global Network” this idea is reinforced in this way:
“EMBA-Global students typically operate at an international level, working from different offices around the world, or managing teams in different locations. They represent an array of functions, sectors and nationalities. However, they share a keenness to challenge common perspectives and think on a global scale.”
Take away with you the idea that all those participating in this course are thinking globally and want to act globally.
Under the same section read this:
“On completing EMBA-Global, you become a life-long member of an exceptional, international alumni network totalling more than 75,500. Right from day one of the programme, you have access to this unparalleled pool of knowledge, business experience and networking opportunities.”
Take away with you the idea that this is no mere business school, but one that has as its intention to create a global managerial elite that will stay in touch with one another in the various businesses that their students embrace.
Under the section “Programme Details” read:
“Core courses are taught in a residential study block format that means you study over several consecutive days per month - alternating between London and New York.”
Take away with you the idea that you can drop in and see your friends fundraising for Tel Aviv University. Convenience itself – killing two birds (perhaps even Palestinians who are not “friends” of Tel Aviv University) with one stone!
From the same section read this:
“EMBA-Global has one intake each May and runs for 20 months.”
In the section on “Admission Requirements” please note:
“The calibre and diversity of EMBA-Global students is one of the key strengths that differentiates the programme from the world's other executive MBAs. The admissions process ensures that you will be studying alongside the brightest and the best.”
Take away with you the idea that this is the place to be for globalist wannabees.
In the same section, note some of the other requirements:
“a successful career trajectory with progressive experience over a number of years, managing people, projects, budgets or other resources.”
“transnational responsibilities or evidence that you are working towards these.”
“a worldwide perspective, with international exposure and aspirations, and an interest in building global networks.”
Go to the section on “Fees” and read:
The fees for the May 2011 intake of the EMBA-Global Americas and Europe programme are $144,156* (the equivalent of roughly £93,000 or €110,000.)
Fees include:
• Tuition
• Course materials, including most textbooks
• Accommodation for all teaching blocks through the first three terms
• Accommodation for the required International Seminar or Assignment.**
The first * indicates that fees may change at any time. The second ** indicates “One International Assignment or Seminar is included in the tuition fee. You may take one additional Seminar or Assignment, provided seats are available. If you choose to undertake an additional International Assignment or Seminar, there is a fee of US$4,000. Airfare for all study blocks and International Seminars and Assignments is the responsibility of the student.”
Needless to say, additional seminars and assignments are “encouraged” in order to boost your “networking experience.” But take away with you this idea: that the fees are extortionate for a five term, twenty month course. However it should be noted that if you, or the company that you work for, has the money to undergo this training you are clearly one of “the brightest and the best.”
Go and look at the section, Emba-Global Class of 2012, and look at the list of companies who have people registered on this course, which we are told leads to “friendships for life built through this intense transformational experience” - Citigroup, Maersk, MTV, Ericsson, HSBC Bank, Morgan Stanley, BNP Paribas, Goodyear, Cisco, Google, Microsoft, Nomura Holdings, CBS, Deutsche Bank, Hoffman La Roche, World Bank BASF, Merrill Lynch, Barclays Bank, Royal Bank of Scotland, Credit Suisse.
One final point before we cut to the chase.
Under “admission requirements,” it says:
“Employer support for the time you will be out of the office is required to apply to the programme. You must provide a signed letter from an authorised person within your company stating that they agree to allow you the required time away from the office to complete the programme. The authorised person may be your department head, president, CEO or head of HR.”
I regret that the run-up to the point has been lengthy, but the background is vital in understanding the portrait being painted. We are, naturally, coming to understand the background of Mr. Krah as a member of the Emba-Global Class of 2012.
In the Class of 2012 mug shots that you can access online, you will see that a standard format has been used: the student’s name, the student’s nationality, the student’s professional position, and then the company worked for. This is where things become interesting for avid students of Krahgate.
Max gives his name and nationality and profession, the latter being “lawyer.” The obvious company that ought to appear here is the legal firm of which he is a partner:
Link: Fetsch Rechtsanwälte http://www.dasoertliche.de/?id=10700323337...&arkey=14612000
Surprisingly it is not. Well then, ought it not to be Dello Sarto given that he is listed as the Manager of that company?
Link: Dello Sarto AG
http://translate.google.co.uk/translate?hl...D813%26prmd%3Db
It ought to be, but it is not. He lists as his employer the Jaidhofer Privatstiftung, the private Austrian Foundation, founded in 2006 by the SSPX. Why this choice? There must be a reason, but there cannot be many. Could it be that his legal business is not doing well, or could it be that alongside Citigroup, Microsoft and Credit Suisse, it looks rather puny, specially for someone who clearly wants to be among “the brightest and the best”? Whatever the reason, why not Dello Sarto given that he is listed as the Manager of that newly minted entity? Perhaps it too does not cut the ice? Why? Perhaps we need to scroll up a page or two to remind ourselves of something – that one of the entry requirements is “a successful career trajectory with progressive experience over a number of years, managing people, projects, budgets or other resources.” Clearly, for poor Max to get into the circle of “the brightest and the best” he had to demonstrate that he had wide experience and was used to handling “budgets” [meaning serious money] and it is plain that his peers at Deutsche Bank, Morgan Stanley and the rest have that experience in aces.
Go back to Emba-Global Class of 2012 and read the profiles of any selection of the students, and you should be struck by one thing: that the Jaidhofer Privatstiftung looks totally out of place if it is just a small business legal structure to aid the growth of the SSPX. When Max sat down to fill out his online application form, he would have been forced to choose the business structure that presented him to his potential Emba-Global colleagues in the best possible light.
One thing is for sure. Given that the Jaidhofer Privatstiftung is listed as his employer it means per his application - “Employer support for the time you will be out of the office is required to apply to the programme. You must provide a signed letter from an authorised person within your company stating that they agree to allow you the required time away from the office to complete the programme. The authorised person may be your department head, president, CEO or head of HR” – THAT SOMEONE AT THE HEAD OF THIS SPPX FOUNDATION AUTHORISED KRAH’S ADMISSION TO THE PROGRAMME.
This undeniable fact – because like so much else that has been brought to light is in the public domain – leads to a number of questions:
1. Who in authority signed this letter?
2. Why was he given this letter?
3. What possible benefit could the SSPX hope to gain by enrolling this Zionist agent on a massively expensive course designed for recruitment to a global managerial elite in thrall to the nєω ωσrℓ∂ σr∂єr and its worship of Mammon?
4. Did Krah pay for this course out of his own pocket or did the Foundation pay?
5.If he did, is the Jaidhofer Privatstiftung paying for his time when he is not working for them?
But the big question is this: WHAT IS THE JAIDHOFER PRIVATSTIFTUNG, AND WHY DID KRAH BELIEVE THAT THIS WOULD LOOK GOOD ON HIS APPLICATION TO EMBA-GLOBAL? THIS IS THE SIX MILLION DOLLAR QUESTION: WHAT IS THE JAIDHOFER PRIVATSTIFTUNG, AND WHAT WAS THERE ABOUT IT THAT CONVINCED THE EMBA-GLOBAL CROWD THAT MAX WAS ONE OF THEIR KIND? ANSWER THAT QUESTION, AND WE MAY BE CLOSE TO ANSWERING WHY A ZIONIST HAS SO MUCH CONTROL OF THE SSPX’S FINANCES AND WHY THE SPIRIT OF ARCHBISHOP LEFEBVRE HAS BEEN INCREASINGLY AND OBVIOUSLY PUSHED ASIDE IN FAVOUR OF AN INDULT-LIKE “TRADITIONALISM”
POSTSCRIPT
Credo posted the following recently on the Krahgate File from an anonymous source, but one that can be substantiated by a Google search:
Posted: Dec 9 2010, 04:51 PM
Dello Sarto AG
Timeline of Dello Sarto AG
Incorporation Date: 17-12-08
Company Start Date: 19-1-09
Board Members:
See: http://www.moneyhouse.ch/en/u/p/v/dello_sa...3.033.031-9.htm
Bernard Fellay
Emeric Baudot
Niklaus Pfluger
Maximilian Krah
Company Auditors:
19-1-09 to 8-6-10 Grant Thornton auditing AG
8-6-10 till present: Fidartis Revisions AG
Interesting facts about Fidartis Revisions AG:
One of the company’s signature authority is a Mr. Peter Josef Müller
Some interesting facts regarding Mr. Peter Josef Müller :-
Director of Company: Laetitia AG since 29-5-09
Administration board signatory of Laetitia AG: Maximilian Krah (individual signatory)
Peter Josef Müller replaced Peter Hochstrasser on the Board of Fidartis Revisions AG on the 9-7-10 with him having Joint Signatory Authority. Furthermore, Dello Sarto AG appointed Fidartis Revisions AG as auditors the month previous.
Whoever the anonymous source was, I thank you for your diligence in getting to the root of what is becoming more and more of an enigma. For the record, I would like to draw the attention of readers to the following small, but significant, points.
1. Both Muller and Krah joined the Board of Laetitia AG on May 29, 2009, and both have individual signatory rights. In fact the company was actually registered commercially on that very day.
2. The address of Laetitia AG is given as c/o Bader Law Firm, Grafenauweg 6, 6304, Zug/Train, Switzerland. “Zug” is the German for the town, “Train” the French name. A number of other firms, not associated with the SSPX, also operate from this address, and which give the Bader Law Firm as their point of reference. It would appear, therefore, that this address is little more than a brass plate on a postal box. Why not just list the law firm’s address in Zurich, specially given that any mail to Zug/Train is going to be redirected anyway?
3. Interestingly, the address of Dello Sarto, of which Krah is the named Manager, is exactly the same as that of Laetitia AG. Moreover, when you click on “Contact” for Dello Sarto or for Laetitia AG at http://www.moneyhouse.ch you find that there is no telephone number, fax number, email address or website listed.
4. In other words, Laetitia was commercially registered as a company in Switzerland just ten days before Fidartis Revisions AG took over as auditors of Dello Sarto AG, and Muller joined the board of Fidartis just one month later. A lot of legal/commercial work in such a short time.
If you wish to check out most of the details on companies given here, go to http://www.moneyhouse.ch
and type whatever it is you need to confirm.
5.A Google search for “Bader Law Firm, Switzerland” brings up nothing obvious, but google “BADERTSCHER Rechtsanwälte AG (Zurich)” and you will find it at
http://www.internationallawoffice.com/dire...47-4d5d5e739909.
Here is the content of the page. Please read it through to the end in order to grasp that the company associated with the SSPX-affiliate Dello Sarto is one more of those who are dedicated “to global interests and networks.”
BADERTSCHER Rechtsanwälte AG (Zurich)
• Address
Muhlebachstrasse 32
PO Box 769
Zurich CH 8024
• Country
Switzerland
• Phone
41 44 266 20 66
• Fax
41 44 266 20 70
• Email
info@b-legal.ch
• Website
www.b-legal.ch
• Offices
Zug, Zurich
• Languages
English, French, German, Hebrew, Italian
Work Areas
Administrative & Public Law, Administrative Law, Antitrust, Arbitration & Litigation, Banking, Banking & Finance, Bankruptcy, Capital Markets, Civil Law, Commercial Law, Company & Commercial, Competition, Construction, Contract, Corporate & Commercial, Corporate Law, Corporate/Commercial, Data Protection, E-commerce, Employment, Energy, Environmental Law, Estate Planning, Estate Planning & Administration, Finance, Health Care, Information & Communication Technology, Information Technology, Inheritance Law, Insolvency, Insurance, Insurance & Reinsurance, Intellectual Property, International Private Law, Liability, Litigation, Mergers & Acquisitions, Penal Litigation, Private Client, Public Law, Tax, Technology Law, Telecommunications, Transaction Law
Firm Description
BADERTSCHER is a nationally and internationally reputed Swiss law firm.
Our attorneys are members of the Zurich and the Swiss Bar Association as well as of various international law associations.
Most of them have an American or English post graduate degree and/or working experience abroad.
Our offices are located downtown Zurich.
BADERTSCHER is committed to the future, dedicated to quality and growth, involved in the rapid and important commercial and legal developments.
We advise in private and public law, focusing on commercial law.
Our clients are Swiss and foreign corporations, private individuals and governmental organizations.
Just like our clients, we are positioned at the forefront of events: one of our strengths is competent advice in new and complex areas of the law.
Specialization and commitment to quality and effective solution-oriented advice enable our attorneys to follow the rapid developments and to support our clients with our expertise in interdisciplinary fields such as restructuring, privatisations and cross-border transactions.
We stand for a continuous professional training of our attorneys, including post graduate programs.
Our attorneys also contribute to the academic and legal policy developments by publishing on a regular basis on the most current legal issues and by participating in national and international associations, experts commissions and seminars.
Part of the global legal marketplace
Close cooperations with leading foreign law firms without being bound to any exclusivity allow us to always offer the best quality legal services to our clients also in complex transactions involving several jurisdictions.
We also maintain well-established contacts with experts in fields other than law.
The languages skills of our attorneys enable us to render our services in English, German, Italian, French and Hebrew.
ONE FINAL OBSERVATION:
It is noteworthy that this firm deals in the international commercial language, Hebrew. More significant, however, is the question: WHO ADVISED THE SSPX TO ENLIST THIS LEGAL FIRM AND WHY? Is it really the case that the preservation of the Society’s patrimony and the raising of money – small sums according to Fr. Laisney’s recent posting – for the expansion of the Society’s work requires such high-powered and expensive lawyers, or is that I have misunderstood something and all these people are giving their time and effort free of charge, or even, “members of our faithful”?
-
The mention of lawyers reminded me of:
Krahgate Revisited
http://cathinfo-warning-pornography!/Ignis_Ardens/index.php?showtopic=6517&hl=
Re-reading recently the initial posting of William of Norwich, I came to realise that it was a positive gold mine of information. But, like gold mines, it was necessary to do a lot more digging so as to find the true nuggets of value present. Therefore, this posting may be quite long, but I hope that it will be fruitful and that it will serve the cause of truth.
The first thing that I would recommend to those who are disturbed or worried about the facts surrounding Krahgate is to take a look around the Emba-Global website in order to discover precisely what this Business School is all about. You may access it at www.emba-global.com
Here is how the sales pitch of this company starts:
“The EMBA-Global programme brings together an elite international network of business
professionals. Through the world-renowned faculty and unique global curriculum they have
exclusive access to the most illuminating ideas, ground-breaking research and innovative
international business practices. Whether students choose EMBA-Global Americas and
Europe or EMBA-Global Asia, together they will help create the future of global business.”
There is nothing unusual here folks, but take away with you that it is all about “going global.”
Under the section “Global Network” this idea is reinforced in this way:
“EMBA-Global students typically operate at an international level, working from different offices around the world, or managing teams in different locations. They represent an array of functions, sectors and nationalities. However, they share a keenness to challenge common perspectives and think on a global scale.”
Take away with you the idea that all those participating in this course are thinking globally and want to act globally.
Under the same section read this:
“On completing EMBA-Global, you become a life-long member of an exceptional, international alumni network totalling more than 75,500. Right from day one of the programme, you have access to this unparalleled pool of knowledge, business experience and networking opportunities.”
Take away with you the idea that this is no mere business school, but one that has as its intention to create a global managerial elite that will stay in touch with one another in the various businesses that their students embrace.
Under the section “Programme Details” read:
“Core courses are taught in a residential study block format that means you study over several consecutive days per month - alternating between London and New York.”
Take away with you the idea that you can drop in and see your friends fundraising for Tel Aviv University. Convenience itself – killing two birds (perhaps even Palestinians who are not “friends” of Tel Aviv University) with one stone!
From the same section read this:
“EMBA-Global has one intake each May and runs for 20 months.”
In the section on “Admission Requirements” please note:
“The calibre and diversity of EMBA-Global students is one of the key strengths that differentiates the programme from the world's other executive MBAs. The admissions process ensures that you will be studying alongside the brightest and the best.”
Take away with you the idea that this is the place to be for globalist wannabees.
In the same section, note some of the other requirements:
“a successful career trajectory with progressive experience over a number of years, managing people, projects, budgets or other resources.”
“transnational responsibilities or evidence that you are working towards these.”
“a worldwide perspective, with international exposure and aspirations, and an interest in building global networks.”
Go to the section on “Fees” and read:
The fees for the May 2011 intake of the EMBA-Global Americas and Europe programme are $144,156* (the equivalent of roughly £93,000 or €110,000.)
Fees include:
• Tuition
• Course materials, including most textbooks
• Accommodation for all teaching blocks through the first three terms
• Accommodation for the required International Seminar or Assignment.**
The first * indicates that fees may change at any time. The second ** indicates “One International Assignment or Seminar is included in the tuition fee. You may take one additional Seminar or Assignment, provided seats are available. If you choose to undertake an additional International Assignment or Seminar, there is a fee of US$4,000. Airfare for all study blocks and International Seminars and Assignments is the responsibility of the student.”
Needless to say, additional seminars and assignments are “encouraged” in order to boost your “networking experience.” But take away with you this idea: that the fees are extortionate for a five term, twenty month course. However it should be noted that if you, or the company that you work for, has the money to undergo this training you are clearly one of “the brightest and the best.”
Go and look at the section, Emba-Global Class of 2012, and look at the list of companies who have people registered on this course, which we are told leads to “friendships for life built through this intense transformational experience” - Citigroup, Maersk, MTV, Ericsson, HSBC Bank, Morgan Stanley, BNP Paribas, Goodyear, Cisco, Google, Microsoft, Nomura Holdings, CBS, Deutsche Bank, Hoffman La Roche, World Bank BASF, Merrill Lynch, Barclays Bank, Royal Bank of Scotland, Credit Suisse.
One final point before we cut to the chase.
Under “admission requirements,” it says:
“Employer support for the time you will be out of the office is required to apply to the programme. You must provide a signed letter from an authorised person within your company stating that they agree to allow you the required time away from the office to complete the programme. The authorised person may be your department head, president, CEO or head of HR.”
I regret that the run-up to the point has been lengthy, but the background is vital in understanding the portrait being painted. We are, naturally, coming to understand the background of Mr. Krah as a member of the Emba-Global Class of 2012.
In the Class of 2012 mug shots that you can access online, you will see that a standard format has been used: the student’s name, the student’s nationality, the student’s professional position, and then the company worked for. This is where things become interesting for avid students of Krahgate.
Max gives his name and nationality and profession, the latter being “lawyer.” The obvious company that ought to appear here is the legal firm of which he is a partner:
Link: Fetsch Rechtsanwälte http://www.dasoertliche.de/?id=10700323337...&arkey=14612000
Surprisingly it is not. Well then, ought it not to be Dello Sarto given that he is listed as the Manager of that company?
Link: Dello Sarto AG
http://translate.google.co.uk/translate?hl...D813%26prmd%3Db
It ought to be, but it is not. He lists as his employer the Jaidhofer Privatstiftung, the private Austrian Foundation, founded in 2006 by the SSPX. Why this choice? There must be a reason, but there cannot be many. Could it be that his legal business is not doing well, or could it be that alongside Citigroup, Microsoft and Credit Suisse, it looks rather puny, specially for someone who clearly wants to be among “the brightest and the best”? Whatever the reason, why not Dello Sarto given that he is listed as the Manager of that newly minted entity? Perhaps it too does not cut the ice? Why? Perhaps we need to scroll up a page or two to remind ourselves of something – that one of the entry requirements is “a successful career trajectory with progressive experience over a number of years, managing people, projects, budgets or other resources.” Clearly, for poor Max to get into the circle of “the brightest and the best” he had to demonstrate that he had wide experience and was used to handling “budgets” [meaning serious money] and it is plain that his peers at Deutsche Bank, Morgan Stanley and the rest have that experience in aces.
Go back to Emba-Global Class of 2012 and read the profiles of any selection of the students, and you should be struck by one thing: that the Jaidhofer Privatstiftung looks totally out of place if it is just a small business legal structure to aid the growth of the SSPX. When Max sat down to fill out his online application form, he would have been forced to choose the business structure that presented him to his potential Emba-Global colleagues in the best possible light.
One thing is for sure. Given that the Jaidhofer Privatstiftung is listed as his employer it means per his application - “Employer support for the time you will be out of the office is required to apply to the programme. You must provide a signed letter from an authorised person within your company stating that they agree to allow you the required time away from the office to complete the programme. The authorised person may be your department head, president, CEO or head of HR” – THAT SOMEONE AT THE HEAD OF THIS SPPX FOUNDATION AUTHORISED KRAH’S ADMISSION TO THE PROGRAMME.
This undeniable fact – because like so much else that has been brought to light is in the public domain – leads to a number of questions:
1. Who in authority signed this letter?
2. Why was he given this letter?
3. What possible benefit could the SSPX hope to gain by enrolling this Zionist agent on a massively expensive course designed for recruitment to a global managerial elite in thrall to the nєω ωσrℓ∂ σr∂єr and its worship of Mammon?
4. Did Krah pay for this course out of his own pocket or did the Foundation pay?
5.If he did, is the Jaidhofer Privatstiftung paying for his time when he is not working for them?
But the big question is this: WHAT IS THE JAIDHOFER PRIVATSTIFTUNG, AND WHY DID KRAH BELIEVE THAT THIS WOULD LOOK GOOD ON HIS APPLICATION TO EMBA-GLOBAL? THIS IS THE SIX MILLION DOLLAR QUESTION: WHAT IS THE JAIDHOFER PRIVATSTIFTUNG, AND WHAT WAS THERE ABOUT IT THAT CONVINCED THE EMBA-GLOBAL CROWD THAT MAX WAS ONE OF THEIR KIND? ANSWER THAT QUESTION, AND WE MAY BE CLOSE TO ANSWERING WHY A ZIONIST HAS SO MUCH CONTROL OF THE SSPX’S FINANCES AND WHY THE SPIRIT OF ARCHBISHOP LEFEBVRE HAS BEEN INCREASINGLY AND OBVIOUSLY PUSHED ASIDE IN FAVOUR OF AN INDULT-LIKE “TRADITIONALISM”
POSTSCRIPT
Credo posted the following recently on the Krahgate File from an anonymous source, but one that can be substantiated by a Google search:
Posted: Dec 9 2010, 04:51 PM
Dello Sarto AG
Timeline of Dello Sarto AG
Incorporation Date: 17-12-08
Company Start Date: 19-1-09
Board Members:
See: http://www.moneyhouse.ch/en/u/p/v/dello_sa...3.033.031-9.htm
Bernard Fellay
Emeric Baudot
Niklaus Pfluger
Maximilian Krah
Company Auditors:
19-1-09 to 8-6-10 Grant Thornton auditing AG
8-6-10 till present: Fidartis Revisions AG
Interesting facts about Fidartis Revisions AG:
One of the company’s signature authority is a Mr. Peter Josef Müller
Some interesting facts regarding Mr. Peter Josef Müller :-
Director of Company: Laetitia AG since 29-5-09
Administration board signatory of Laetitia AG: Maximilian Krah (individual signatory)
Peter Josef Müller replaced Peter Hochstrasser on the Board of Fidartis Revisions AG on the 9-7-10 with him having Joint Signatory Authority. Furthermore, Dello Sarto AG appointed Fidartis Revisions AG as auditors the month previous.
Whoever the anonymous source was, I thank you for your diligence in getting to the root of what is becoming more and more of an enigma. For the record, I would like to draw the attention of readers to the following small, but significant, points.
1. Both Muller and Krah joined the Board of Laetitia AG on May 29, 2009, and both have individual signatory rights. In fact the company was actually registered commercially on that very day.
2. The address of Laetitia AG is given as c/o Bader Law Firm, Grafenauweg 6, 6304, Zug/Train, Switzerland. “Zug” is the German for the town, “Train” the French name. A number of other firms, not associated with the SSPX, also operate from this address, and which give the Bader Law Firm as their point of reference. It would appear, therefore, that this address is little more than a brass plate on a postal box. Why not just list the law firm’s address in Zurich, specially given that any mail to Zug/Train is going to be redirected anyway?
3. Interestingly, the address of Dello Sarto, of which Krah is the named Manager, is exactly the same as that of Laetitia AG. Moreover, when you click on “Contact” for Dello Sarto or for Laetitia AG at http://www.moneyhouse.ch you find that there is no telephone number, fax number, email address or website listed.
4. In other words, Laetitia was commercially registered as a company in Switzerland just ten days before Fidartis Revisions AG took over as auditors of Dello Sarto AG, and Muller joined the board of Fidartis just one month later. A lot of legal/commercial work in such a short time.
If you wish to check out most of the details on companies given here, go to http://www.moneyhouse.ch
and type whatever it is you need to confirm.
5.A Google search for “Bader Law Firm, Switzerland” brings up nothing obvious, but google “BADERTSCHER Rechtsanwälte AG (Zurich)” and you will find it at
http://www.internationallawoffice.com/dire...47-4d5d5e739909.
Here is the content of the page. Please read it through to the end in order to grasp that the company associated with the SSPX-affiliate Dello Sarto is one more of those who are dedicated “to global interests and networks.”
BADERTSCHER Rechtsanwälte AG (Zurich)
• Address
Muhlebachstrasse 32
PO Box 769
Zurich CH 8024
• Country
Switzerland
• Phone
41 44 266 20 66
• Fax
41 44 266 20 70
• Email
info@b-legal.ch
• Website
www.b-legal.ch
• Offices
Zug, Zurich
• Languages
English, French, German, Hebrew, Italian
Work Areas
Administrative & Public Law, Administrative Law, Antitrust, Arbitration & Litigation, Banking, Banking & Finance, Bankruptcy, Capital Markets, Civil Law, Commercial Law, Company & Commercial, Competition, Construction, Contract, Corporate & Commercial, Corporate Law, Corporate/Commercial, Data Protection, E-commerce, Employment, Energy, Environmental Law, Estate Planning, Estate Planning & Administration, Finance, Health Care, Information & Communication Technology, Information Technology, Inheritance Law, Insolvency, Insurance, Insurance & Reinsurance, Intellectual Property, International Private Law, Liability, Litigation, Mergers & Acquisitions, Penal Litigation, Private Client, Public Law, Tax, Technology Law, Telecommunications, Transaction Law
Firm Description
BADERTSCHER is a nationally and internationally reputed Swiss law firm.
Our attorneys are members of the Zurich and the Swiss Bar Association as well as of various international law associations.
Most of them have an American or English post graduate degree and/or working experience abroad.
Our offices are located downtown Zurich.
BADERTSCHER is committed to the future, dedicated to quality and growth, involved in the rapid and important commercial and legal developments.
We advise in private and public law, focusing on commercial law.
Our clients are Swiss and foreign corporations, private individuals and governmental organizations.
Just like our clients, we are positioned at the forefront of events: one of our strengths is competent advice in new and complex areas of the law.
Specialization and commitment to quality and effective solution-oriented advice enable our attorneys to follow the rapid developments and to support our clients with our expertise in interdisciplinary fields such as restructuring, privatisations and cross-border transactions.
We stand for a continuous professional training of our attorneys, including post graduate programs.
Our attorneys also contribute to the academic and legal policy developments by publishing on a regular basis on the most current legal issues and by participating in national and international associations, experts commissions and seminars.
Part of the global legal marketplace
Close cooperations with leading foreign law firms without being bound to any exclusivity allow us to always offer the best quality legal services to our clients also in complex transactions involving several jurisdictions.
We also maintain well-established contacts with experts in fields other than law.
The languages skills of our attorneys enable us to render our services in English, German, Italian, French and Hebrew.
ONE FINAL OBSERVATION:
It is noteworthy that this firm deals in the international commercial language, Hebrew. More significant, however, is the question: WHO ADVISED THE SSPX TO ENLIST THIS LEGAL FIRM AND WHY? Is it really the case that the preservation of the Society’s patrimony and the raising of money – small sums according to Fr. Laisney’s recent posting – for the expansion of the Society’s work requires such high-powered and expensive lawyers, or is that I have misunderstood something and all these people are giving their time and effort free of charge, or even, “members of our faithful”?
John, Res ipsa loquitur
-
The mention of lawyers reminded me of:
Krahgate Revisited
http://cathinfo-warning-pornography!/Ignis_Ardens/index.php?showtopic=6517&hl=
ONE FINAL OBSERVATION:
It is noteworthy that this firm deals in the international commercial language, Hebrew. More significant, however, is the question: WHO ADVISED THE SSPX TO ENLIST THIS LEGAL FIRM AND WHY? Is it really the case that the preservation of the Society’s patrimony and the raising of money – small sums according to Fr. Laisney’s recent posting – for the expansion of the Society’s work requires such high-powered and expensive lawyers, or is that I have misunderstood something and all these people are giving their time and effort free of charge, or even, “members of our faithful”?
My thoughts on this subject are more along the lines of focusing on getting B. Williamson out of this muck (quick) instead of what lawyer AND from what firm.
Do you realize he will not be going to court for the actual accusations?
And that its really more about silencing the "good" priests (the narc. soc. priests will be allowed to continue to run the Trad. Mass into the ground)? And that it's about getting YOUR money/children?
My advise to B. Williamson is "DO NOT GET A NEW LAWYER". ALL lawyers are "officers of the court". ALL lawyers will be affiliated in one way or another with the Zionists. ALL lawyers will do what ever the Zionist judge wants them to do or face jail, apparently so in Germany.
The B. needs a lay adviser, likes from the "Freedom Rebels" www.freedomrebels.co.uk,. These are skilled lay advisers who would like no better then to help destroy the Zionist and their money grubbing, Satan worship actions.
Step back and take another perspective of the B. situation. Here is a very interesting exchange from people who want to keep Freedom of Religion and Freedom of Speech alive. Notice, too, on this tape that there is a German lawyer in jail for defending a conservative issue.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xFs2EYU4jAE&feature=related
I am very glad he "skipped" the appeals. From his last letter it seems he is still struggling as to what course to take.
Focus your prayers - that the B. does not get a lawyer or if he has one, that he drops him like a hot potato, and that he takes a new perspective of fighting for his freedom and YOURS.
sheep
-
Everybody who knows the "h0Ɩ0cαųst" lie, its basing of today's nєω ωσrℓ∂ σr∂єr (see Mr. Q quotation below), therefore the total Jєωιѕн control of Germany and many other countries, also knows that this show trial in a "German" court virtually cannot end with a just sentence.
Now Bishop Williamson's new attorney who is rubber-stamped by the Bishop Williamson hating Bishop Fellay, again invoked Mr Krah as a "witness" who took the chance and again defamed the good Bishop Williamson basically as a crazy idiot and worse. See John's quotations of the Zionist newspaper "Die Süddeutsche" in his opening post.
This indicates that this new attorney is not better than the two attorneys before. 2nd was the communist Green party man Mr Loßmann, and 1st was the SSPX attorney and Zionist/Jew Mr Krah (http://krahgate.blogspot.com).
Probably Menzingen would not have rubber-stamped the new attorney otherwise.
Maybe the new attorney thinks that by letting declare Bishop Williamson as an idiotic fool he could win the trial? Well, he can't. Not one "h0Ɩ0cαųst" show trial has been won in Jєωιѕн controlled Germany, no matter how important or unimportant the "h0Ɩ0cαųst" disputer was, because the "h0Ɩ0cαųst" world of lies is at stake.
@ "The smart Sheep": At the moment you can't yet "fight for his freedom and ours" in a totally Jєωιѕн controlled country like the "Bundesrepublik Deutschland" (Federal Republic of Germany, FRG). You can pray, of course.
If the Bishop loses this appeal then I hope that he's letting his attorney go to the next higher court. So hopefully another appeal is in the middle or late of next year. Then the entire satanic "European Union" and the so called "Bundesrepublik Deutschland" (which is not Germany but an usurper) won't exist anymore. Just take a look at Greece and you'll see why.
So basically the good Brisith Bishop could just wait and see!
Since we cannot expect justice from this Jєωιѕн controlled "German" court, I suggest to those people who are really interested in truth and justice -- you actually can't divide the two -- to take a closer look at the Auschwitz for Dummies (http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php/Truth-about-Auschwitz) article.
Mr. Q quoting Bischof Williamson, as posted here or on the lukewarm IA forum on 23rd December 2010:
One may object: but Revisionism is not the battle of the SSPX. No-one with sense disputes that. But one can and one must inform oneself sufficiently in private to avoid saying in public those things such as (were) said in „Der Spiegel“, for example, that the historicity of the Six Millions „is obvious.“ That is, unless one is ready to lie, consciously or unconsciously, to the general public. As for myself, when I made that response on Swedish television, it is obvious that I was not trying to make Revisionism the battle of the SSPX; I was only trying to give a true answer to a question which is very important for western civilization. Has not an entire post-war world order been constructed on the Six Millions? In the head of Mr. Average Citizen, have they not become the measure of evil (nαzιsm) and of good (Judaism)? Yet to say that I want to make of this the battle of the SSPX is a caricature. I don’t even make it my own personal combat. I am not the „Revisionist bishop“ any more than Mgr. Lefebvre was the „rebel archbishop.“
-
Thats why, dear Ethelred, I don´t quite understand why Bp. Williamson wanted to go on with his trial. There is absolutely no change of success in a German court anyway, may the lawyer be a Communist or National Socialist.
Well, whatever may be, I pray for the fall of the satanic European Union and the Federal Republic as well as a conversion of the home continent of the faith, culture and civilization.
-
Everybody who knows the "h0Ɩ0cαųst" lie, its basing of today's nєω ωσrℓ∂ σr∂єr (see Mr. Q quotation below), therefore the total Jєωιѕн control of Germany and many other countries, also knows that this show trial in a "German" court virtually cannot end with a just sentence.
Now Bishop Williamson's new attorney who is rubber-stamped by the Bishop Williamson hating Bishop Fellay, again invoked Mr Krah as a "witness" who took the chance and again defamed the good Bishop Williamson basically as a crazy idiot and worse. See John's quotations of the Zionist newspaper "Die Süddeutsche" in his opening post.
This indicates that this new attorney is not better than the two attorneys before. 2nd was the communist Green party man Mr Loßmann, and 1st was the SSPX attorney and Zionist/Jew Mr Krah (http://krahgate.blogspot.com).
Probably Menzingen would not have rubber-stamped the new attorney otherwise.
Maybe the new attorney thinks that by letting declare Bishop Williamson as an idiotic fool he could win the trial? Well, he can't. Not one "h0Ɩ0cαųst" show trial has been won in Jєωιѕн controlled Germany, no matter how important or unimportant the "h0Ɩ0cαųst" disputer was, because the "h0Ɩ0cαųst" world of lies is at stake.
@ "The smart Sheep": At the moment you can't yet "fight for his freedom and ours" in a totally Jєωιѕн controlled country like the "Bundesrepublik Deutschland" (Federal Republic of Germany, FRG). You can pray, of course.
If the Bishop loses this appeal then I hope that he's letting his attorney go to the next higher court. So hopefully another appeal is in the middle or late of next year. Then the entire satanic "European Union" and the so called "Bundesrepublik Deutschland" (which is not Germany but an usurper) won't exist anymore. Just take a look at Greece and you'll see why.
So basically the good Brisith Bishop could just wait and see!
Since we cannot expect justice from this Jєωιѕн controlled "German" court, I suggest to those people who are really interested in truth and justice -- you actually can't divide the two -- to take a closer look at the Auschwitz for Dummies (http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php/Truth-about-Auschwitz) article.
Mr. Q quoting Bischof Williamson, as posted here or on the lukewarm IA forum on 23rd December 2010:
One may object: but Revisionism is not the battle of the SSPX. No-one with sense disputes that. But one can and one must inform oneself sufficiently in private to avoid saying in public those things such as (were) said in „Der Spiegel“, for example, that the historicity of the Six Millions „is obvious.“ That is, unless one is ready to lie, consciously or unconsciously, to the general public. As for myself, when I made that response on Swedish television, it is obvious that I was not trying to make Revisionism the battle of the SSPX; I was only trying to give a true answer to a question which is very important for western civilization. Has not an entire post-war world order been constructed on the Six Millions? In the head of Mr. Average Citizen, have they not become the measure of evil (nαzιsm) and of good (Judaism)? Yet to say that I want to make of this the battle of the SSPX is a caricature. I don’t even make it my own personal combat. I am not the „Revisionist bishop“ any more than Mgr. Lefebvre was the „rebel archbishop.“
I agree with everything you say here. Great info.
I don't quite understand:
" If the Bishop loses this appeal then I hope that he's letting his attorney go to the next higher court. So hopefully another appeal is in the middle or late of next year. Then the entire satanic "European Union" and the so called "Bundesrepublik Deutschland" (which is not Germany but an usurper) won't exist anymore. Just take a look at Greece and you'll see why."
But what I am thinking is, Greece was bailed out again. The Zionist are still playing the game. They have to give "a way out" to continue being secret.
America has a de facto government also and if you know this "way out" you can use it. I was thinking along these lines when I suggest dropping the lawyer. There must be freedom groups in Germany who have found this " way out". Whether or not he goes to a higher court he must rid himself of lawyers.
sheep
-
"The smart sheep", Greece is only the first EU country to fall. All EU countries (and USA even more) are totally indepted and will have to be "bailed out" within the fraud money system owned by the Jєωιѕн FED and their worldwide investment banks (like the giant so called "German Bank" = "Deutsche Bank" with its criminal Jєωιѕн boss Joseph Ackermann).
So in the end all European countries are doomed and will see revolutions, choos and anarchism, like you see it now in Greece.
Whilst Satan and his chosen people, the Jews since their Deicide, work towards this point in order to take over the control, there was always one thing they hadn't reckoned with: the all-powerful Trinitarian God!
Oh, why didn't those European nations read the "Don't borrow!" Eleison Comment from Bishop Williamson! :-)
-
I don´t quite understand why Bp. Williamson wanted to go on with his trial. There is absolutely no change of success in a German court anyway
Well, dear Pyrrhos and fellow compatriot, I can think of:
(1) The humorous Bishop Williamson larks the Jews and their FRG-German lackeys
or
(2) Bishop Richard "Lionheart" Williamson knows that the nєω ωσrℓ∂ σr∂єr is about to fall now.
I think (2) is probable since he regularly mentions the immanent World War III and the Chastisement (Krah (http://www.kreuz.net/reader.2954.html) & Fr. Pfluger are in rage because of this).
Well, whatever may be, I pray for the fall of the satanic European Union and the Federal Republic as well as a conversion of the home continent of the faith, culture and civilization.
This prayer I join.
Long live the Emperor of the Sacrum Romanum Imperium,
Es lebe der Kaiser des Heiligen Römischen Reiches deutscher Nation, Schutzpatron der Hl. Kirche Christi!
-
Now Bishop Williamson's new attorney [...] invoked Mr Krah as a "witness" who took the chance and again defamed the good Bishop Williamson
I have been under the impression it was the attorney who called Krah as witness. Now a friend just told me he assumed that it is the Court who called Krah. I'm going to check this.
-
"The smart sheep", Greece is only the first EU country to fall. All EU countries (and USA even more) are totally indepted and will have to be "bailed out" within the fraud money system owned by the Jєωιѕн FED and their worldwide investment banks (like the giant so called "German Bank" = "Deutsche Bank" with its criminal Jєωιѕн boss Joseph Ackermann).
So in the end all European countries are doomed and will see revolutions, choos and anarchism, like you see it now in Greece.
Whilst Satan and his chosen people, the Jews since their Deicide, work towards this point in order to take over the control, there was always one thing they hadn't reckoned with: the all-powerful Trinitarian God!
Oh, why didn't those European nations read the "Don't borrow!" Eleison Comment from Bishop Williamson! :-)
Your right! What the all powerful Trinitarian God can do to them will be better than what we will ever be able to do or imagine.
Iceland did see the "Don't Borrow!" so did Japan and so did Lybia. Both tried or still are fighting it. Look what happened to them ( a little conspiracy theory here).
I still think they are afraid of us, right now. Finding out how to deal with them, understanding "the way out" and all. So many of us and so little of them. We all just have to educate ourselves and do the right thing.
sheep
-
Well, dear Pyrrhos and fellow compatriot, I can think of:
(1) The humorous Bishop Williamson larks the Jews and their FRG-German lackeys
or
(2) Bishop Richard "Lionheart" Williamson knows that the nєω ωσrℓ∂ σr∂єr is about to fall now.
I think (2) is probable since he regularly mentions the immanent World War III and the Chastisement (Krah (http://www.kreuz.net/reader.2954.html) & Fr. Pfluger are in rage because of this).
I kind of expected this, dear Ethelred, but I would have thought that another medium other than the German courts could be more effective.
Long live the Emperor of the Sacrum Romanum Imperium,
Es lebe der Kaiser des Heiligen Römischen Reiches deutscher Nation, Schutzpatron der Hl. Kirche Christi!
Vivat! Vivat! Vivat!
-
Well, dear Pyrrhos and fellow compatriot, I can think of:
(1) The humorous Bishop Williamson larks the Jews and their FRG-German lackeys
or
(2) Bishop Richard "Lionheart" Williamson knows that the nєω ωσrℓ∂ σr∂єr is about to fall now.
I think (2) is probable since he regularly mentions the immanent World War III and the Chastisement [...].
I kind of expected this, dear Ethelred, but I would have thought that another medium other than the German courts could be more effective.
Well, a friendly person indicated to me a third option:
(3) Some "h0Ɩ0cαųst" specialists like attorney Wolfram Nahrath sometimes find possibilities to make the "h0Ɩ0cαųst" court to abandon an action, i.e. to close the proceedings.
However, the standard media usually don't report about such cases, so in the published opinion such cases virtually don't exist. Here's the indicated link to one "h0Ɩ0cαųst" case where Nahrath managed to make a German court close the proceedings:
Kevin Käther’s questions that caused Berlin district court to drop his case (http://globalfire.tv/nj/11en/persecution/kevins_questions.htm)
(I didn't and don't know this case, so I can't explain it.)
Now we've to recall where we know the name Nahrath from... Bishop Williamson's choose as 3rd attorney Wolfram Nahrath, because in contrast to the other attorneys he knows that the "h0Ɩ0cαųst" is a lie and actually managed to make a German "h0Ɩ0cαųst" court close the proceedings.
Since Nahrath in former times was a member of the "national socialist" party NPD, Bishop Fellay publicly threatened Bishop Williamson with expulsion if he didn't kick Nahrath (*). This shows Bishop Fellay is one-eyed because he had no problems at all with his attorney and Zionist Krah choosing Loßmann as 2nd attorney for Bishop Williamson, with Loßmann being a member of the communist i.e. "international socialist" party Die-Grünen.
So I think it's just to say that Bishop Fellay deprived Bishop Williamson of using the best attorney for his case.
Because Bishop Fellay and of course his advisers Fr. Pfluger and Krah want to please the modern world and the Jew as its dominator, instead of always looking out for the truth and justice. By the way that's why he also thinks the current heretical pope who is totally world oriented is a great man.
Since way too many catholics do something similar, there's just one final rescue to bring truth and justice into a world virtually controlled by the Prince of Darkness and his human lackeys: God's (next) Chastisement. He that will not hear must feel!
(*) Today we know from the SSPX attorney and Zionist Krah's mouth that Bishop Williamson "is not being expelled mainly because of reasons of mercifulness". So he told in the court on 4th July. (Bischof Williamson werde »vor allem aus Gründen der Barmherzigkeit nicht aus der Bruderschaft geworfen« (http://www.regensburg-digital.de/williamson-prozess-bunter-vogel-brauner-schwarm/04072011/))
That sounds very hypocritical.
-
Since Nahrath in former times was a member of the "national socialist" party NPD, Bishop Fellay publicly threatened Bishop Williamson with expulsion if he didn't kick Nahrath (*). This shows Bishop Fellay is one-eyed because he had no problems at all with his attorney and Zionist Krah choosing Loßmann as 2nd attorney for Bishop Williamson, with Loßmann being a member of the communist i.e. "international socialist" party Die-Grünen.
Excellent point Ethelred. Yes, Bishop Fellay's attitude towards Krah and towards Krah's critics is not Catholic. Can anyone believe anymore, that Bishop Fellay cares about the Social Reign of Christ more than he does about money?
-
One of Our CMRI priests said to me last week. "When the time of persecution comes, then we will see how many have the courage to remain Catholic".
Yes, thank you, that's very well said, dear Emerentiana!
This will be the acid test. It's easy to say or write nice words in the circle of friends or in the Internet, but it's a different thing to say and do so confronting the persecution. Which will come definitely, see the messages of Our Lady in Fatima for example. But after this her Immaculate Hearth will triumph. So our sacrifices including the death of many of us will well be worth the price.
Let's always pray that Our Lord gives us the strength to remain catholic when it is really needed!
-
Can anyone believe anymore, that Bishop Fellay cares about the Social Reign of Christ more than he does about money?
You're right. The Bishop Williamson interview which caused the January 2009 hysteria in the world of Jews and in Menzingen was a real eye-opener in so many aspects. So even if the good Bishop doesn't win this appeal or if there should be another appeal in 2012 etc, the interview still brought excellent fruits.
There Bishop Fellay unfortunately decided to cooperate officially with the anti-christian Jєωιѕн agenda.
No matter which reasons Bishop Fellay has got and how strong the bad influence of his advisers, the rank liberal Fr. Pfluger and Zionist Krah, have been and still are: he cannot claim any longer to care about the universal Reign of Christ the King. That's also why his sermons are so weak and why he's got "mixed feelings" about the Newchurch's newbeneficiation of the newblessed JP2 by Newpope B16.
In this aspect Bishop Fellay is doublethinking and so it's no wonder he's close to the master of doublethinking, the Newpope, and downplays his heresies and false actions in such a way that's it's highly dangerous for the traditional catholics' faith.
This doublethinking -- i.e. trying to still be catholic but also to be an approved part of the modern world -- is not only happening in Menzingen but also with many SSPX priests and laity. So if God would not end the reign of the Prince of Darkness very soon with unimaginable drastic measures (according to the massive power of the devil because of our sins), nobody would survive spiritually.
God's imminent chastisement will be an act of mercy. No matter how terrible it's going to be (and according to virtually all prophecies including Fatima it will be the worst thing which ever happened on earth).
-
Your right! What the all powerful Trinitarian God can do to them will be better than what we will ever be able to do or imagine.
Yes, and Bishop Williamson surely knows this very well, too.
Iceland did see the "Don't Borrow!" so did Japan and so did Lybia. Both tried or still are fighting it. Look what happened to them ( a little conspiracy theory here).
Yes, I fully understand what you say. It's no "conspiracy theory" but "conspiracy practice" because it is happning in practice. Whoever tries to quit the FED controlled fraud Dollar system (Iraq, Lybia, Iran, etc) will be invaded and/or eliminated.
I still think they are afraid of us, right now. Finding out how to deal with them, understanding "the way out" and all. So many of us and so little of them. We all just have to educate ourselves and do the right thing.
Indeed. Since the world dominating Jєωιѕн globalists have their father, the devil, who coordinates and helps them, we can only win the battle if we too let coordinate us: by our heavenly father i.e. the Trinitarian God. Any effort to fight the enemies of mankind without supernatural help will fail miserably.
So:
Watch and pray, watch and pray, fifteen mysteries every day! (Bishop Williamson)
(No, I'm not at fifteen mysteries yet...)
-
So:
Watch and pray, watch and pray, fifteen mysteries every day! (Bishop Williamson)
(No, I'm not at fifteen mysteries yet...)
:pray:
Me neither.
-
It was bound to happen:
The pseudo-German show trial sentenced the British Bishop in the Jєωιѕн controlled Federal Republic of Germany today, 11th July.
The Bishop's defence said they disbelieve that a German court can sentence a British citizen because he gave an interview to a Swedish TV television broadcaster on German territory.
But it didn't help.
For us friends of the good Bishop it's relieving to know that the German court can't collect the surcharge of 6500 € = 5724 £ = 9100 $ from the British Bishop.
Probably that's not high enough a price to invade the country. And even if it was, there's not enough soldiers to do so because they've been sent to the slaughter (like the British and US-American soldiers) in areas which the Jews want to control.
God save Bishop Richard "Lionheart" Williamson!
-
Now the German Muzzle Demands Another 6.500 Euros from Bishop Williamson
The German Heil-Hitler Regime have rendered an illegal judgment, according to International Law, against Hero-Bishop Richard Williamson.
(kreuz.net, Regensburg) The District Court of Regensburg has punished Pius-Bishop Richard Williamson (71) with a further 6.500 Euro fine today.
This was according to the German media bosses.
For this reason, the court was affirming a judgment of the British Hero-Bishop from 2010 in what is, according to International Law, illegal.
At that time, the free Brit was still responsible for the 10.000 Euro fine levied previously.
http://www.kreuz.net/article.13517.html
-
I am distraught at the news. Is he going to jail?
sheep
-
@ "The smart Sheep":
The German court sentence doesn't affect the British citizen Bishop Williamson.
He should probably avoid Germany for the next months in order not to share the fate of the British King Richard Lionheart in Austria.
But that shouldn't be a problem, because he's a persona non grata for the (German-speaking) SSPX anyway. German-speaking catholics like me are very ashamed because of this for two and a half years now.
Probably the Bishop's defence is trying to get another appeal in the future which then would mean: case not closed yet.
@ Augstine:
Do you know that your cited Kreuz.net website actually protects the Zionist and SSPX attorney Maximilian Krah, who hates the good Bishop Williamson?
Test it: post a comment on Kreuz.net linking to the English Krahgate file (http://krahgatefile.blogspot.com/) or its German translation (http://krahgate.blogspot.com). Your post will be removed rapidly together with your account. Dozens of users tried to do so and got banned.
It looks like the Kreuzgate (http://krahgate.blogspot.com/2010/12/kreuzgate.html) unmasking is true and Kreuz.net is a fαℓѕє fℓαg operation.
-
@ "The smart Sheep":
The German court sentence doesn't affect the British citizen Bishop Williamson.
He should probably avoid Germany for the next months in order not to share the fate of the British King Richard Lionheart in Austria.
But that shouldn't be a problem, because he's a persona non grata for the (German-speaking) SSPX anyway. German-speaking catholics like me are very ashamed because of this for two and a half years now.
Probably the Bishop's defence is trying to get another appeal in the future which then would mean: case not closed yet.
.
Ok, thanks for the update.
sheep
-
Now the German Muzzle Demands Another 6.500 Euros from Bishop Williamson
The German Heil-Hitler Regime have rendered an illegal judgment, according to International Law, against Hero-Bishop Richard Williamson.
(kreuz.net, Regensburg) The District Court of Regensburg has punished Pius-Bishop Richard Williamson (71) with a further 6.500 Euro fine today.
This was according to the German media bosses.
For this reason, the court was affirming a judgment of the British Hero-Bishop from 2010 in what is, according to International Law, illegal.
At that time, the free Brit was still responsible for the 10.000 Euro fine levied previously.
http://www.kreuz.net/article.13517.html
It is not another or a further 6,500 Euros. The fine was lowered to 6,500 Euros from the original 10,000 Euros:
"The Regensburg appeals court on Monday confirmed the 2010 incitement conviction of Bishop Richard Williamson, though it lowered his punishment to a fine of €6,500 ($9,136)from the original €10,000, according to DAPD news agency."
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5j62LaeRpdwV2rLbZPc_JxO08i-oQ?docId=44575c7e6ac24b1c8c8a0486a807d2bf
or:
http://cathinfo-warning-pornography!/Ignis_Ardens/index.php?showtopic=7525&st=25&#last
-
Now the German Muzzle Demands Another 6.500 Euros from Bishop Williamson
The German Heil-Hitler Regime have rendered an illegal judgment, according to International Law, against Hero-Bishop Richard Williamson.
(kreuz.net, Regensburg) The District Court of Regensburg has punished Pius-Bishop Richard Williamson (71) with a further 6.500 Euro fine today.
This was according to the German media bosses.
For this reason, the court was affirming a judgment of the British Hero-Bishop from 2010 in what is, according to International Law, illegal.
At that time, the free Brit was still responsible for the 10.000 Euro fine levied previously.
http://www.kreuz.net/article.13517.html
It is not another or a further 6,500 Euros. The fine was lowered to 6,500 Euros from the original 10,000 Euros:
"The Regensburg appeals court on Monday confirmed the 2010 incitement conviction of Bishop Richard Williamson, though it lowered his punishment to a fine of €6,500 ($9,136)from the original €10,000, according to DAPD news agency."
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5j62LaeRpdwV2rLbZPc_JxO08i-oQ?docId=44575c7e6ac24b1c8c8a0486a807d2bf
or:
http://cathinfo-warning-pornography!/Ignis_Ardens/index.php?showtopic=7525&st=25&#last
Thanks
-
@ "The smart Sheep":
The German court sentence doesn't affect the British citizen Bishop Williamson.
He should probably avoid Germany for the next months in order not to share the fate of the British King Richard Lionheart in Austria.
But that shouldn't be a problem, because he's a persona non grata for the (German-speaking) SSPX anyway. German-speaking catholics like me are very ashamed because of this for two and a half years now.
Probably the Bishop's defence is trying to get another appeal in the future which then would mean: case not closed yet.
@ Augstine:
Do you know that your cited Kreuz.net website actually protects the Zionist and SSPX attorney Maximilian Krah, who hates the good Bishop Williamson?
Test it: post a comment on Kreuz.net linking to the English Krahgate file (http://krahgatefile.blogspot.com/) or its German translation (http://krahgate.blogspot.com). Your post will be removed rapidly together with your account. Dozens of users tried to do so and got banned.
It looks like the Kreuzgate (http://krahgate.blogspot.com/2010/12/kreuzgate.html) unmasking is true and Kreuz.net is a fαℓѕє fℓαg operation.
Yes, I noticed that. AQ is the same way.
I think Krah is a scoundrel who speaks presumptuously and insultingly about Bishop Williamson, plus he's a big Madonna fan.
As for kreuznet being a fαℓѕє fℓαg, I don't know. Is it possible that they are misguided at this point? Aren't they often painted with the Anti-Semitism brush enough?
In any event, I think Bishop Fellay is in for a rude awakening if he thinks that making condemnations of "anti-Semitism" is going to make things easier for the Society.
-
Yes, I noticed that. AQ is the same way.
I think Krah is a scoundrel who speaks presumptuously and insultingly about Bishop Williamson, plus he's a big Madonna fan.
Yes, that's true.
The worrying part is that Fr. Pfluger and Zionist Krah are close friends, and that Bishop Fellay listens to Krah, so Krah's or rather his backers' influence in Menzingen is huge.
As for kreuznet being a fαℓѕє fℓαg, I don't know. Is it possible that they are misguided at this point? Aren't they often painted with the Anti-Semitism brush enough?
Yes, on the one side they are because of their criticism against Zionist state "Israel", against Sodomy, etc.
But on the other hand they love to use the Jew's favourite "nαzι"-club themselves for their opponents (i.e. insulting German opponents as "nαzι"), as found in your cited article where they untruthfully call the German court a "nαzι"-court ("Heil-Hitler-Regime" blah blah).
Well, I don't know what they're, but I am sure we're save in not trusting them because they protect the Zionist Krah.
I think Bishop Fellay is in for a rude awakening if he thinks that making condemnations of "anti-Semitism" is going to make things easier for the Society.
Oh yes, I agree. If the enemies of Our Lord see that somebody bends like a worm in front of them, they're going to trample on him all the more.
Our Lord Jesus Christ alone brings mercifulness and righteousness, and those waiting for the Anti-Christ for 2000 years now just bring incredible unmercifulness and unrighteousness.
P.S. Thanks Nemmersdorf for the clarification. Nice to see more members from lukewarm I.A. coming to the more traditional Cathinfo.
-
I support the SSPX, but I have a problem with Bishop Fellay's position. It is quite contradictive. He talks about dis-obeying Benedict even though he holds him as Pope, yet whenever Benedict is in his presence he's suddenly all smiles. Archbishop LeFebvre never acted like that. The biggest problem with his position is his stance on sedes and Jews. He's against fellow Traditional Catholics who just believe the Chair of Peter is empty, but has no problem with people who reject Christ? That is freightening. Fellay has really changed over the years, apparently. He went from saying 11 or 12 years ago that there are four Freemasonic lodges operating in the Vatican, to acting like Benedict is the greatest Pope since Pius X and that we must show great respect and admiration towards him. It's not that I dis-like Bishop Fellay, my position is just more in line with Archbishop LeFebvre's and Bishop Williamson's position than Fellay's.
So IA shouldn't be deleting harmless posts. Bishop Williamson didn't even do anything wrong, so what's wrong with discussing it?
-
The worrying part is that Fr. Pfluger and Zionist Krah are close friends, and that Bishop Fellay listens to Krah, so Krah's or rather his backers' influence in Menzingen is huge.
As for kreuznet being a fαℓѕє fℓαg, I don't know. Is it possible that they are misguided at this point? Aren't they often painted with the Anti-Semitism brush enough?
Yes, on the one side they are because of their criticism against Zionist state "Israel", against Sodomy, etc.
But on the other hand they love to use the Jew's favourite "nαzι"-club themselves for their opponents (i.e. insulting German opponents as "nαzι"), as found in your cited article where they untruthfully call the German court a "nαzι"-court ("Heil-Hitler-Regime" blah blah).
Well, I don't know what they're, but I am sure we're save in not trusting them because they protect the Zionist Krah.
Vielen Dank for the information. I was wondering myself about a change of tone at kreuznet some time ago. This would make quite a lot of sense...
The ever same phraseology, "nαzι"-club and everyday anti-Sodomy articles became very tiresome, exactly during the time when traditional Catholicism was getting some public attention - and some other Anti-Semitic groups were getting a better picture of Catholicism as a whole. Now kreuznet is nothing but ridiculous.
-
Pyrrhos, yes indeed.
Maybe kreuznet is not just ridiculous but intentionally acting like this in order to discredit for example real catholics.
Please don't miss the Kreuzgate (http://krahgate.blogspot.com/2010/12/kreuzgate.html) on the Krahgate file's German translation.
I don't know if the Kreuzgate hypothesis applies in any detail but it provides enough hints to underline that something's wrong with kreuznet. As you say, many catholics are wondering about the extremely spiteful way of the kreuznet articles no matter what they report about.
As a catholic I don't believe in coincidences anymore and we know that the Enemies of God love their Kabbala. As Kreuzgate points out, the Internet domain "www.kreuz.net" was created on 14-May-2002 (http://whois.domaintools.com/kreuz.net) i.e. the birthday of "Israel". Looks like an honour to their real friends, if we remember that they also protect the Zionist Krah. Otherwise they exploit each and any scandal there is (real scandals, bloated ones and false ones), so why do they not only hush up the Krahgate but prevent readers from linking to it? Well, something is rotten in the state of Denmark.
-
And Mr. Krah strikes again! This time against a well-known sedevacantist priest and friend of Archbishop Lefebvre.
Google-Translation from http://www.virgo-maria.org/ (full article available there)
Bishop Fellay and Father Schmidberger directly deposit a criminal complaint against Father Schoonbroodt before the Public Prosecutor of the Belgians
Since June 21, 2011, the Superior of the SSPX and Father Schmidberger filed a criminal complaint with the Public Prosecutor of Belgium, against Father Paul Schoonbroodt, the last "excommunicated" living of holy 1988.
Taking the example of the former "bishop" Conciliar de Liège, the present and former successors of Archbishop Lefebvre hysterically persecute the priest who founded the Caramel of Quiévrain with the help of Archbishop Lefebvre and received the support of Archbishop to build his church, despite the persecution he suffered in the civil part of the Conciliar Church.
And it is as indicated verbally that he has provided the policeman who questioned the abbot Schoonbroodt that:
It shows three charges, provided that the abbot Schoonbroodt could learn about it in the absence of the possibility of access to the written complaint made ​​to him:
The association of St. Pius X Suresnes accused the abbot Schoonbroodt theft of intellectual property owned by the SSPX on public sermons of Archbishop Lefebvre.
Bishop Fellay and Maximilian Krah accuse the abbot Schoonbroodt libel for referring to the association's financial Bishop and business lawyer in the joint management of several investment companies.
Bishop Fellay and Maximilian Krah also accuse the abbot Schoonbroodt of racism and xenophobia.
Faced with these startling accusations from the two successors of Archbishop Lefebvre, Father Schoonbroodt made ​​a statement in which he strongly rejects these accusations.
This unprecedented action of Bishop Fellay and Father Schmidberger, justified by their common will to block the release of the full sermons of Archbishop Lefebvre they keep hidden for 20 years, sets out in broad daylight that Bishop Fellay and the Father Schmidberger run now for the Conciliar Church maçonnisée globalized and the apostate priest Ratzinger-Benedict XVI.
And they show publicly their ulterior motives: Bishop Fellay and Father Schmidberger behave in real enemies determined the abbot Schoonbroodt while in the same direction, they seek to curry favor and friendship of Father Ratzinger apostate Benedict XVI. The bishop and the Swiss German priest, his guru, have clearly chosen their side: that of the Conciliar Church globalized Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ and rejection of the battle of Archbishop Lefebvre against this apostate church Conciliar to preserve the Catholic priesthood sacrificial VALID sacramentally.
-
And Mr. Krah strikes again! This time against a well-known sedevacantist priest and friend of Archbishop Lefebvre.
Well, that's nearly unbelievable. So to sum up the three "charges" in own words :
(1) Fr. Schoonbroodt publishes sermons of the good Archbishop Lefebvre and because of this he's now persecuted by the "digital content industry" in Menzingen.
(2) Fr. Schoonbroodt published the French translation of the famous Krahgate, which unmasks the Zionist Krah and his helpers, and is persecuted because of this.
(3) Fr. Schoonbroodt is persecuted because of an alleged "racism" and "xenophobia". Well, there's the usual Jєωιѕн globalist agenda again which brainwashes the west since decades. This one's not worth one single comment.
So Bp. Fellay, Fr. Schmidberger and their Zionist bloodhound Krah now use the anti-christian, communist EU states in order to persecute the old Fr. Schoonbroodt.
The official SSPX leadership persecutes the propagation of Archbishop Lefebvre's words. What we heard as theoretical talking so far we've got now in cold print because of the "case Schoonbroodt".
How many souls converted to the holy roman-catholic Church because of the intense word of Archbishop Lefebvre? I personally know several of them and they're the most faithful catholics I know. The pseudo followers of the Archbishop however dare to choke off his important words which are just a tool of Good.
I think it's just to say that they're out of their little minds because they do so and because they think they could ally with the anti-christian European states in order to reach their ignoble goals.
It's an act against God to hinder the free publication of the important words of the Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre. There's no "copyright" for these words -- God alone owns them! So it's a treachery against God and his servant Archbishop Lefebvre. For sure this won't go unpunished.
Obviously as a punishment for their unfaithfulness they've already lost all judgement. We see it now and we already saw it when Bp. Fellay, Fr. Pfluger and Fr. Schmidberger publicly defamed Bishop Williamson beginning with January 2009.
This will soon drop back on them because the very same anti-christian states which they allied and now again ally with will persecute any christian and in particular any cleric. So will they join Bishop Williamson's exile? Hardly, because what my local SSPX priests who know that Menzingen, Jaidhof and Stuttgart are living in a dreamland, tell me: "When the soon to come persecution of Christians starts we priest will be killed first..."
Whilst I don't overall agree with www.virgo-maria.org , I can repeat what a trustfully SSPX priest knowing him told me: Fr. Schoonbroodt is a devout catholic priest who follows Archbishop Lefebvre. The legal actions against him by Bp. Fellay and Fr. Schmidberger, executed by their Zionist Krah, are unjust.
Concerning the famous Krahgate:
The English version is still online: krahgatefile.blogspot.com (http://krahgatefile.blogspot.com)
Also the German translation still is: krahgate.blogspot.com (http://krahgate.blogspot.com)
Better save them locally before they're being shot down. As Kreuznet proves, Krah observes any Krahgate publications and also this forum. :-)
P.S. an Krah: Auch Sie und Ihre Freunde sind bald fällig. Ihr verherrlichter Euro ist bereits mausetot und der restliche Wahnsinn, auf den Sie Ihre Sandburgen bauen, ebenfalls. Merken Sie sich: Gott läßt Seiner nicht spotten.
-
This is an eye-witness report by Michele Renouf about the 4th of July appeal of HE Bishop Williamson, as the only British presence:
Williamson-Process: his presence: REGENSBURG 4th JULY 2011
Even having attended the Regensburg Court hearing it is difficult to assess what effect the presence of Bishop Williamson would have been on the useful impact of his case to awaken public awareness – (as I would wish the SSPX to see it!) – the chance to re-institute and focus the minds of 1.1billion RCs plus others worldwide, on the pragmatic warnings in the New Testament, specifically:
1.) about the enslaving power of usury and 'media' bullying over persons and cultural sovereignty:
a: for instance why, in telling parables, Pontius Pilate washes his hands of Jєωιѕн Law...due to his fear of organised Jєωιѕн subversion against Rome;
b: for instance, why Jesus displays active contempt for the exploitative Temple moneychangers; and
2.) about the ethical incompatibility of the plausibly-argued yet deceptive concept of "ʝʊdɛօ-Christianity". This hyphenation [ʝʊdɛօ-Christianity] is a swindle, since Judaism is by its nature anti-gentile, while Christianity has been substantially de-Judaised in Classically gentile culture for two millennia.
Oddly enough, I learnt something more about the dilemma of the SSPX on my way, rather than at the court hearing in Regensburg (and that was what I was trying to explain to Sylvia Stolz [German lawyer who was given a three-year prison sentence and debarred from practising law for five years for the reason that she defended ‘too well’ the publisher/revisionist Ernst Zündel in court] when the journalists must have been snapping the photograph they took to use for their piece). It was this:
As it happened, whilst waiting at Munich airport by the carousel for my luggage to arrive, I noticed someone likewise waiting, sitting nearby reading a Bible. As I do, I went up to him to enquire if he had heard of the SSPX and what he thought about the persecution of Bishop Williamson who queries modern day Jew-ish accounts of history ... to learn that indeed he himself was one of the SSPX's priestly members!
I then asked if he would be attending the court hearing on the morrow (4th July). He said he was just going off on holiday, and even so, due to the extremely fragile state of the Society's German sector on this issue – (the mere mention of which, he said, instantly draws forth a deluge to drown any sympathiser) – that in any case he dare not attend without first having asked the Society's permission. Of course I ventured that he, like the good Bishop, would be acting in the role-model manner of the Society's founder who had to be disobedient in order to be Obedient.
An intellectually objective, steadfastly pleasant man – (even as I complained to him about what I took to be the feeble attitude of the German sector towards supporting the Society's most rigorous Bishop) – he patiently explained their knife-edge position. On hearing from him how one of the SSPX high schools had been closed down, I asked whether this had occurred before or after the predatory entrapment laid for the Bishop via Swedish TV. Apparently the high school closure occurred BEFORE. Ah, then the inevitable pressure to close down the SSPX (because of, no doubt, its adherence to the traditionally inherent warnings about the predatory тαℓмυdic exponents) in Germany did not commence with the anti-h0Ɩ0cαųstianity heresy of Bishop Williamson. This being so, then in the new political arena which suddenly I saw, the Society must not allow itself to believe that it is his "heresy" and not the oxymoronically hyphenated ʝʊdɛօ-Christianity heresy (as ushered in with the Vatican2 fraud) which is the real problem.
In other words the Society's enemies must not be allowed to camouflage what is really going on. For if the Society is given the misleading signal to believe it is Williamson's Revisionism and not Jєωιѕн anti-gentile subversion that is aiming to remove the warning against тαℓмυdic subversion (as in traditional Christian teaching), then the SSPX battle for the disoriented minds of the 1.1 billion RCs will be a dead loss. ("Saul" not "Paul", as it were, will have triumphed! – and a first opportunity towards building a fearless assertion of Revisionism's right to demand source-criticism without privileged exception would have gone unrisen.) A very great double pity indeed since at present the SSPX has access to a larger, organised following than has Revisionism. After all, on this theme of h0Ɩ0cαųstianity (which has usurped the spiritual and the historical truth, respectively), both SSPX and Revisionists serve to expose the self-same subversive, swindling influence.
I glimpsed then, what might be a fuller picture of the dilemma and its paradox. For if Bishop Williamson had decided to come to Regensburg (bringing himself to the fore by attending), we would all stand less of a chance of winning at the end of the day! The end of the day being ... as it only can be, at this stage, given Occupied German law ... when the public is continually exposed to the argument and maybe begins to wonder at the merits or otherwise of his case. After all, at this stage there would be no chance given for him to win the Revisionist case! Sylvia [Stolz] had thought that had the Bishop 'talked', then despite his inevitable imprisonment the public would start doing the talking. But I did not have the heart to say that, regrettably, no general public or even a suitably outraged international legal community was heard to talk about a young female lawyer's [Sylvia Stolz] imprisonment for simply defending her client "too well".
Having now attended the 4th of July hearing, I have high hopes that we can look forward, at this stage, to a certain reduction of the fear barrier in our de-conditioning of public opinion ... now that the case has "a Dr Schaller" [he took over from Sylvia Stolz the defence of the publisher/revisionist Ernst Zündel] for a lawyer in Professor Dr Weiler and his son. Together they act in a similar way, aiming simply to undermine the indictment by adhering strictly to a legalese strategy (rather than fighting for morality in law or for the application of the forensic norms of the Revisionist method). I mean, Attorney Professor Weiler will have tried to enter all evidence he can (all of which must be in at this closing stage) before taking the case up to the next two 'higher' legal stages ... which hopefully the public will get to hear about! That is what the Predator always dreads and at which point he generally backs down (such as in the Töben extradition case when the Crown Prosecution – acting on behalf of the German state – lost the initial stage, and then withdrew their Appeal rather than risk the case being openly dissected in our Parliament.)
Once Professor Weiler wins (as he can) by legalese methods and the Bishop is acquitted of "intention" to break "German law" which he clearly did not have - (since he was tricked at the end of a lengthy interview into giving those six minutes, unrelated to the supposed theme, but which were the main reason why the journalists had been commissioned to use as an attack on the SSPX) - then the Society's gullible leader and its subversive Judaic Predator will have only jelly to stand on when trying to nail the blame for SSPX closures in Germany on Williamson ( rather than recognise that it is the Predator's mission to close down the SSPX because of its faithfulness to the last vestige of pragmatic usefulness in the New Testament which is its warnings about Judaic behaviour ). This is one reason why it would be important for the German court to see the full footage of the interview, but the judges refused to subpoena this from the Swedish broadcasters, or to require the testimony of the Swedish journalists, if necessary by conference video link. This refusal to set the Bishop's six-minute "h0Ɩ0cαųst" heresy comments in their original context may be a basis for later appeals in the higher courts – which could overturn the Bishop's persecution by ruling that judges in the lower courts had erred.
In sum: An apt stage-set sign of this religious heresy trial on the wall in the Regensburg Courtroom is its fractured Cross. Sculpted out of two metal bars bent and disconnected into an inverted 'L' and an up-sidedown 'L', this ineffectual Crucifix oversaw the usual sixty attendees ( comprising press and public, with briefly three TV crews ) plus judiciary, and said it all! However, with the next court hearing of the British Bishop's case to be held in Nuremberg, this promises to re-open a can of worms (vigorous in claiming, as did five US judges in 1946, that "history goes by evidence not emotion")!
For the RC world at large to see it is because of SSPX's faithfulness to these pragmatic warnings that its existence is being threatened – (eg in England it was denied rights to buy a church property in Manchester) – this alone could be a potent force for reversing Vatican2's post-modernist fuzziness and thus the restitution of the better part of Christian faith which is its anti-Judaic, Buddhist clear-thinking freedom from greed and vanity. Judaism is ethically incompatible with the inseparable four Classical Virtues and the eight Christian Virtues which, inherently, do not aim like the Judiac Kol Nidre Prayer, for the nullification of oaths and vows to be made in the future, especially with gentiles unwarned nowadays by a fuzzied-down NT!
How keenly I urged that attentive priest at Munich airport to take a chance and tell the SSPX mis-leader Bishop Fellay:
Do not lead like an irresponsibly "nice" mother who only talks to her children about the similarity between dolphins and sharks.
Michele Renouf
-
Whilst I don't overall agree with www.virgo-maria.org [...]
The legal actions against him by Bp. Fellay and Fr. Schmidberger, executed by their Zionist Krah, are unjust.
Having taken a closer look at the website www.virgo-maria.org I don't at all agree with it. Also my mentioned priest doesn't know this website.
If Fr. Schoonbroodt is responsible for the content of virgo-maria, then he's just another dogmatic sedevacantist who's overshooting massively. Chaos here, chaos there.
Still, he's being sued for the wrong reasons. The charges of Bp. Fellay and Fr. Schmidberger are unjust.
It doesn't matter who publishes Archbishop Lefebvre's important sermons. Nobody must hinder them from being published.
Fr. Schoonbroodt was also right in publishing the French translation of Krahgate.
Sorry for being off-topic again. Thanks to Nemmersdorf for his very on-topic post.
-
There has been an addition concerning the defence lawyer Dr Schaller, as well as the author’s Moral and Morale Re-armament Campaign website.
This is an eye-witness report by Michele Renouf about the 4th of July appeal of HE Bishop Williamson, as the only British presence:
Williamson-Process: his presence: REGENSBURG 4th JULY 2011
Even having attended the Regensburg Court hearing it is difficult to assess what effect the presence of Bishop Williamson would have been on the useful impact of his case to awaken public awareness – (as I would wish the SSPX to see it!) – the chance to re-institute and focus the minds of 1.1billion RCs plus others worldwide, on the pragmatic warnings in the New Testament, specifically:
1.) about the enslaving power of usury and 'media' bullying over persons and cultural sovereignty:
a: for instance why, in telling parables, Pontius Pilate washes his hands of Jєωιѕн Law...due to his fear of organised Jєωιѕн subversion against Rome;
b: for instance, why Jesus displays active contempt for the exploitative Temple moneychangers; and
2.) about the ethical incompatibility of the plausibly-argued yet deceptive concept of "ʝʊdɛօ-Christianity". This hyphenation [ʝʊdɛօ-Christianity] is a swindle, since Judaism is by its nature anti-gentile, while Christianity has been substantially de-Judaised in Classically gentile culture for two millennia.
Oddly enough, I learnt something more about the dilemma of the SSPX on my way, rather than at the court hearing in Regensburg (and that was what I was trying to explain to Sylvia Stolz [German lawyer who was given a three-year prison sentence and debarred from practising law for five years for the reason that she defended ‘too well’ the publisher/revisionist Ernst Zündel in court] when the journalists must have been snapping the photograph they took to use for their piece). It was this:
As it happened, whilst waiting at Munich airport by the carousel for my luggage to arrive, I noticed someone likewise waiting, sitting nearby reading a Bible. As I do, I went up to him to enquire if he had heard of the SSPX and what he thought about the persecution of Bishop Williamson who queries modern day Jew-ish accounts of history ... to learn that indeed he himself was one of the SSPX's priestly members!
I then asked if he would be attending the court hearing on the morrow (4th July). He said he was just going off on holiday, and even so, due to the extremely fragile state of the Society's German sector on this issue – (the mere mention of which, he said, instantly draws forth a deluge to drown any sympathiser) – that in any case he dare not attend without first having asked the Society's permission. Of course I ventured that he, like the good Bishop, would be acting in the role-model manner of the Society's founder who had to be disobedient in order to be Obedient.
An intellectually objective, steadfastly pleasant man – (even as I complained to him about what I took to be the feeble attitude of the German sector towards supporting the Society's most rigorous Bishop) – he patiently explained their knife-edge position. On hearing from him how one of the SSPX high schools had been closed down, I asked whether this had occurred before or after the predatory entrapment laid for the Bishop via Swedish TV. Apparently the high school closure occurred BEFORE. Ah, then the inevitable pressure to close down the SSPX (because of, no doubt, its adherence to the traditionally inherent warnings about the predatory тαℓмυdic exponents) in Germany did not commence with the anti-h0Ɩ0cαųstianity heresy of Bishop Williamson. This being so, then in the new political arena which suddenly I saw, the Society must not allow itself to believe that it is his "heresy" and not the oxymoronically hyphenated ʝʊdɛօ-Christianity heresy (as ushered in with the Vatican2 fraud) which is the real problem.
In other words the Society's enemies must not be allowed to camouflage what is really going on. For if the Society is given the misleading signal to believe it is Williamson's Revisionism and not Jєωιѕн anti-gentile subversion that is aiming to remove the warning against тαℓмυdic subversion (as in traditional Christian teaching), then the SSPX battle for the disoriented minds of the 1.1 billion RCs will be a dead loss. ("Saul" not "Paul", as it were, will have triumphed! – and a first opportunity towards building a fearless assertion of Revisionism's right to demand source-criticism without privileged exception would have gone unrisen.) A very great double pity indeed since at present the SSPX has access to a larger, organised following than has Revisionism. After all, on this theme of h0Ɩ0cαųstianity (which has usurped the spiritual and the historical truth, respectively), both SSPX and Revisionists serve to expose the self-same subversive, swindling influence.
I glimpsed then, what might be a fuller picture of the dilemma and its paradox. For if Bishop Williamson had decided to come to Regensburg (bringing himself to the fore by attending), we would all stand less of a chance of winning at the end of the day! The end of the day being ... as it only can be, at this stage, given Occupied German law ... when the public is continually exposed to the argument and maybe begins to wonder at the merits or otherwise of his case. After all, at this stage there would be no chance given for him to win the Revisionist case! Sylvia [Stolz] had thought that had the Bishop 'talked', then despite his inevitable imprisonment the public would start doing the talking. But I did not have the heart to say that, regrettably, no general public or even a suitably outraged international legal community was heard to talk about a young female lawyer's [Sylvia Stolz] imprisonment for simply defending her client "too well".
Having now attended the 4th of July hearing, I have high hopes that we can look forward, at this stage, to a certain reduction of the fear barrier in our de-conditioning of public opinion ... now that the case has "a Dr Schaller" [i.e. in 2006 he was successfully using strictly legalese methods when he obtained the release of the British historian David Irving from Vienna prison. He also took over from Sylvia Stolz the defence of the publisher/revisionist Ernst Zündel,] for a lawyer in Professor Dr Weiler and his son. Together they act in a similar way, aiming simply to undermine the indictment by adhering strictly to a legalese strategy (rather than fighting for morality in law or for the application of the forensic norms of the Revisionist method). I mean, Attorney Professor Weiler will have tried to enter all evidence he can (all of which must be in at this closing stage) before taking the case up to the next two 'higher' legal stages ... which hopefully the public will get to hear about! That is what the Predator always dreads and at which point he generally backs down (such as in the Töben extradition case when the Crown Prosecution – acting on behalf of the German state – lost the initial stage, and then withdrew their Appeal rather than risk the case being openly dissected in our Parliament.)
Once Professor Weiler wins (as he can) by legalese methods and the Bishop is acquitted of "intention" to break "German law" which he clearly did not have - (since he was tricked at the end of a lengthy interview into giving those six minutes, unrelated to the supposed theme, but which were the main reason why the journalists had been commissioned to use as an attack on the SSPX) - then the Society's gullible leader and its subversive Judaic Predator will have only jelly to stand on when trying to nail the blame for SSPX closures in Germany on Williamson ( rather than recognise that it is the Predator's mission to close down the SSPX because of its faithfulness to the last vestige of pragmatic usefulness in the New Testament which is its warnings about Judaic behaviour ). This is one reason why it would be important for the German court to see the full footage of the interview, but the judges refused to subpoena this from the Swedish broadcasters, or to require the testimony of the Swedish journalists, if necessary by conference video link. This refusal to set the Bishop's six-minute "h0Ɩ0cαųst" heresy comments in their original context may be a basis for later appeals in the higher courts – which could overturn the Bishop's persecution by ruling that judges in the lower courts had erred.
In sum: An apt stage-set sign of this religious heresy trial on the wall in the Regensburg Courtroom is its fractured Cross. Sculpted out of two metal bars bent and disconnected into an inverted 'L' and an up-sidedown 'L', this ineffectual Crucifix oversaw the usual sixty attendees ( comprising press and public, with briefly three TV crews ) plus judiciary, and said it all! However, with the next court hearing of the British Bishop's case to be held in Nuremberg, this promises to re-open a can of worms (vigorous in claiming, as did five US judges in 1946, that "history goes by evidence not emotion")!
For the RC world at large to see it is because of SSPX's faithfulness to these pragmatic warnings that its existence is being threatened – (eg in England it was denied rights to buy a church property in Manchester) – this alone could be a potent force for reversing Vatican2's post-modernist fuzziness and thus the restitution of the better part of Christian faith which is its anti-Judaic, Buddhist clear-thinking freedom from greed and vanity. Judaism is ethically incompatible with the inseparable four Classical Virtues and the eight Christian Virtues which, inherently, do not aim like the Judiac Kol Nidre Prayer, for the nullification of oaths and vows to be made in the future, especially with gentiles unwarned nowadays by a fuzzied-down NT!
How keenly I urged that attentive priest at Munich airport to take a chance and tell the SSPX mis-leader Bishop Fellay:
Do not lead like an irresponsibly "nice" mother who only talks to her children about the similarity between dolphins and sharks.
Michele Renouf
http://www.Jєωιѕнrepublic.com/
(this is the author’s Moral and Morale Re-armament Campaign website)
-
Whilst I don't overall agree with www.virgo-maria.org [...]
The legal actions against him by Bp. Fellay and Fr. Schmidberger, executed by their Zionist Krah, are unjust.
Having taken a closer look at the website www.virgo-maria.org I don't at all agree with it. Also my mentioned priest doesn't know this website.
If Fr. Schoonbroodt is responsible for the content of virgo-maria, then he's just another dogmatic sedevacantist who's overshooting massively. Chaos here, chaos there.
Still, he's being sued for the wrong reasons. The charges of Bp. Fellay and Fr. Schmidberger are unjust.
It doesn't matter who publishes Archbishop Lefebvre's important sermons. Nobody must hinder them from being published.
Fr. Schoonbroodt was also right in publishing the French translation of Krahgate.
Sorry for being off-topic again. Thanks to Nemmersdorf for his very on-topic post.
Thanks for this.
-
There has been an addition concerning the defence lawyer Dr Schaller, as well as the author’s Moral and Morale Re-armament Campaign website.
This is an eye-witness report by Michele Renouf about the 4th of July appeal of HE Bishop Williamson, as the only British presence:
Williamson-Process: his presence: REGENSBURG 4th JULY 2011
Even having attended the Regensburg Court hearing it is difficult to assess what effect the presence of Bishop Williamson would have been on the useful impact of his case to awaken public awareness – (as I would wish the SSPX to see it!) – the chance to re-institute and focus the minds of 1.1billion RCs plus others worldwide, on the pragmatic warnings in the New Testament, specifically:
1.) about the enslaving power of usury and 'media' bullying over persons and cultural sovereignty:
a: for instance why, in telling parables, Pontius Pilate washes his hands of Jєωιѕн Law...due to his fear of organised Jєωιѕн subversion against Rome;
b: for instance, why Jesus displays active contempt for the exploitative Temple moneychangers; and
2.) about the ethical incompatibility of the plausibly-argued yet deceptive concept of "ʝʊdɛօ-Christianity". This hyphenation [ʝʊdɛօ-Christianity] is a swindle, since Judaism is by its nature anti-gentile, while Christianity has been substantially de-Judaised in Classically gentile culture for two millennia.
Oddly enough, I learnt something more about the dilemma of the SSPX on my way, rather than at the court hearing in Regensburg (and that was what I was trying to explain to Sylvia Stolz [German lawyer who was given a three-year prison sentence and debarred from practising law for five years for the reason that she defended ‘too well’ the publisher/revisionist Ernst Zündel in court] when the journalists must have been snapping the photograph they took to use for their piece). It was this:
As it happened, whilst waiting at Munich airport by the carousel for my luggage to arrive, I noticed someone likewise waiting, sitting nearby reading a Bible. As I do, I went up to him to enquire if he had heard of the SSPX and what he thought about the persecution of Bishop Williamson who queries modern day Jew-ish accounts of history ... to learn that indeed he himself was one of the SSPX's priestly members!
I then asked if he would be attending the court hearing on the morrow (4th July). He said he was just going off on holiday, and even so, due to the extremely fragile state of the Society's German sector on this issue – (the mere mention of which, he said, instantly draws forth a deluge to drown any sympathiser) – that in any case he dare not attend without first having asked the Society's permission. Of course I ventured that he, like the good Bishop, would be acting in the role-model manner of the Society's founder who had to be disobedient in order to be Obedient.
An intellectually objective, steadfastly pleasant man – (even as I complained to him about what I took to be the feeble attitude of the German sector towards supporting the Society's most rigorous Bishop) – he patiently explained their knife-edge position. On hearing from him how one of the SSPX high schools had been closed down, I asked whether this had occurred before or after the predatory entrapment laid for the Bishop via Swedish TV. Apparently the high school closure occurred BEFORE. Ah, then the inevitable pressure to close down the SSPX (because of, no doubt, its adherence to the traditionally inherent warnings about the predatory тαℓмυdic exponents) in Germany did not commence with the anti-h0Ɩ0cαųstianity heresy of Bishop Williamson. This being so, then in the new political arena which suddenly I saw, the Society must not allow itself to believe that it is his "heresy" and not the oxymoronically hyphenated ʝʊdɛօ-Christianity heresy (as ushered in with the Vatican2 fraud) which is the real problem.
In other words the Society's enemies must not be allowed to camouflage what is really going on. For if the Society is given the misleading signal to believe it is Williamson's Revisionism and not Jєωιѕн anti-gentile subversion that is aiming to remove the warning against тαℓмυdic subversion (as in traditional Christian teaching), then the SSPX battle for the disoriented minds of the 1.1 billion RCs will be a dead loss. ("Saul" not "Paul", as it were, will have triumphed! – and a first opportunity towards building a fearless assertion of Revisionism's right to demand source-criticism without privileged exception would have gone unrisen.) A very great double pity indeed since at present the SSPX has access to a larger, organised following than has Revisionism. After all, on this theme of h0Ɩ0cαųstianity (which has usurped the spiritual and the historical truth, respectively), both SSPX and Revisionists serve to expose the self-same subversive, swindling influence.
I glimpsed then, what might be a fuller picture of the dilemma and its paradox. For if Bishop Williamson had decided to come to Regensburg (bringing himself to the fore by attending), we would all stand less of a chance of winning at the end of the day! The end of the day being ... as it only can be, at this stage, given Occupied German law ... when the public is continually exposed to the argument and maybe begins to wonder at the merits or otherwise of his case. After all, at this stage there would be no chance given for him to win the Revisionist case! Sylvia [Stolz] had thought that had the Bishop 'talked', then despite his inevitable imprisonment the public would start doing the talking. But I did not have the heart to say that, regrettably, no general public or even a suitably outraged international legal community was heard to talk about a young female lawyer's [Sylvia Stolz] imprisonment for simply defending her client "too well".
Having now attended the 4th of July hearing, I have high hopes that we can look forward, at this stage, to a certain reduction of the fear barrier in our de-conditioning of public opinion ... now that the case has "a Dr Schaller" [i.e. in 2006 he was successfully using strictly legalese methods when he obtained the release of the British historian David Irving from Vienna prison. He also took over from Sylvia Stolz the defence of the publisher/revisionist Ernst Zündel,] for a lawyer in Professor Dr Weiler and his son. Together they act in a similar way, aiming simply to undermine the indictment by adhering strictly to a legalese strategy (rather than fighting for morality in law or for the application of the forensic norms of the Revisionist method). I mean, Attorney Professor Weiler will have tried to enter all evidence he can (all of which must be in at this closing stage) before taking the case up to the next two 'higher' legal stages ... which hopefully the public will get to hear about! That is what the Predator always dreads and at which point he generally backs down (such as in the Töben extradition case when the Crown Prosecution – acting on behalf of the German state – lost the initial stage, and then withdrew their Appeal rather than risk the case being openly dissected in our Parliament.)
Once Professor Weiler wins (as he can) by legalese methods and the Bishop is acquitted of "intention" to break "German law" which he clearly did not have - (since he was tricked at the end of a lengthy interview into giving those six minutes, unrelated to the supposed theme, but which were the main reason why the journalists had been commissioned to use as an attack on the SSPX) - then the Society's gullible leader and its subversive Judaic Predator will have only jelly to stand on when trying to nail the blame for SSPX closures in Germany on Williamson ( rather than recognise that it is the Predator's mission to close down the SSPX because of its faithfulness to the last vestige of pragmatic usefulness in the New Testament which is its warnings about Judaic behaviour ). This is one reason why it would be important for the German court to see the full footage of the interview, but the judges refused to subpoena this from the Swedish broadcasters, or to require the testimony of the Swedish journalists, if necessary by conference video link. This refusal to set the Bishop's six-minute "h0Ɩ0cαųst" heresy comments in their original context may be a basis for later appeals in the higher courts – which could overturn the Bishop's persecution by ruling that judges in the lower courts had erred.
In sum: An apt stage-set sign of this religious heresy trial on the wall in the Regensburg Courtroom is its fractured Cross. Sculpted out of two metal bars bent and disconnected into an inverted 'L' and an up-sidedown 'L', this ineffectual Crucifix oversaw the usual sixty attendees ( comprising press and public, with briefly three TV crews ) plus judiciary, and said it all! However, with the next court hearing of the British Bishop's case to be held in Nuremberg, this promises to re-open a can of worms (vigorous in claiming, as did five US judges in 1946, that "history goes by evidence not emotion")!
For the RC world at large to see it is because of SSPX's faithfulness to these pragmatic warnings that its existence is being threatened – (eg in England it was denied rights to buy a church property in Manchester) – this alone could be a potent force for reversing Vatican2's post-modernist fuzziness and thus the restitution of the better part of Christian faith which is its anti-Judaic, Buddhist clear-thinking freedom from greed and vanity. Judaism is ethically incompatible with the inseparable four Classical Virtues and the eight Christian Virtues which, inherently, do not aim like the Judiac Kol Nidre Prayer, for the nullification of oaths and vows to be made in the future, especially with gentiles unwarned nowadays by a fuzzied-down NT!
How keenly I urged that attentive priest at Munich airport to take a chance and tell the SSPX mis-leader Bishop Fellay:
Do not lead like an irresponsibly "nice" mother who only talks to her children about the similarity between dolphins and sharks.
Michele Renouf
http://www.Jєωιѕнrepublic.com/
(this is the author’s Moral and Morale Re-armament Campaign website)
Many thanks for this, Nemmersdorf
-
http://cathinfo-warning-pornography!/Ignis_Ardens/index.php?showtopic=7525&st=50
Kindly stop insulting people!! It is not the first time I have told you.
Why is it so difficult for some people to attend to the relevant point of this thread entitled 'Bishop Williamson's appeal'? At least, Michele Renouf did attend the hearing - as the ONLY PERSON FROM BRITAIN!!! and she has made some very valuable points not only regarding Christianity, but also any further stage of the case.
Anybody reading these totally out of context, ridiculous and below-the-belt comments must wonder if this really is a Catholic forum, as there is no Christian charity evident at all. Furthermore, the content matter of the report appears to be too much above anybody's capabilities for a constructive comment.
Nemmersdorf has experienced insults and below the belt comments on a regular basis over at the Ignis Ardens forum. It's one thing to make a constructive comment but this Ashmolean throws insults. It's not right and certainly not Christian to do this.
-
http://cathinfo-warning-pornography!/Ignis_Ardens/index.php?showtopic=7525&st=50
Kindly stop insulting people!! It is not the first time I have told you.
Why is it so difficult for some people to attend to the relevant point of this thread entitled 'Bishop Williamson's appeal'? At least, Michele Renouf did attend the hearing - as the ONLY PERSON FROM BRITAIN!!! and she has made some very valuable points not only regarding Christianity, but also any further stage of the case.
Anybody reading these totally out of context, ridiculous and below-the-belt comments must wonder if this really is a Catholic forum, as there is no Christian charity evident at all. Furthermore, the content matter of the report appears to be too much above anybody's capabilities for a constructive comment.
Nemmersdorf has experienced insults and below the belt comments on a regular basis over at the Ignis Ardens forum. It's one thing to make a constructive comment but this Ashmolean throws insults. It's not right and certainly not Christian to do this.
This fellow is a distractor and a detractor, who is also very disrespectful to other forum members. My, how quickly he diverted that thread topic.
-
And Mr. Krah strikes again! This time against a well-known sedevacantist priest and friend of Archbishop Lefebvre.
Google-Translation from http://www.virgo-maria.org/ (full article available there)
Bishop Fellay and Father Schmidberger directly deposit a criminal complaint against Father Schoonbroodt before the Public Prosecutor of the Belgians
Since June 21, 2011, the Superior of the SSPX and Father Schmidberger filed a criminal complaint with the Public Prosecutor of Belgium, against Father Paul Schoonbroodt, the last "excommunicated" living of holy 1988.
Taking the example of the former "bishop" Conciliar de Liège, the present and former successors of Archbishop Lefebvre hysterically persecute the priest who founded the Caramel of Quiévrain with the help of Archbishop Lefebvre and received the support of Archbishop to build his church, despite the persecution he suffered in the civil part of the Conciliar Church.
And it is as indicated verbally that he has provided the policeman who questioned the abbot Schoonbroodt that:
It shows three charges, provided that the abbot Schoonbroodt could learn about it in the absence of the possibility of access to the written complaint made ​​to him:
The association of St. Pius X Suresnes accused the abbot Schoonbroodt theft of intellectual property owned by the SSPX on public sermons of Archbishop Lefebvre.
Bishop Fellay and Maximilian Krah accuse the abbot Schoonbroodt libel for referring to the association's financial Bishop and business lawyer in the joint management of several investment companies.
Bishop Fellay and Maximilian Krah also accuse the abbot Schoonbroodt of racism and xenophobia.
Faced with these startling accusations from the two successors of Archbishop Lefebvre, Father Schoonbroodt made ​​a statement in which he strongly rejects these accusations.
This unprecedented action of Bishop Fellay and Father Schmidberger, justified by their common will to block the release of the full sermons of Archbishop Lefebvre they keep hidden for 20 years, sets out in broad daylight that Bishop Fellay and the Father Schmidberger run now for the Conciliar Church maçonnisée globalized and the apostate priest Ratzinger-Benedict XVI.
And they show publicly their ulterior motives: Bishop Fellay and Father Schmidberger behave in real enemies determined the abbot Schoonbroodt while in the same direction, they seek to curry favor and friendship of Father Ratzinger apostate Benedict XVI. The bishop and the Swiss German priest, his guru, have clearly chosen their side: that of the Conciliar Church globalized Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ and rejection of the battle of Archbishop Lefebvre against this apostate church Conciliar to preserve the Catholic priesthood sacrificial VALID sacramentally.
Google translation
http://www.virgo-maria.org/
Father Méramo was expelled from the SSPX Bishop Fellay in the spring of 2010, because of his loyalty to Archbishop Lefebvre.
Father condemns the eclipse of Archbishop Lefebvre organized by Bishop Fellay. Father speaks of the righteousness of Méramo Bishop Fellay.
According to Father Méramo, the owner of the sermons of Archbishop Lefebvre is our Lord Jesus Christ, not the SSPX or Mgr:
"What title Bishop Fellay he assumes the exclusivity of the sermons of Archbishop Lefebvre, though neither he nor the Society of St. Pius X's heirs are organic? If the Superior General or anyone else in the Society of St. Pius X has a will in his favor, he shows, and even if so, that these powers exist for the propagation and distribution without hesitation of his testimony, not its censure and its retention or its drawers to put oblivion.
The sermons and everything was said Archbishop Lefebvre are the heritage of the Church and the sole owner is Jesus Christ. "
"The fact of preventing the faithful to have access to reports of Archbishop Lefebvre proves, illustrates and demonstrates the compromises of those responsible for this censorship with the masonry of the Vatican." Abbot Méramo
-
http://www.virgo-maria.org/
Dear Readers,
for nearly two months now, our website virgo-maria.org has been attacked by Bishop Fellay and the neo-SSPX who are abusing of the american law of the DMCA about the copyright. They abuse of this law in order to censore any kind of journalistic comment from Virgo-Maria.org.
By his behavior Bishop Fellay fails against the virtue of justice like it is required by the 7th and 8th commandments and manifests an inacceptable way of acting on the side of a Catholic bishop.
We will keep you informed of the following. From now on, we ask you to help us by your prayers and your financial support, so that we can keep on with the truth. We thank you very much.
Let's continue the right fight
Father Paul Schoonbroodt
-
http://www.virgo-maria.org/
Bishop had given me permission to make copies of these recordings for my personal archives with permission to share his teaching "
"I declare here that the Priestly Fraternity of Saint Pius X does not have full ownership of the sermons and public lectures ... This attitude of the Priestly Fraternity of Saint Pius X is distressing because it should rather rejoice in the release of about Archbishop Lefebvre for the greater good of souls. "Abbot Guépin
On March 29, 2011, Father Guépin took a position supporting the ESR, in the attack of the SSPX court (District of France - Abbot of Cacqueray) in summary proceedings against the Éditions Saint-Remi who came to sell, in three volumes, the full version (never released by the SSPX in 20 years) of 219 public sermons of Archbishop Lefebvre.
At a time when Bishop Fellay and Schmidberger and abbots Cacqueray (and Maximilian Krah) bear criminal complaint with the Public Prosecutor of Belgium, against Father Schoonbroodt to accuse him of having made known public sermons of Bishop Lefebvre, it is important to know that evidence of a close history of Archbishop Lefebvre. Father Guépin, who had the confidence of the founder of the SSPX, faithfully reproduce the thought of the Archbishop.
We call upon the clergy and the faithful to continue to show their support to Father Schoonbroodt to sign public statements on his behalf, to question their priests in the priories, and write to Bishop Fellay to show their indignation and to highlight his betrayal of his own consecration
-
Now Bishop Williamson's new attorney who is rubber-stamped by the Bishop Williamson hating Bishop Fellay, again invoked Mr Krah as a "witness" who took the chance and again defamed the good Bishop Williamson basically as a crazy idiot and worse. See John's quotations of the Zionist newspaper "Die Süddeutsche" in his opening post.
This indicates that this new attorney is not better than the two attorneys before. 2nd was the communist Green party man Mr Loßmann, and 1st was the SSPX attorney and Zionist/Jew Mr Krah.
Probably Menzingen would not have rubber-stamped the new attorney otherwise.
I have been under the impression it was the attorney who called Krah as witness. Now a friend just told me he assumed that it is the Court who called Krah. I'm going to check this.
Well, I checked it and what I wrote in the first instance was correct: Indeed not the prosecution but Bishop Williamson's attorney Mr Weiler called SSPX attorney Krah as "witness" who took the chance again to intensively and publicly defame the good Bishop in an utterly disgusting manner. What a hodman Krah is.
So Weiler is collaborating with the Zionist Krah as Loßmann was. That's the reason Weiler's been rubber-stamped by Bishop Fellay who detests Bishop Williamson (as proved by B.Fellay's public and private utterances and actions). They all work against Bishop Williamson and are actually fooling him. Menzingen doesn't allow an attorney who really defends Bishop Williamson like Mr. Wolfram Nahrath tried to do.
The whole case is a farce internally (Menzingen doesn't allow the Bishop to take a attorney who defends him) and externally (it's a show trial like the Nuremberg Trials). Disgusting.
I've completely lost any confidence in the SSPX' leadership presented by persons like B.Fellay, F.Pfluger and F.Schmidberger who all work hand in hand with Zionist Krah. I love Archbishop Lefebvre and his original SSPX very much, but clearly B.Fellay's SSPX is no longer the SSPX of the Archbishop! Some devout SSPX priests think so, too, so one day enough is enough.
-
I read the discussion on +Williamsons trial already for a while, and I cannot agree with you, Ethelred. Neither the h0Ɩ0cαųst nor the finance crisis is the business of the SSPX. The SSPX is only for saving the doctrine for the time of the crisis of the Church. And the vast majority of faithful are devout Catholics, but will never accept if their faith is abused for a political agenda. The SSPX is quite heterogenious. So, there are a plenty of people who aren´t interested in politics as well. But they can be good Catholics either.
I have never met with Dr. Krah, but I know people who have, and most of them had a very good impression of him. He is a SSPX-faithful, attending mass, and his legal actions and political advises seem to be quite useful and brought success. So, no wonder that he is well accepted by the leadership. Personally, he is described as friendly, polite, smart, and with good sense of humour.
When all the SSPX leaders as +Fellay and Fr. Pfluger, who is a very decent and devout priest, I met him in person, and all the others, do not support +Williamson in his political views - maybe it is because he is simply wrong?
I just want to tell you and all others that I trust in the SSPX leadership. I see no reason to distrust. I think, +Fellay is doing a pretty good job. And your arguments, dear Ethelred, do even strengthen my position. You write so much about the Euro which will collapse in two years and about the soon coming armaggedon etc. Sorry, I have heard such stuff since I´m with the SSPX. Nothing ever happens. And should it happen? Will it be to the glory of God if there is a revolution in Europe? Probably not. And if +Williamsons attorney calls Dr. Krah to witness, he will know why and for what reason. Even Lady Reouf did not attack Krah in her posting about the Regensburg trial. So she is fine, the attorney is fine, +Fellay is fine with that - only you who wasn´t there is not.
And the attack of the French SSPX against these Belgian sedisvacantists - what´s wrong with it? Virgo Maria slandered the SSPX over years, including +Williamson. To me it seems that there is a smart and efficient consultant who is well connected into the media, economy, and politics and who uses this advantage to help the SSPX. That´s a good thing, isn´t it? Maybe we should send him an email and ask him for a statement. It´s only just to give people the chance to explain. Especially when it is another Catholic. You should know the 9th commandment!
-
I read the discussion on +Williamsons trial already for a while, and I cannot agree with you, Ethelred. Neither the h0Ɩ0cαųst nor the finance crisis is the business of the SSPX. The SSPX is only for saving the doctrine for the time of the crisis of the Church. And the vast majority of faithful are devout Catholics, but will never accept if their faith is abused for a political agenda. The SSPX is quite heterogenious. So, there are a plenty of people who aren´t interested in politics as well. But they can be good Catholics either.
I have never met with Dr. Krah, but I know people who have, and most of them had a very good impression of him. He is a SSPX-faithful, attending mass, and his legal actions and political advises seem to be quite useful and brought success. So, no wonder that he is well accepted by the leadership. Personally, he is described as friendly, polite, smart, and with good sense of humour.
When all the SSPX leaders as +Fellay and Fr. Pfluger, who is a very decent and devout priest, I met him in person, and all the others, do not support +Williamson in his political views - maybe it is because he is simply wrong?
I just want to tell you and all others that I trust in the SSPX leadership. I see no reason to distrust. I think, +Fellay is doing a pretty good job. And your arguments, dear Ethelred, do even strengthen my position. You write so much about the Euro which will collapse in two years and about the soon coming armaggedon etc. Sorry, I have heard such stuff since I´m with the SSPX. Nothing ever happens. And should it happen? Will it be to the glory of God if there is a revolution in Europe? Probably not. And if +Williamsons attorney calls Dr. Krah to witness, he will know why and for what reason. Even Lady Reouf did not attack Krah in her posting about the Regensburg trial. So she is fine, the attorney is fine, +Fellay is fine with that - only you who wasn´t there is not.
And the attack of the French SSPX against these Belgian sedisvacantists - what´s wrong with it? Virgo Maria slandered the SSPX over years, including +Williamson. To me it seems that there is a smart and efficient consultant who is well connected into the media, economy, and politics and who uses this advantage to help the SSPX. That´s a good thing, isn´t it? Maybe we should send him an email and ask him for a statement. It´s only just to give people the chance to explain. Especially when it is another Catholic. You should know the 9th commandment!
I certainly disagree with you, Newman on points you have raised here. You mention Mr Krah. See this thread.
http://www.cathinfo.com/index.php/The-Unimpeachable-Krah
Maximilian Krah publicly claimed that he was an "unimpeachable Catholic."
When his public Facebook presentation was noted by outraged Catholics some very interesting insights into the diabolical character that is Maximilian Krah mysteriously disappeared from his Facebook account.
So, for the public record:
http://cathinfo-warning-pornography!/Ignis_Ardens/i...dpost&p=9654823
QUOTE
JMKViking
Has anyone viewed the facebook page of M. Krah? https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=125...iends&v=friends
I personally find a few interesting things on the page of a reported practicing Catholic and a 'traditionalist' at that. And among his 'friends' he is linked to the Israel Embassy of Berlin. I suppose that would make sense in his profession? And in Activities/Interests he lists Donald Rumsfeld. Very interesting indeed. He also is friends with the old chamber pot keeper J. Christopher Pryor.
QUOTE
AdoramusTe
Interesting also is that he lists Madonna among his favourite artists and the 'erotic drama' 9 1/2 Weeks as among his favourite movies, a description of which I will not post here as it is quite explicit! Those who are interested may read Wikipedia's article on it. If he is a Traditional Catholic then certainly he has given in to the world!
QUOTE
Elizabeth
Public admiration of [sic]Madonna is an endorsement of pure blasphemy, not to mention pornography.
QUOTE
JMKViking
Someone has apparently taken notice of the publicity generated due to M. Krah's FACEBOOK page...
9 1/2 weeks is absent from the page - REMOVED
Madonna is no longer a 'musical' entry - REMOVED
Why is this pornographic lusting creep allowed access to the St. Therese Girl's School in Germany?
Click on the graphic at the link to make it bigger.
St Theresien Gymnasium http://www.theresienstiftung.de/ueber-uns/...nsstruktur.html
The whole thing makes me sick to the bottom of my stomach.
-
Newman,
In relation to Max Krah.This extract is from ‘Veritas1961’ reply to Fr Laisney 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.
-
Neither the h0Ɩ0cαųst nor the finance crisis is the business of the SSPX.
Of course the 'h0Ɩ0cαųst' and finance is the business of the SSPX and for all Catholics. You seem to have a weak or false idea of the Catholic faith, Newman.There is alot more to Catholicism than praying and being good. There is a whole powerhouse of social doctrine. Catholicism has alot to do with political and economic matters. Traditional Catholicism is the answer to political and economic matters.
-
nor the finance crisis is the business of the SSPX.
Was Our Divine Lord only messing around with a piece of string in his hand in dealing with the money changers? I think not.Usury has been condemned so of course finance is the business of any Catholic serious about the faith. Both Communism and Capitalism have been condemned. It's strange a fellow Catholic would state finance is not our business.
-
Newman,
Posted on Cath Info and Ignis Ardens 23rd December 2010 and again more recently
Mr. Q quoting Bishop Williamson said:
One may object: but Revisionism is not the battle of the SSPX. No-one with sense disputes that. But one can and one must inform oneself sufficiently in private to avoid saying in public those things such as (were) said in „Der Spiegel“, for example, that the historicity of the Six Millions „is obvious.“ That is, unless one is ready to lie, consciously or unconsciously, to the general public. As for myself, when I made that response on Swedish television, it is obvious that I was not trying to make Revisionism the battle of the SSPX; I was only trying to give a true answer to a question which is very important for western civilization. Has not an entire post-war world order been constructed on the Six Millions? In the head of Mr. Average Citizen, have they not become the measure of evil (nαzιsm) and of good (Judaism)? Yet to say that I want to make of this the battle of the SSPX is a caricature. I don’t even make it my own personal combat. I am not the „Revisionist bishop“ any more than Mgr. Lefebvre was the „rebel archbishop.“
-
I respectfully disagree with Newman. I'm an SSPXer yet have a problem with the way +Fellay is running the Society. I'm pretty much turned off at how he took up for the Jews over his own fellow Bishop.
-
I strongly agree with Mr. Grace there. Being so much involved into mainstream politics and high-society, there is no way one could stay a Catholic.
I don´t mind when the faithful don´t take too much of an interest into politics, but one cannot be engaged in an anti-Catholic agenda and remain a faithful Christian.
The holy work of Archbishop Lefebvre seems to be a thing of the past. Fellay, Schmidberger, Cacqueray and Co. are definitely doing something very different...
-
Newman,
Do you believe that there are Zionists who want nothing but the destruction of the TRUE faith?
Who do you think +Williamson's opponents are?
sheep
-
John Grace, you are right! The wolves are among the flock now. We don't know exactly who or how, but they are here. They either jumped the fence when no one was looking or someone left a gate open for them.
Very large amounts of financial assets and real property are in play. Once mammon acends in such importance and influence, things change.
When great material holdings are aquired, one must engage and treat with the userers and the revilers of Christ in order to protect and increase the material goods.
We cannot serve two masters, and when you mix to deeply with the scoundrels of this world, you can lose control before you know what has happened.
A little compromise here or a bit of bending there really matters and how so.
It is a sometimes imperceptible leaning towards the first bend of the knee to the Dark Prince of this world.
Bishop Williamson knows that you cannot play thier game "just a little bit", to make things better. It can only make them worse.
JMJ
-
I'm pretty much turned off at how he took up for the Jews over his own fellow Bishop.
SS, Actually that is objectively, just how it looked. It gave public recognition and credibility to all of the calumnies and slanders which were being hurled at the Bishop, and in fact, it did the same to the attacks which were being leveled against the Society, the Pope, and the Church Herself.
-
Oh, I have engaged a debate what I didn´t want. I read all your postings seriously. But, nontheless, I cannot agree to you. Let me be the "advocatus diaboli" for some sentenses:
Concerning the h0Ɩ0cαųst, I trust in Pope Pius XII who repeatingly mentioned the nαzι murder of the European jews. There was no single Catholic bishop before Vatican II who doubted the fact of millions of jews peing murdered by the nαzιs. If we accept this to be the truth, we have to concede that +Williamson, who is a clear "revisionist", cannot play any official role within the SSPX. Concerning the finance crisis I am not an expert at all. I refered to Ethelreds prognosis on the Euro. And here I cannot see why a single European currency is against the social teachings of the Church. It was, btw, P. Pius XII who engaged the European Countries in 1955 to close the Roman treaties which are the founding of the EU.
If you are Catholic, you must not be communist, freemason etc. But you are not obliged to be monarchist, distributionst, or nationalist either, and probably +Fellay et al are right that you must not be a "revisionist". The German episcopate before 1933 even declared it impossible to be Catholic and member of the nαzι-party. Moderation is one of the Cardinal virtues, and I personally Like +Fellay for being moderate. Remember 1 King 19:11-12; God is not in storm, fire, and earthquake, but in the gentle whisper. Radicalness is not sustainable.
About Dr. Krah I wrote what I have heard. I would not take a Facebook-profile for important. If you look at it - I did it today - he gives a number of clasical music and pieces of literature as favourite. To have a pop-singer among is more a sign of honesty than of depravity. And, the view on such pop-music is maybe a bit different in Europe than in the US. Again: If so many decent priests and faithful share a high opion on him, we should be more careful when judging. I am not willing to break the 9th commandment, and I ask you to do so neither. Why not asking him? That´s the better and the Christian way. I don´t like to see how you speak about another Catholic without having first-hand information.
I found this page by random, and I´m far away from jufging about you. My intention is just to bring discussion back on a level of love, fairness, and moderation. I don´t think that all who are not on the side of +Williamson are bad, bought, and betrayers. I try to understand their arguments. At least here in Germany, the vast majority of the faithful is thankful for the clear position of the general house against +Williamson and his escapades. And I hear the same from France, Switzerland, and Austria. And the people who speak so are true Catholics. So please don´t blame them, but understand them. There might be arguments for both sides, who knows, and we do our best when we try to take them into consideration. This is what I want, presenting the others side arguments to cool down the athmospehre a bit :incense:
-
[/quote]About Dr. Krah I wrote what I have heard. I would not take a Facebook-profile for important. If you look at it - I did it today - he gives a number of clasical music and pieces of literature as favourite. To have a pop-singer among is more a sign of honesty than of depravity. And, the view on such pop-music is maybe a bit different in Europe than in the US. Again: If so many decent priests and faithful share a high opion on him, we should be more careful when judging. I am not willing to break the 9th commandment, and I ask you to do so neither. Why not asking him? That´s the better and the Christian way. I don´t like to see how you speak about another Catholic without having first-hand information.
I found this page by random, and I´m far away from jufging about you. My intention is just to bring discussion back on a level of love, fairness, and moderation. I don´t think that all who are not on the side of +Williamson are bad, bought, and betrayers. I try to understand their arguments. At least here in Germany, the vast majority of the faithful is thankful for the clear position of the general house against +Williamson and his escapades. And I hear the same from France, Switzerland, and Austria. And the people who speak so are true Catholics. So please don´t blame them, but understand them. There might be arguments for both sides, who knows, and we do our best when we try to take them into consideration. This is what I want, presenting the others side arguments to cool down the athmospehre a bit
You stated you haven't met Mr Krah so are you not relying on first hand information either or have you met Mr Krah?
Have you read the following, NewMan.It was posted by 'William of Norwich' on Angel Queen forum last November (2010)
http://krahgatefile.blogspot.com/2010/12/maximilian-krah-and-menzingen-cause-for.html
Maximilian Krah and Menzingen: A Cause for Serious Concern?
http://cathinfo-warning-pornography!/Ignis_Ardens/index.php?showtopic=6405
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-ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ, 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-ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ 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 “h0Ɩ0cαųst 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 “h0Ɩ0cαųst” 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-nαzιs,” 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 “nαzι” 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-nαzι,” 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 Jєωιѕн. 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 Jєωιѕн. 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, Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ 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 тαℓмυdic 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 Jєωιѕн 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.
-
NewMan,
http://krahgatefile.blogspot.com/2010/12/timeframes-and-motivations.html
Timeframes and Motivations
http://cathinfo-warning-pornography!/Ignis_Ardens/index.php?showtopic=6445
Since William of Norwich went public with his posting last Sunday, there has been huge interest in the thread that it generated. Most noticeable has been the volume of new information added, some of it disputed by a handful of posters, but much of it has been accepted as incontrovertible.
Over the last few days I have been looking back at the various comments and postings, and I believe there is something not quite right about the time frame. If I am right about this, it will have a huge impact on current conclusions.
We know for sure that on Wednesday, November 17, 2010 Matthias Lossmann contacted the German press agency, Deutsche Presse-Agentur (DPA), and told them that he would be standing down from the defence of Bishop Williamson in favour of another, and that "the name would soon be made public. 'You will then see why I no longer feel called for.'"
This statement by Lossman should be mulled over. Why did he feel the need to go to a press agency and say that he was no longer involved in the Williamson case? It is hard to believe that somebody involved with the ultra-politically correct Green Party would have been the object of hatred from members of the public or the gentlemen of press, and all the more so in that he made it clear at the April 2010 court case that he had nothing at all in common with Williamson’s views. In fact his comportment during the case demonstrated plainly that he was working against Williamson’s interest. We conclude that he was “baiting a media hook” for the “controversy” that was planned to erupt. He could have said nothing about the matter, and answer any questions in the event that they arose spontaneously. He didn’t, and this speaks volumes about his motivation, not just at that point in the affair, but from the outset.
We also know that on Thursday, November 18, 2010 Williamson’s new choice of lawyer, Nahrath, sent a communication to the new judge, Eisvogel, via her personal office fax. In it, he outlined the fact that he was now under instructions from Williamson and that he wished to request a postponement of the trial in order to get up to speed on the substance of the case.
We know too that Stefan Winters from Der Spiegel rang Nahrath within half an hour, and were already aware of his status as Williamson’s lawyer. How did they come across this information? Did the judge or a court official leak this material to these journalists? Possibly, but unlikely, given that even Eisvogel’s secretary did not know that Nahrath had sent the fax. If the judge had done so, she would have risked exposure and would undoubtedly have suffered legal sanction for professional misconduct. If it were a court official, he or she would have risked their jobs. It might be argued that there could have been a political motivation. It is possible, of course. But in the absence of even a semblance of information bearing on this, we have to dismiss it from our minds.
We know that Lossman knew who the new lawyer would be. We know this because he decided to stand down from the defence as a consequence of being unwilling or unable to work with Nahrath. Therefore, we have two possibilities. Either Lossmann contacted Der Spiegel himself, or he gave the information to that known associate of Der Spiegel, Maximilian Krah. The first option is improbable for the good reason that he could have contacted Der Spiegel from the beginning and blown the story wide open himself. The second is very likely, and we have an historical precedent in this matter.
A BRIEF DIGRESSION
Cast your minds back to the period preceding the Bishop’s trial which was set for April 16, 2010. On March 4, 2010, Williamson received a communication from Fr. Thouvenot in which he was informed, at the request of Bishop Fellay, to desist from a number of things. One of these was that he was “receiving a formal order forbidding him to appear before the court of Ratisbonne, and to leave it to his lawyers [Lossman and Krah] to stabilise the situation to your advantage, and to that of the SSPX of which you are a member.”
Why this order from Fellay? Was it a product of fear, or was it motivated by something else? Given that Lossmann was a dead loss as a lawyer, and did nothing to address the actual applicability of the law being brought against Williamson, and given that Krah was, as WoN pointed out, positively injurious to Williamson’s interests, it might be conjectured, reasonably I believe (particularly in the light of subsequent events), that Fellay wanted his chosen lawyers to have a freehand in the court, unhampered by any possible objections from Williamson. If Williamson had been present in the court, it is highly unlikely that he would have tolerated the antics of Krah and Lossmann and, given his ability to speak German, would have countered their mendacious and irrelevant nonsense. He might even have dismissed them on the spot and taken his defence upon himself. This is speculation, for we cannot know the mind of Fellay, unless he tells us what was his motivation, nor can we know what Williamson might potentially have said or done.
However, what follows is not conjecture. Just a couple of days before the trial itself a Der Spiegel journalist from Berlin rang Lossmann. The conversation went like this: “Is Mgr. Williamson going to attend the trial?” “No.” “Why not?” “Orders from his Superior.” “A written order?” “Yes.” “Can I see the text?” “No.”
Shortly after this exchange, Lossman receives a call from Krah: “Do you have the letter from Menzingen?” “Yes.” “Will you copy it to me?” The answer is in the affirmative, and Lossmann sends it on. About two hours later the same journalist rings Lossman and informs him that he now had a copy of Fellay’s order.
The chances, therefore, that Lossmann did not repeat this unprofessional conduct a second time and give information concerning Williamson and Nahrath to Krah are very slim. That Der Spiegel knew within 30 minutes of Nahrath’s appointment makes the Lossmann-Krah connection almost a moral certitude.
IS SOMEONE LYING?
We know that at roughly 9.00pm Swiss time, on Saturday, November 20, 2010, the SSPX General House posted on its website a statement issued by Fr. Thouvenot, at the explicit request of Fellay. It said in part that “The Superior General, Mgr. Bernard Fellay, learned from the press that Mgr. Williamson had revoked, just 10 days prior to his trial, the lawyer charged with his defence.” The statement concluded, as we all now know, by the assertion that if Williamson did not relieve himself of his “so-called neo-nαzι lawyer” Fellay would expel him from the SSPX.
Less well known is the fact that Fr. Thouvenot issued a further statement, at the instruction of Fellay, concerning Williamson on Sunday, November 21, 2010 early in the afternoon. It was sent by e-mail to the bishops and district superiors of the SSPX and was headed “Clarifications on the Press Statement of the General House,” and which had as its express aim to “explain” in greater precision the statement of November 20, 2010.
In its second paragraph, it stated: “Mgr. Williamson wished to engage a second lawyer who was politically well-known (“the only neo-nαzι lawyer in Germany not yet in prison,”** it is said). . . .The administrative court of Ratisbonne knew about the revocation of the first lawyer [Lossmann] on Wednesday, November 17, 2010 and the identity of his substitute began to seep out on Friday morning, November 19, 2010.”
[**Who exactly said this? Why the implication that all so-called “neo-nαzι” lawyers should be in prison? Why not Marxist ones, liberal ones and Zionist ones as well?]
How do I know about this second and lesser known statement? Because it was copied to me by a German-speaking clerical friend.
We know the following courtesy of Hollingsworth posted on page 3:
“I [Williamson] employ Nahrath. BpF sends Fr Angles to tell me (Friday mid-day) that unless I give up Nahrath he will expel me from the SSPX. It seems to me that my appeal can only go ahead with either a non-defending lawyer approved by Menzingen, or a truly defending lawyer that will not be approved by Menzingen. On my behalf Fr A e-mails (about 13h00 GMT Friday) to BpF that I give up appealing in front of the German courts, and ironically I add that it would be a kindness if Menzingen would pay the fine. BpF soon e-mails back, “Deo Gratias. No problem for paying the fine” (Friday, about 15h00 GMT).”
The time frame as outlined here is confirmed by the second and lesser known statement. It states in paragraph 4: “Mgr. Williamson made it known to Mgr. Fellay on Friday, November 19, 2010 in the early afternoon his desire to abandon the trial” and this for the good of the SSPX.
What needs to be made clear here is that Fr. Angles arrived in England on Friday morning, November 19, 2010 and breakfasted with the bishop. But Angles received his order to go to London to reason with Williamson very late Thursday evening, when Fellay was in Rome, at Albano for two days talking to priests of the Italian district. The mandate for Angles was to persuade Williamson to dump Nahrath as his lawyer and thus avoid expulsion. BUT THERE IS THE PROBLEM. For it means that Fellay knew about Nahrath on Thursday, November 18 – that is to say, he knew about Nahrath the same day that Nahrath wrote to Judge Eisvogel, the same day that Der Spiegel knew about Nahrath. Furthermore, the statement of November 20, 2010 says quite plainly: ““The Superior General, Mgr. Bernard Fellay learned from the press.” HERE IS ANOTHER PROBLEM.
Go to the following link and you will see the results of a search for “Nahrath and Williamson” in a news search.
http://news.google.com/news/search?pz=1&cf...oring=n&start=0
This search shows that there are 55 hits (as of 9.00pm GMT, December 4, 2010): the first coming on page 6 and the most recent on page 1. The story first appeared, based on a DPA (German Press Agency) release, on Saturday, November 20, 2010 in the Israeli newspaper, Ha'aretz. It was closely followed by Il Giornalettismo, a little-known online Italian paper, and then by Der Spiegel.
A search of Der Spiegel online, in both German and English, corroborates the news search above for its first mention of the Nahrath connection to Williamson appeared on Saturday, November 20, 2010. Put more clearly: nothing appeared in Der Spiegel or any other paper about Nahrath-Williamson before Saturday, November 20, 2010. Yet we know that Fellay spoke to Angles about this matter late on Thursday, November 18, 2010, inviting him to go to London; while the lesser known statement said that news about the Nahrath-Williamson connection “began to seep out on Friday morning, November 19, 2010.”
HOW DID BISHOP FELLAY LEARN FROM THE PRESS ABOUT NAHRATH-WILLIAMSON ON THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 18, 2010, WHEN NOTHING WAS PUBLISHED BY THE PRESS UNTIL TWO DAYS LATER?
There are only a couple of options:
1. Fellay had a premonition or “a hunch” about it.
2. He received some kind of grace from the Heavens about the matter.
3. He was informed by someone in the know by phone, fax, or e-mail of the details.
Option 3 is my preferred response, because it is the only viable option. Who are the candidates for informing Fellay? They are three in number: Der Spiegel, Matthias Lossman or Maximilian Krah. Where would you put your money?
Der Spiegel is unlikely at that stage because in the article of Saturday, November 20, 2010, Fr. Thouvenot is quoted. That means that in all probability, he was telephoned by Der Spiegel on the day before, Friday, November 19, 2010 as part of the final preparations for going live. Lossman is even less likely. He could have gone direct to Fellay on Wednesday, November 17, 2010, but he went either to Der Spiegel or Krah. Besides, given his politics, Lossman has no weight within the SSPX. That leaves our old buddy, Krah.
This timeframe means that Fellay had knowledge of the Nahrath question before the time that he claimed knowledge. It means that he had made a deal with Williamson on Friday, November 19, 2010 which put the whole matter to sleep, theoretically speaking. It means that the statement of the SSPX on November 20, 2010 was a stitch up, and the idea that it was to forestall a “huge press campaign” is palpable nonsense, because Fellay, knowing what we now know about the timeframe, could have told Der Spiegel that Nahrath was already out the picture on Friday afternoon when they telephoned for a quote on Friday, November 19, 2010. That Fellay did not mention the “deal” struck with Williamson on Friday speaks for itself. That he decided to go ahead with the condemnation and threat of expulsion on November 20, 2010 on the headquarters' website also speaks for itself. Yet more sickening is the constant reference to the fragile SSPX situation in Germany that has been regularly invoked since the Swedish television set-up. The clarification of Fellay-Thouvenot on Sunday, November 21, 2010 sent to the District Superiors uses this hoary “excuse” again. It says: “The situation in Germany is still tense, and where this new event will have the effect of a bomb and directly menace our apostolate, without mentioning our image, that is to say our reputation.” We have been hearing this since early 2009. What schools, priories or various other structures have been closed down by the German authorities? What priests, monks, sisters or others have been interviewed, questioned and charged with anything? According to my knowledge: none in any class. It is all fear-mongering aimed at marginalizing Williamson in the effort to cosy up to modernist Rome. If anybody wishes to dispute this point, please supply concrete examples - and by that I don’t mean statements by SSPX priests in Germany or elsewhere, but concrete actions by the German State.
One more nugget for readers to chew on. “The Clarification” posted on Sunday, November 21, 2010 justified putting up the condemnation on November 20 at Fellay’s insistence. Although the Fellay-Williamson “deal” had been struck on Friday, November 19, 2010, Fellay went ahead with the condemnation on the 20th because, although Williamson had dropped the lawyer, Nahrath, says, Fellay, Williamson had not informed the German court of his new decision. This is sophistry at its worst. We all know, now, that Angles informed Fellay of Williamson’s decision at 1.00pm GMT on Friday, November 19, 2010. The reply from Fellay came at 3.00pm GMT – that is to say, at 4.00pm in Switzerland and Germany. I have no personal experience of the habits of German bureaucrats, but my experience elsewhere is that Friday afternoon is the worst time to find, and seek the assistance of, any kind of bureaucrat who is looking forward to his “weekend of freedom” from his daily drudgery. Wasn’t Monday soon enough for Williamson to act? Well, no. Why not? Because of “the imminent and threatening press campaign.” Well, why didn’t Fellay tell them, personally or through Thouvenot, that Nahrath was already out of the picture? Ah, you never thought of that line? Perhaps Fellay could have telephoned Krah, since he has widespread contacts and could have found the perfect bureaucrat to solve both Williamson’s and Fellay’s problem on the Friday? Oh! Fellay never thought of that.
A further posting will come in a few days relating to Krah and Der Spiegel, my work and travel permitting (Somebody tell Maximilian to bookmark this blog!). In the meantime, I leave you with this thought.
In the second and lesser-known statement of Fr. Thouvenot to the Bishops and District Superiors, it states in the penultimate paragraph: “We have high hopes that Mgr. Williamson will not commit an irreparable act by allowing himself to be used by political constituencies which make use of our holy religion for ends which are foreign to it.”
Of course, all priests and bishops should avoid being used for unacceptable and disreputable politics, and it should apply, therefore, as equally to the Zionist Lobby now working on the SSPX through Krah and his half-hidden clique as it must to the neo-nαzιs. The big difference being, however, that the latter is a barely existent sect that sells sensationalist newspapers for secularists, whilst the latter is a world-dominating force. SO: let your “yes” be “yes” and your “no” be “no”!
-
NewMan,
http://krahgatefile.blogspot.com/2010/12/krahgate-revisited.html
Krahgate Revisited
The following is reposted on this blog. It was posted by 'Veritas' on Ignis Ardens
http://cathinfo-warning-pornography!/Ignis_Ardens/index.php?showtopic=6517
Re-reading recently the initial posting of William of Norwich, I came to realise that it was a positive gold mine of information. But, like gold mines, it was necessary to do a lot more digging so as to find the true nuggets of value present. Therefore, this posting may be quite long, but I hope that it will be fruitful and that it will serve the cause of truth.
The first thing that I would recommend to those who are disturbed or worried about the facts surrounding Krahgate is to take a look around the Emba-Global website in order to discover precisely what this Business School is all about. You may access it at www.emba-global.com
Here is how the sales pitch of this company starts:
“The EMBA-Global programme brings together an elite international network of business
professionals. Through the world-renowned faculty and unique global curriculum they have
exclusive access to the most illuminating ideas, ground-breaking research and innovative
international business practices. Whether students choose EMBA-Global Americas and
Europe or EMBA-Global Asia, together they will help create the future of global business.”
There is nothing unusual here folks, but take away with you that it is all about “going global.”
Under the section “Global Network” this idea is reinforced in this way:
“EMBA-Global students typically operate at an international level, working from different offices around the world, or managing teams in different locations. They represent an array of functions, sectors and nationalities. However, they share a keenness to challenge common perspectives and think on a global scale.”
Take away with you the idea that all those participating in this course are thinking globally and want to act globally.
Under the same section read this:
“On completing EMBA-Global, you become a life-long member of an exceptional, international alumni network totalling more than 75,500. Right from day one of the programme, you have access to this unparalleled pool of knowledge, business experience and networking opportunities.”
Take away with you the idea that this is no mere business school, but one that has as its intention to create a global managerial elite that will stay in touch with one another in the various businesses that their students embrace.
Under the section “Programme Details” read:
“Core courses are taught in a residential study block format that means you study over several consecutive days per month - alternating between London and New York.”
Take away with you the idea that you can drop in and see your friends fundraising for Tel Aviv University. Convenience itself – killing two birds (perhaps even Palestinians who are not “friends” of Tel Aviv University) with one stone!
From the same section read this:
“EMBA-Global has one intake each May and runs for 20 months.”
In the section on “Admission Requirements” please note:
“The calibre and diversity of EMBA-Global students is one of the key strengths that differentiates the programme from the world's other executive MBAs. The admissions process ensures that you will be studying alongside the brightest and the best.”
Take away with you the idea that this is the place to be for globalist wannabees.
In the same section, note some of the other requirements:
“a successful career trajectory with progressive experience over a number of years, managing people, projects, budgets or other resources.”
“transnational responsibilities or evidence that you are working towards these.”
“a worldwide perspective, with international exposure and aspirations, and an interest in building global networks.”
Go to the section on “Fees” and read:
The fees for the May 2011 intake of the EMBA-Global Americas and Europe programme are $144,156* (the equivalent of roughly £93,000 or €110,000.)
Fees include:
• Tuition
• Course materials, including most textbooks
• Accommodation for all teaching blocks through the first three terms
• Accommodation for the required International Seminar or Assignment.**
The first * indicates that fees may change at any time. The second ** indicates “One International Assignment or Seminar is included in the tuition fee. You may take one additional Seminar or Assignment, provided seats are available. If you choose to undertake an additional International Assignment or Seminar, there is a fee of US$4,000. Airfare for all study blocks and International Seminars and Assignments is the responsibility of the student.”
Needless to say, additional seminars and assignments are “encouraged” in order to boost your “networking experience.” But take away with you this idea: that the fees are extortionate for a five term, twenty month course. However it should be noted that if you, or the company that you work for, has the money to undergo this training you are clearly one of “the brightest and the best.”
Go and look at the section, Emba-Global Class of 2012, and look at the list of companies who have people registered on this course, which we are told leads to “friendships for life built through this intense transformational experience” - Citigroup, Maersk, MTV, Ericsson, HSBC Bank, Morgan Stanley, BNP Paribas, Goodyear, Cisco, Google, Microsoft, Nomura Holdings, CBS, Deutsche Bank, Hoffman La Roche, World Bank BASF, Merrill Lynch, Barclays Bank, Royal Bank of Scotland, Credit Suisse.
One final point before we cut to the chase.
Under “admission requirements,” it says:
“Employer support for the time you will be out of the office is required to apply to the programme. You must provide a signed letter from an authorised person within your company stating that they agree to allow you the required time away from the office to complete the programme. The authorised person may be your department head, president, CEO or head of HR.”
I regret that the run-up to the point has been lengthy, but the background is vital in understanding the portrait being painted. We are, naturally, coming to understand the background of Mr. Krah as a member of the Emba-Global Class of 2012.
In the Class of 2012 mug shots that you can access online, you will see that a standard format has been used: the student’s name, the student’s nationality, the student’s professional position, and then the company worked for. This is where things become interesting for avid students of Krahgate.
Max gives his name and nationality and profession, the latter being “lawyer.” The obvious company that ought to appear here is the legal firm of which he is a partner:
Link: Fetsch Rechtsanwälte http://www.dasoertliche.de/?id=10700323337...&arkey=14612000
Surprisingly it is not. Well then, ought it not to be Dello Sarto given that he is listed as the Manager of that company?
Link: Dello Sarto AG
http://translate.google.co.uk/translate?hl...D813%26prmd%3Db
It ought to be, but it is not. He lists as his employer the Jaidhofer Privatstiftung, the private Austrian Foundation, founded in 2006 by the SSPX. Why this choice? There must be a reason, but there cannot be many. Could it be that his legal business is not doing well, or could it be that alongside Citigroup, Microsoft and Credit Suisse, it looks rather puny, specially for someone who clearly wants to be among “the brightest and the best”? Whatever the reason, why not Dello Sarto given that he is listed as the Manager of that newly minted entity? Perhaps it too does not cut the ice? Why? Perhaps we need to scroll up a page or two to remind ourselves of something – that one of the entry requirements is “a successful career trajectory with progressive experience over a number of years, managing people, projects, budgets or other resources.” Clearly, for poor Max to get into the circle of “the brightest and the best” he had to demonstrate that he had wide experience and was used to handling “budgets” [meaning serious money] and it is plain that his peers at Deutsche Bank, Morgan Stanley and the rest have that experience in aces.
Go back to Emba-Global Class of 2012 and read the profiles of any selection of the students, and you should be struck by one thing: that the Jaidhofer Privatstiftung looks totally out of place if it is just a small business legal structure to aid the growth of the SSPX. When Max sat down to fill out his online application form, he would have been forced to choose the business structure that presented him to his potential Emba-Global colleagues in the best possible light.
One thing is for sure. Given that the Jaidhofer Privatstiftung is listed as his employer it means per his application - “Employer support for the time you will be out of the office is required to apply to the programme. You must provide a signed letter from an authorised person within your company stating that they agree to allow you the required time away from the office to complete the programme. The authorised person may be your department head, president, CEO or head of HR” – THAT SOMEONE AT THE HEAD OF THIS SPPX FOUNDATION AUTHORISED KRAH’S ADMISSION TO THE PROGRAMME.
This undeniable fact – because like so much else that has been brought to light is in the public domain – leads to a number of questions:
1. Who in authority signed this letter?
2. Why was he given this letter?
3. What possible benefit could the SSPX hope to gain by enrolling this Zionist agent on a massively expensive course designed for recruitment to a global managerial elite in thrall to the nєω ωσrℓ∂ σr∂єr and its worship of Mammon?
4. Did Krah pay for this course out of his own pocket or did the Foundation pay?
5.If he did, is the Jaidhofer Privatstiftung paying for his time when he is not working for them?
But the big question is this: WHAT IS THE JAIDHOFER PRIVATSTIFTUNG, AND WHY DID KRAH BELIEVE THAT THIS WOULD LOOK GOOD ON HIS APPLICATION TO EMBA-GLOBAL? THIS IS THE SIX MILLION DOLLAR QUESTION: WHAT IS THE JAIDHOFER PRIVATSTIFTUNG, AND WHAT WAS THERE ABOUT IT THAT CONVINCED THE EMBA-GLOBAL CROWD THAT MAX WAS ONE OF THEIR KIND? ANSWER THAT QUESTION, AND WE MAY BE CLOSE TO ANSWERING WHY A ZIONIST HAS SO MUCH CONTROL OF THE SSPX’S FINANCES AND WHY THE SPIRIT OF ARCHBISHOP LEFEBVRE HAS BEEN INCREASINGLY AND OBVIOUSLY PUSHED ASIDE IN FAVOUR OF AN INDULT-LIKE “TRADITIONALISM”
POSTSCRIPT
Credo posted the following recently on the Krahgate File from an anonymous source, but one that can be substantiated by a Google search:
Posted: Dec 9 2010, 04:51 PM
Dello Sarto AG
Timeline of Dello Sarto AG
Incorporation Date: 17-12-08
Company Start Date: 19-1-09
Board Members:
See: http://www.moneyhouse.ch/en/u/p/v/dello_sa...3.033.031-9.htm
Bernard Fellay
Emeric Baudot
Niklaus Pfluger
Maximilian Krah
Company Auditors:
19-1-09 to 8-6-10 Grant Thornton auditing AG
8-6-10 till present: Fidartis Revisions AG
Interesting facts about Fidartis Revisions AG:
One of the company’s signature authority is a Mr. Peter Josef Müller
Some interesting facts regarding Mr. Peter Josef Müller :-
Director of Company: Laetitia AG since 29-5-09
Administration board signatory of Laetitia AG: Maximilian Krah (individual signatory)
Peter Josef Müller replaced Peter Hochstrasser on the Board of Fidartis Revisions AG on the 9-7-10 with him having Joint Signatory Authority. Furthermore, Dello Sarto AG appointed Fidartis Revisions AG as auditors the month previous.
Whoever the anonymous source was, I thank you for your diligence in getting to the root of what is becoming more and more of an enigma. For the record, I would like to draw the attention of readers to the following small, but significant, points.
1. Both Muller and Krah joined the Board of Laetitia AG on May 29, 2009, and both have individual signatory rights. In fact the company was actually registered commercially on that very day.
2. The address of Laetitia AG is given as c/o Bader Law Firm, Grafenauweg 6, 6304, Zug/Train, Switzerland. “Zug” is the German for the town, “Train” the French name. A number of other firms, not associated with the SSPX, also operate from this address, and which give the Bader Law Firm as their point of reference. It would appear, therefore, that this address is little more than a brass plate on a postal box. Why not just list the law firm’s address in Zurich, specially given that any mail to Zug/Train is going to be redirected anyway?
3. Interestingly, the address of Dello Sarto, of which Krah is the named Manager, is exactly the same as that of Laetitia AG. Moreover, when you click on “Contact” for Dello Sarto or for Laetitia AG at http://www.moneyhouse.ch you find that there is no telephone number, fax number, email address or website listed.
4. In other words, Laetitia was commercially registered as a company in Switzerland just ten days before Fidartis Revisions AG took over as auditors of Dello Sarto AG, and Muller joined the board of Fidartis just one month later. A lot of legal/commercial work in such a short time.
If you wish to check out most of the details on companies given here, go to http://www.moneyhouse.ch
and type whatever it is you need to confirm.
5.A Google search for “Bader Law Firm, Switzerland” brings up nothing obvious, but google “BADERTSCHER Rechtsanwälte AG (Zurich)” and you will find it at
http://www.internationallawoffice.com/dire...47-4d5d5e739909.
Here is the content of the page. Please read it through to the end in order to grasp that the company associated with the SSPX-affiliate Dello Sarto is one more of those who are dedicated “to global interests and networks.”
BADERTSCHER Rechtsanwälte AG (Zurich)
• Address
Muhlebachstrasse 32
PO Box 769
Zurich CH 8024
• Country
Switzerland
• Phone
41 44 266 20 66
• Fax
41 44 266 20 70
• Email
info@b-legal.ch
• Website
www.b-legal.ch
• Offices
Zug, Zurich
• Languages
English, French, German, Hebrew, Italian
Work Areas
Administrative & Public Law, Administrative Law, Antitrust, Arbitration & Litigation, Banking, Banking & Finance, Bankruptcy, Capital Markets, Civil Law, Commercial Law, Company & Commercial, Competition, Construction, Contract, Corporate & Commercial, Corporate Law, Corporate/Commercial, Data Protection, E-commerce, Employment, Energy, Environmental Law, Estate Planning, Estate Planning & Administration, Finance, Health Care, Information & Communication Technology, Information Technology, Inheritance Law, Insolvency, Insurance, Insurance & Reinsurance, Intellectual Property, International Private Law, Liability, Litigation, Mergers & Acquisitions, Penal Litigation, Private Client, Public Law, Tax, Technology Law, Telecommunications, Transaction Law
Firm Description
BADERTSCHER is a nationally and internationally reputed Swiss law firm.
Our attorneys are members of the Zurich and the Swiss Bar Association as well as of various international law associations.
Most of them have an American or English post graduate degree and/or working experience abroad.
Our offices are located downtown Zurich.
BADERTSCHER is committed to the future, dedicated to quality and growth, involved in the rapid and important commercial and legal developments.
We advise in private and public law, focusing on commercial law.
Our clients are Swiss and foreign corporations, private individuals and governmental organizations.
Just like our clients, we are positioned at the forefront of events: one of our strengths is competent advice in new and complex areas of the law.
Specialization and commitment to quality and effective solution-oriented advice enable our attorneys to follow the rapid developments and to support our clients with our expertise in interdisciplinary fields such as restructuring, privatisations and cross-border transactions.
We stand for a continuous professional training of our attorneys, including post graduate programs.
Our attorneys also contribute to the academic and legal policy developments by publishing on a regular basis on the most current legal issues and by participating in national and international associations, experts commissions and seminars.
Part of the global legal marketplace
Close cooperations with leading foreign law firms without being bound to any exclusivity allow us to always offer the best quality legal services to our clients also in complex transactions involving several jurisdictions.
We also maintain well-established contacts with experts in fields other than law.
The languages skills of our attorneys enable us to render our services in English, German, Italian, French and Hebrew.
ONE FINAL OBSERVATION:
It is noteworthy that this firm deals in the international commercial language, Hebrew. More significant, however, is the question: WHO ADVISED THE SSPX TO ENLIST THIS LEGAL FIRM AND WHY? Is it really the case that the preservation of the Society’s patrimony and the raising of money – small sums according to Fr. Laisney’s recent posting – for the expansion of the Society’s work requires such high-powered and expensive lawyers, or is that I have misunderstood something and all these people are giving their time and effort free of charge, or even, “members of our faithful”?
-
http://krahgatefile.blogspot.com/2011/01/krahgate-reply-to-fr-laisney.html
Krahgate A Reply to Fr. Laisney
'Veritas' asks Fr Laisney SSPX some questions.
http://cathinfo-warning-pornography!/Ignis_Ardens/index.php?showtopic=6634
Dear Fr Laisney,
I guess that it is fifteen years or more since we spoke together. I still have fond memories of that meeting, and I thank you once again for the small gift that you presented to me on that occasion. I wish you to bear in mind these opening lines given that you may take what comes after as an attack on your person or your integrity or both. I emphasise now that neither one nor the other is being called into question.
There follows what is alleged to be a letter from you to an unknown correspondent. It was posted on the English language forum, Ignis Ardens, by “Credo” on December 16, 2010, at 04:07 PM. In posting this purported letter from you, “Credo” made it clear that it had been sent to him anonymously with the request that it be posted on the internet. Viewing the content and deeming it worthy of posting, he did so but he did not guarantee its authenticity for the good reason that ONLY YOU could guarantee that it was your work. After its posting, I took direct communication with “Credo” and asked him did he have any knowledge of either the unknown correspondent or the anonymous person requesting its posting. The answer to both questions was in the negative. In his defence, he pointed out that you were a known figure in the SSPX, that you had addressed a subject that was a major issue in Tradition right now, and he saw nothing that smacked of rumour, hearsay or bad faith in the posting. I would also point out that Ignis Ardens has been in existence for a good number of years and it has earned, unlike other forums in Tradition, a reputation for moderation in expression as well as a deep loyalty to the Catholic heritage handed down by Archbishop Lefebvre.
My first request of you, then, is to ask you to read the unedited letter below:
I am apalled at the art to raise unsubstantiated suspicions and calumnies! I quote: "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." Bishop Williamson used to be a member of our association at Winona so long as he was the superior there; he was also on several local associations in the N.E. USA so long as they were served by the seminary. Bishop Tissier was in many companies when he was secretary general. And I was also in many companies when I was district superior in USA, or bursar general. 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! This is precisely the spirit of poverty and detachment befitting priests and ministers of Christ. Another example of calumnies: "The fact that the SSPX appears to be involved in international financial markets..." Sorry, this is simply not true. Assets management was the purpose of the company mentioned at the previous paragraph; how did "asset management" become "involvement in international financial markets" is precisely how calumnies start... Again, as previous bursar general, I can testify that the SSPX is NOT involved in financial markets speculation or usury of any kind! On the contrary, 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: the collections of the faithful do not go to feed the bankers, but rather to foster good Catholic projects. 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 Jew, though he may have some Jєωιѕн friends, which is not uncommon in the legal world. If DICI said that Wolfram Nahrath was linked to neo-nαzιs, it was not because of his link with the NPD, but rather with his link with two other groups (Bishop Fellay told me the names, but I don't remember, one of them has the word "viking" in it), one of them has already been condemned in Germany for being neo-nαzι. Bishop Fellay did the right thing in requesting that he be dismissed. Bishop Williamson obeyed; this also was the right thing. Deo gratias. "Our wrestling is not against flesh and blood; but against principalities and power, against the rulers of the world of this darkness, against the spirits of wickedness in the high places" (Eph 6:12). We fight for the Faith, for the Mass, for the supernatural truth and grace, relying on the testimony of God. Historical facts are not at that level, they rely on the testimony of men, we leave that to the historians. May Our Lady of Fatima help us not to be sidetracked from our duty. Father François Laisney
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 Jew, 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 Jew? 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 Jew? 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 Jew? 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 Jew, 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-JEW 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.
-
http://www.cathinfo.com/index.php/Krahgate-Questions
The following was originally posted on the IA forum by 'White Rose Rebel' on Feb 3 2011, 05:46 PM I'm in agreement with White Rose Rebel that we must get answers for the good of souls.
http://cathinfo-warning-pornography!/Ignis_Ardens/index.php?showtopic=6755&hl=
Quote:
Dear Friends of the Krahgate Team,
I am following since the start the Krahgate threads on Ignis. Krah is a name which is known in Austria, but it is not a loved name. I am wanting to write since your ask for information, but I did not have many informations to give you. Now I see that Credo posts something about the Jaidhofer Foundation, and I see now that I can give more informations.
First, though, I give one piece of news that William of Norwich is not seeing (but thanks Gott William for the news you give!). If you go here and click
http://www.theresienstiftung.de/ueber-uns/...nsstruktur.html
you see that Krah is not only with the Dello Sarto and the Foundation but also with the St Therese school at Schonenberg in Germany. Click to make much large the image and look at the box ‘stiftungsvorstand’ which is meaning “the management” for the school. Why do the school need Krah on its comittee? Is nobody else possible to help the sisters and the students but the Zionist agent?
Credo is saying in its post that he received the informations about founding of the Foundation. It is true. Jaidhofer Foundation is begun on 14 January, 2009: just before founding of the Dello Sarto on 19 January, 2009. The timeing is good, yes? And the informations – two urls – of Credo contact is true. But this informations is not the all. It is important that the informations is made understood in English so everybody who wants Krah away from SSPX knows what the Foundation is really. I do not know all about it but I can say more than the Credo anonimous post.
First the Credo post is talk about Böerse Express. Go and click here for meaning of the word ‘borse’ in the google translate
http://translate.google.co.uk/translate_t?...ed=0CBYQrgYwAA#
noun
1. exchange
2. stock exchange
3. market
4. stock market
5. purse
6. board
7. change
This means what? It means that “Böerse Express” is about business, stock markets, investiments and things of like order. It is not to do with charitys and small groups for organise their affaires.
Second, click here and read from list
http://translate.google.co.uk/translate?hl...N%26prmd%3Divns
Five names from bottom is the name -
W
Jaidhofer Privatstiftung St. Josef und Marcellus (321626f) Jaidhof Foundation St. Joseph and Marcellus (321626f)
1010 Wien, Plankengasse 7
There is tree things in this which is informations. One is that “Jaidhofer Privatstiftung” is not in Jaidhof where is national HQ of SSPX in Austria, but in Wien (Vienna) – and very nice zone in Vienna! Why is the Foundation not have its adress in Jaidhof which are only less than one hour from Wien? Two, please read the list of other foundations or companies. What are we seeing? Companies like K & F Beteiligungs Gmbh – this Gmbh is meaning “limited liability company”
(I find in dictionary on line http://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/05/051305.asp)
which means real business, not small business which cuts hairs of the poodle dogs or sells sweets to the kids. We are also seeing consultancy firms, hotels, child care chain business, companies working in the carbon and steel, property management, engineering and other things. I think that religious foundation of SSPX looks strange in this list. Tree, what means the nummer (321626f)? Is it a register number specific for SSPX foundation? Or does ‘f’ mean kind of business involved in? And what means ‘W’ at beginning of Jaidhofer Privatstiftung – is it what tells the natur of the business? I am not knowing this but maybee others can say what is meaning.
Now go here and click and see “boerse express” in English – this much important for English people because it tells much I think about heart of Krahgate matter:
http://www.boerse-express.com/express/express-01102009e.pdf
Page 1 – “Banks: Capital increases to pay off the State” – news from the Goldman Sachs!
Page 2 – “Cash Calls and their Profiteers” – more about the Goldman Sachs and NOT hostile!
Page 2 – “Tailwinds of Nabucco” – story of the oil pipline that wants steal oil from asian countrys and organised by neocons and their wars.
Every page is about business but only the BIG business not small!
But for Catholics of SSPX page 6 is key to mystery. Markus Fichtinger told how Austrian finance is really international and he tells “There isn’t an Austrian equivalent to these print newspapers (he talks here about “Financial Times” at London and “Wall St Journal”), but the English version of boerse express closes this gap electronically.”
The he encourage this digitale finance paper “so that an ever increasing number of international investors receive valuable and in depth informations about Austria’s companies.”
I ask now this questions: what means it that Jaidhofer Foundation (J.F.) is appearing in finance paper aimed at the international investor for Austria? Is J.F. wanting the international investers? If it is yes, why? If it is no, why is J.F. in boerse express? Is it mistake? If it is not the mistake, is the J.F. wanting sell shares in it and is her shares only for Catholics or for all the persons including the international investers like the Goldman Sachs?
I am sorry for my not so good English but I am hoping you see that these informations are important and have strong meanings. This Krahgate problem seems to me very dangerful to SSPX of Archbishop Lefebvre inspiration. We must get the answers for the souls salvation
-
NewMan,
Request for assistance from those who love Catholic Tradition‏ http://www.cathinfo.com/index.php/Krahgate-Questions
http://cathinfo-warning-pornography!/Ignis_Ardens/index.php?showtopic=6720&hl=
REQUEST FOR ASSISTANCE FROM THOSE WHO LOVE CATHOLIC TRADITION
The Krahgate Team, for want of a better term, is an informal body that is determined to get answers to the many troubling questions raised by the initial posting of “William of Norwich” on November 28, 2010.
These questions, let it be always remembered, are centred upon Maximilian Krah and his meteoric rise in importance in the internal work of the SSPX in Germany, Austria and Switzerland, most specially in relation to finance, administrative “asset management” and legal matters.
These questions are only tangentially and incidentally related to Mgr. Williamson, and whether one likes or dislikes him, agrees or disagrees with him on any subject, is not relevant to the work of the team.
The work of the team is concentrated on why Krah has emerged, what he is involved in, and why he has received patronage at high level. That many reasonable questions, backed by irrefutable evidence in the public domain, have been posed and not responded to only adds to the suspicion that replies have not been forthcoming because the truth would be something less than edifying.
There is no campaign against Mgr. Fellay, no campaign against Menzingen. There is a campaign, however, for the truth to be known, and this truth will be eventually made known.
Many of the team are unknown to one another beyond email contact, contact often being maintained between intermediaries. The team includes both members of the laity and the clergy, and membership remains permanently open. The sole qualification for entry is the supplying of information that is substantiated and verifiable on a host of questions, large and small, that are deemed important in piecing together the picture that has begun to emerge in the Catholic blogosphere in the last two months.
The team is, also, drawn from four continents (at least to this writer’s knowledge) and so draws upon a range of different language capabilities.
We invite, then, any assistance, direct or indirect, indicative or substantive, that will help fill out the information void on the following questions. These questions are not exhaustive, but are only the beginning of the process. If or when new information appears necessary, new requests for assistance will be made in this file.
Information is needed on the evangelical Protestant school that Krah attended in East Germany, a school set up in 1947 in Dresden with the approval of the East German Communist Party; one of the most fanatically anti-Catholic and anti-Christian Communist Parties in the European communist world. It is all the more strange that Dresden, which had been almost completely flattened by Allied bombing, should have been chosen for a school since millions of Germans were without shelter, were living in bombed-out ruins and the rebuilding programme was slow to take off. It also should be noted that the building – which survived the bombardment – was handed over to the “evangelical Protestants” although it had previously belonged to the Masonic order.
QUESTION: WHY WOULD COMMUNIST ATHEISTS HAND OVER A VALUABLE SHELTER TO EVANGELICAL PROTESTANTS?
QUESTION: WHO GAVE THE ORDER TO APPROVE THIS SCHOOL? WHO PRESIDED OVER THE RUNNING OF THE SCHOOL? WHO FINANCED THE SCHOOL? WHERE DID THE PUPILS COME FROM, AND WHAT WAS THE CRITERIA FOR THEIR SELECTION?
QUESTION: IS THERE ANY INDICATION THAT FORMER STUDENTS OF THIS SCHOOL – AT ANY TIME FROM ITS FOUNDATION TO THE PRESENT DAY - WENT ON TO SUCCESSFUL CAREERS IN THE EAST GERMAN REPUBLIC IN THE FIELDS OF FINANCE, LAW, POLITICS, RELIGION, EDUCATION AND ECONOMICS? ARE ANY POSSIBLE CANDIDATES NOW AT WORK IN THE REUNITED GERMANY?
In his application to EMBA-GLOBAL, the elitist international business school with structures in London and Columbia University, Maximilian Krah gave written evidence to the business school’s administrative body that he worked for the Jaidhofer Privatstiftung. He listed himself as being “a Board delegate.” This Austrian Foundation has little internet presence, is controlled by the SSPX, but the purpose of its existence is not public knowledge.
QUESTION: WHY DID MR. KRAH GIVE THE FOUNDATION AS HIS EMPLOYER, WHEN IT IS ON PUBLIC RECORD – SEE THE INITIAL POSTING IN THE COMPLETE KRAHGATE FILE – THAT HE IS LISTED AS THE MANAGER OF ANOTHER SSPX-CONTROLLED ENTITY, “DELLO SARTO,” AND IS ALSO A PARTNER IN A LEGAL FIRM IN DRESDEN, AS WELL AS ON THE BOARD OF LAETITIA AG WHOSE ORIGINS AND PURPOSE ARE OPAQUE TO SAY THE LEAST?
QUESTION: DOES MR. KRAH RECEIVE A SALARY OR STIPEND FROM EITHER THE FOUNDATION and/OR “DELLO SARTO”?
QUESTION: HOW CREDIBLE IS IT THAT MR. KRAH, A FAMILY MAN – SEE HIS “REPLY” IN THE COMPLETE KRAHGATE FILE – RUNS A LEGAL BUSINESS IN DRESDEN, “DELLO SARTO” IN SWITZERLAND, THE JAIDHOFER PRIVATSTIFTUNG IN AUSTRIA, LAETITIA AG IN SWITZERLAND, SPENDS 3 OR 4 DAYS PER MONTH IN LONDON OR NEW YORK IN ROTATION, AND REMAINS AS AN ACTIVE OFFICIAL IN THE DRESDEN BRANCH OF THE GERMAN CDU PARTY?
Our research indicates that there appears to be some kind of connection between “Dello Sarto” and the Jaidhofer Privatstiftung, although they are based in two different countries and are therefore subject to different legal jurisdictions.
QUESTION: DOES A GERMAN LAWYER HAVE A RIGHT TO PRACTISE HIS PROFESSION IN AUSTRIA AND/OR SWITZERLAND AUTOMATICALLY, OR DOES SOME KIND OF ADMINISTRATIVE APPROVAL HAVE TO TAKE PLACE IN ONE OR BOTH OF THESE TWO COUNTRIES?
QUESTION: WHAT IS THE AIM AND PURPOSE OF THE JAIDHOFER PRIVATSTIFTUNG? WHO, BESIDES MR. KRAH, SITS ON THE BOARD? ARE THE OTHER BOARD MEMBERS EXCLUSIVELY CLERICAL, OR ARE OTHER LAYMEN/WOMEN INVOLVED?
QUESTION: DOES THE DISTRICT SUPERIOR OF AUSTRIA HAVE AN AUTOMATIC POSITION ON THE BOARD OF THE FOUNDATION GIVEN THAT THE FOUNDATION IS WITHIN THE DISTRICT? IF NOT, WHY NOT?
QUESTION: ARE THE OTHER MEMBERS OF THE FOUNDATION’S BOARD, BESIDES MR. KRAH, AUSTRIAN? IF NOT, WHY NOT GIVEN THAT THE FOUNDATION IS WITHIN THE AUSTRIAN DISTRICT?
Much play has been made by Fr. Laisney and others – see “A Reply from Fr. Laisney” in the Complete Krahgate File – of the legal competence and assistance of Mr. Krah. It is this alleged competence and assistance which has, we are told, led to him being appointed the primary legal point of reference for the German district of the SSPX. It appears that Mr. Krah qualified as a lawyer in 2001, and yet is in a commanding position within SSPX structures within a five years or so:
QUESTION: IN WHAT FIELD OF LAW DOES MR. KRAH SPECIALISE?
QUESTION: WHAT CASES DID MR. KRAH UNDERTAKE IN THE EARLY DAYS FOR THE SPPX WHICH DREW ATTENTION TO HIS ALLEGED COMPETENCE? WERE THE SAID CASES ONLY IN DRESDEN, OR DID THEY EXTEND TO THE WHOLE OF GERMANY?
CONCLUSION: Help, however minor it might appear, in relation to any question, in whole or in part, will be most welcome. Remember that: while vital and disturbing questions remain unanswered by those in a position (laymen, laywomen, priest or bishop) to furnish those answers to the faithful who are the raison d’être of the SSPX, Catholic Tradition remains at risk. Vatican II was not the cause of subversive Modernism, but the long-prepared fruit of subversion by Modernists working in the dark at all levels of the Church.
-
Maybe we should send him an email and ask him for a statement. It´s only just to give people the chance to explain. Especially when it is another Catholic. You should know the 9th commandment!
Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife??
-
To have a pop-singer among is more a sign of honesty than of depravity.
And the people who speak so are true Catholics. So please don´t blame them, but understand them. :
Honest about what? That he likes Madonna (the pop singer)? This is a good thing?
"understand them"? Do mean like in the HELP post when Sophia asks - "why can't you people just accept and understand me?"
So, lets push aside the TRUTH so these "true Catholics" can feel "understood"?
Defending the real TRUTH will be beneficial to you and other "true Catholics"'s Freedom of Religion, which I am not sure you or these "true Catholics" appreciate.
You and these "true Catholics" clearly do not know the enemy.
sheep
-
With all that is contained in these multiple files, and what they seem to imply, it is certainly a subject of concern for those who have placed thier hope, confidence, and funds in to the SSPX.
What is more troubling is the attempts to squelch all avenues of inquiry which those of good faith have made, by threats, and intimidation. That it appears to be an ongoing campaign raises more questions and suspicions.
One must remember that the European and Vatican banking interests are neck deep in Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ. and Jєωιѕн control.
-
To be honest: I´m quite shocked by your harsh reactions. We want to convince all people for the Catholic faith, don´t we? Whom do you believe you will convince with this way of "argumentation"? When you are confronted with another opinion, you have to point out this other opinion even better than its followers are able to, before you can start to counter-argue, Saint Thomas of Aquinas taught us. And I repeat: Not everybody who doesn´t believe that +Fellay is a traitor etc. is naive. People who attend mass every sunday, who live a Catholic life, follow the commandments, work busily, take care on their kids, are clean and correct - such people are trustworthy. They might have different opinions concerning politics, economics etc - but they remain decent Catholics, and nobody has the right to blame them. If one is blaming them, he is telling something about himself, not about the blamed person. It is remarkable - to say the least - when I get attacked here for saying that I trust the SSPX-leadership.
@ John Grace: You should know yourself that this whole "Krahgate"-stuff is nonsense. Take an example: One point within is that Dr. Krah has the right of single representation for this corporation. So what. Every lawyer has such a right as a consequence of his power of attorney. But it is useless for him, as he is binded by the contract of law consultancy. An attorney always can act as a single representative, but he cannot use it freely, as he is under contract. He is just a tool for the client and has to follow the orders, whilst the other people are free in their decisions. To blame a lawyer for having the authority to sign alone means to blame him for being attorney. Whoever is reading this file and having just a basic knowledge of law and business, will know that it can´t be taken for serious. The only information it tells us is that the SSPX uses the service of a person, who is obviously successful, smart, and well-connected. You should have a look at his LinkedIn-profile. And I can assure you that the vast majority of priests and laypeople feel not bad when hearing that the SSPX engages people who know what to do in secular issues. Unprofessionalism is not a virtue, prudence is.
Nobody will answer these "questions" as they are no real, fair questions. They already include the accussations. No court ever would allow such questions. And, btw, why should a bishop of the Holy Church answer unfair questions asked by anonymous strangers? More: The questions are answered by Fathers Laisey and Morgan. They have told you that these accussations are not true but slanders. Aren´t Fr. Laisey and Fr. Morgan true Catholics, either? As long as you see every answer which is not completely "confessing" all the slanderous attacks to be invalid, wrong, irritating etc it is hard to deal with the issue.
Let us come back to Saint Thomas of Aquinas. Just try to figure out all arguments which are speaking pro SSPX-leadership. And then try to overcome them - I doubt you will get it. I take me as a quite "neutral" person. I am a Catholic, and I attend mass at a SSPX chapel. I´m in contact with some SSPX-priests as well as with non-SSPX-priests, too. I´m not highly engaged and not really interested in ecclesiastical politics, at least not more than the average faithful. So, I´m quite "normal". When I have read these accussations first time, I saw it as mad slanders and was highly disguisted. And so were others I know who read it. What I have heard is that it caused a wave of solidarity with Dr. Krah as people fearded he could split with the SSPX - but thankfully he didn´t. He was laughing about (as a priest from the seminary who is friend with him told me).
And now let´s finish this debate. Please don´t blame me again. I think all is said. So I´d prefer to be silent for the future ;)
-
Has a Society cleric or indeed Menzingen asked you to join this forum as your " intervention" has raised more questions.
To be honest: I´m quite shocked by your harsh reactions. We want to convince all people for the Catholic faith, don´t we? Whom do you believe you will convince with this way of "argumentation"?
Why are you shocked, NewMan?
It is remarkable - to say the least - when I get attacked here for saying that I trust the SSPX-leadership.
Who has attacked you here?
You should know yourself that this whole "Krahgate"-stuff is nonsense
Is it nonsense?
Nobody will answer these "questions" as they are no real, fair questions. They already include the accussations.
Nobody has made any accusations but have asked fair and reasonable questions, and cite factual evidence that is in public domain, and can be substianiated. There is no calumny in The Complete Krahfile. Bishop Fellay has still not answered these questions. Do you believe Bishop Fellay is beyond criticism or being immune from answering questions from faithful?
The questions are answered by Fathers Laisey and Morgan. They have told you that these accussations are not true but slanders.
Where are the slanders in the 'krahgate File'? Fr Laisney has raised more questions by his intervention. I can't recall Fr Morgan mentioning the file containing slander.
When I have read these accussations first time, I saw it as mad slanders and was highly disguisted
It is you who have joined this forum making accusations.
-
NewMan,
You mention Fr Laisney. I remind you of the 'Veritas1961' list of questions for Fr Laisney.
http://krahgatefile.blogspot.com/2011/01/krahgate-reply-to-fr-laisney.html
Krahgate A Reply to Fr. Laisney
'Veritas' asks Fr Laisney SSPX some questions.
http://cathinfo-warning-pornography!/Ignis_Ardens/index.php?showtopic=6634
Dear Fr Laisney,
I guess that it is fifteen years or more since we spoke together. I still have fond memories of that meeting, and I thank you once again for the small gift that you presented to me on that occasion. I wish you to bear in mind these opening lines given that you may take what comes after as an attack on your person or your integrity or both. I emphasise now that neither one nor the other is being called into question.
There follows what is alleged to be a letter from you to an unknown correspondent. It was posted on the English language forum, Ignis Ardens, by “Credo” on December 16, 2010, at 04:07 PM. In posting this purported letter from you, “Credo” made it clear that it had been sent to him anonymously with the request that it be posted on the internet. Viewing the content and deeming it worthy of posting, he did so but he did not guarantee its authenticity for the good reason that ONLY YOU could guarantee that it was your work. After its posting, I took direct communication with “Credo” and asked him did he have any knowledge of either the unknown correspondent or the anonymous person requesting its posting. The answer to both questions was in the negative. In his defence, he pointed out that you were a known figure in the SSPX, that you had addressed a subject that was a major issue in Tradition right now, and he saw nothing that smacked of rumour, hearsay or bad faith in the posting. I would also point out that Ignis Ardens has been in existence for a good number of years and it has earned, unlike other forums in Tradition, a reputation for moderation in expression as well as a deep loyalty to the Catholic heritage handed down by Archbishop Lefebvre.
My first request of you, then, is to ask you to read the unedited letter below:
I am apalled at the art to raise unsubstantiated suspicions and calumnies! I quote: "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." Bishop Williamson used to be a member of our association at Winona so long as he was the superior there; he was also on several local associations in the N.E. USA so long as they were served by the seminary. Bishop Tissier was in many companies when he was secretary general. And I was also in many companies when I was district superior in USA, or bursar general. 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! This is precisely the spirit of poverty and detachment befitting priests and ministers of Christ. Another example of calumnies: "The fact that the SSPX appears to be involved in international financial markets..." Sorry, this is simply not true. Assets management was the purpose of the company mentioned at the previous paragraph; how did "asset management" become "involvement in international financial markets" is precisely how calumnies start... Again, as previous bursar general, I can testify that the SSPX is NOT involved in financial markets speculation or usury of any kind! On the contrary, 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: the collections of the faithful do not go to feed the bankers, but rather to foster good Catholic projects. 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 Jew, though he may have some Jєωιѕн friends, which is not uncommon in the legal world. If DICI said that Wolfram Nahrath was linked to neo-nαzιs, it was not because of his link with the NPD, but rather with his link with two other groups (Bishop Fellay told me the names, but I don't remember, one of them has the word "viking" in it), one of them has already been condemned in Germany for being neo-nαzι. Bishop Fellay did the right thing in requesting that he be dismissed. Bishop Williamson obeyed; this also was the right thing. Deo gratias. "Our wrestling is not against flesh and blood; but against principalities and power, against the rulers of the world of this darkness, against the spirits of wickedness in the high places" (Eph 6:12). We fight for the Faith, for the Mass, for the supernatural truth and grace, relying on the testimony of God. Historical facts are not at that level, they rely on the testimony of men, we leave that to the historians. May Our Lady of Fatima help us not to be sidetracked from our duty. Father François Laisney
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 Jew, 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 Jew? 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 Jew? 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 Jew? 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 Jew, 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-JEW 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.
-
Ok, John, although I am not an insider, let me try to explain it a bit deeper, on the base of German general knowledge.
One point you mention is the highschool he attended. It´s Kreuzschule, in latin schola crucis. This is a school with great reputation due to it´s choir and tradition. I remember that even nation-wide media had reported about the school in the 1990s. Most German major cities have one or two highschools with great tradition and history; Stuttgart, for instance, has Eberhard-Ludwigs-Gymnasium and Hölderlingymnasium (Gymnasium = Grammar School). If you are a bit interested in German culture, you know these names. Kreuzschule is one of the oldest schools in Germany and has an own Wikipedia-article: http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kreuzschule There you also find the former students, including Richard Wagner. All schools were run by the state during communist times and later given back to the (Lutherian) church. There is a bestseller novel in Germany now, Der Turm (The Tower), in which you can read about the situation of the burgeoisie in the city of Dresden under the communists: http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Der_Turm_(Tellkamp) Because I read it, I am a bit familiar with. Kreuzschule was known as the least communist school there. As he attended the school from 1991 to 1995, he wasn´t there during communist times. He simply attended an elitist highschool in united Germany.
Another point is his visit at an event of the alumni of Tel Aviv university. So what? TA-university is an academic institution. Dr. Krah has an excellent academic background. There are less than 10 % of German law graduates who have a doctorate, and now he is going to graduate from an Ivy League University. As you know, the academic world is interconnected, and Israelis are part of the academic community. Nobody in the SSPX will find anything about it, as the academic teacher of Father Schmidberger (and some other German SSPX-priests and laity of the first generation) was Professor Lauth, who used to be the first German guest professor to Israel, teaching at both Tel Aviv University and Hebrew University Jerusalem: http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reinhard_Lauth - what everybody knows, including Archbishop Lefebvre who knew Lauth personally. And I remember a SSPX-statement some time ago after which there are no doubts on the legitimacy of the state of Israel as it is recognized by the Vatican and the UN.
Concerning the existence of corporations run by the SSPX: how many of them there are in the US? 20, 30? It is the best way to limit liability, right? I already wrote about the issue of the power of signature.
As I told you, this is just what I know from general knowledge, what everybody should know and can know. Of course, I have no detail knowlegde on legal affairs. But just on the base of such general knowledge, it is quite clear, that "Krahgate" is complete nonsense. It is a typical "conspiracy theory" like thousend others. And hence all who forced it, have violated the 8th (tks, Clare) commandment.
Unfortunately, we have lost the issue of this thread, the Regensburg appeal. So let´s come back to it. The nαzι-time and it´s results were a catastrophe for Germany. The country has re-established its renommee now and is proud and happy about it´s new role and acceptance. No wonder at all, that it dislikes people who seem to sympathize with the nαzιs, and be it by denying their crimes. As I already wrote, I always try to understand the position of the other side before judging. In my mind, the German anti-denying-law is understandable when looking at the German history of the 20th century. It was introduced in 1960 by the then-chancellor Adenauer, a decent and devout Catholic. I wish +Williamson all the best, but I have to concede that he cannot take over any public position within the SSPX as long as he remains into his political position. It would bring the SSPX and the whole Catholic tradition in fundamental opposition to Germany, and as Germany is the most powerful country in continental Europe, this would affect the other nations, too. Alas, +Fellay´s position seems to me very reasonable.
-
Ok, John, although I am not an insider, let me try to explain it a bit deeper, on the base of German general knowledge.
One point you mention is the highschool he attended. It´s Kreuzschule, in latin schola crucis. This is a school with great reputation due to it´s choir and tradition. I remember that even nation-wide media had reported about the school in the 1990s. Most German major cities have one or two highschools with great tradition and history; Stuttgart, for instance, has Eberhard-Ludwigs-Gymnasium and Hölderlingymnasium (Gymnasium = Grammar School). If you are a bit interested in German culture, you know these names. Kreuzschule is one of the oldest schools in Germany and has an own Wikipedia-article: http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kreuzschule There you also find the former students, including Richard Wagner. All schools were run by the state during communist times and later given back to the (Lutherian) church. There is a bestseller novel in Germany now, Der Turm (The Tower), in which you can read about the situation of the burgeoisie in the city of Dresden under the communists: http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Der_Turm_(Tellkamp) Because I read it, I am a bit familiar with. Kreuzschule was known as the least communist school there. As he attended the school from 1991 to 1995, he wasn´t there during communist times. He simply attended an elitist highschool in united Germany.
Another point is his visit at an event of the alumni of Tel Aviv university. So what? TA-university is an academic institution. Dr. Krah has an excellent academic background. There are less than 10 % of German law graduates who have a doctorate, and now he is going to graduate from an Ivy League University. As you know, the academic world is interconnected, and Israelis are part of the academic community. Nobody in the SSPX will find anything about it, as the academic teacher of Father Schmidberger (and some other German SSPX-priests and laity of the first generation) was Professor Lauth, who used to be the first German guest professor to Israel, teaching at both Tel Aviv University and Hebrew University Jerusalem: http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reinhard_Lauth - what everybody knows, including Archbishop Lefebvre who knew Lauth personally. And I remember a SSPX-statement some time ago after which there are no doubts on the legitimacy of the state of Israel as it is recognized by the Vatican and the UN.
Concerning the existence of corporations run by the SSPX: how many of them there are in the US? 20, 30? It is the best way to limit liability, right? I already wrote about the issue of the power of signature.
As I told you, this is just what I know from general knowledge, what everybody should know and can know. Of course, I have no detail knowlegde on legal affairs. But just on the base of such general knowledge, it is quite clear, that "Krahgate" is complete nonsense. It is a typical "conspiracy theory" like thousend others. And hence all who forced it, have violated the 8th (tks, Clare) commandment.
Unfortunately, we have lost the issue of this thread, the Regensburg appeal. So let´s come back to it. The nαzι-time and it´s results were a catastrophe for Germany. The country has re-established its renommee now and is proud and happy about it´s new role and acceptance. No wonder at all, that it dislikes people who seem to sympathize with the nαzιs, and be it by denying their crimes. As I already wrote, I always try to understand the position of the other side before judging. In my mind, the German anti-denying-law is understandable when looking at the German history of the 20th century. It was introduced in 1960 by the then-chancellor Adenauer, a decent and devout Catholic. I wish +Williamson all the best, but I have to concede that he cannot take over any public position within the SSPX as long as he remains into his political position. It would bring the SSPX and the whole Catholic tradition in fundamental opposition to Germany, and as Germany is the most powerful country in continental Europe, this would affect the other nations, too. Alas, +Fellay´s position seems to me very reasonable.
Newman,
In relation to 'Veritas1961' letter to Fr Laisney.
. You write:“Mr Krah is not a Jew, 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 Jew? 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 Jew? 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 Jew? 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 Jew, 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-JEW present?
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?
-
[/quote]But just on the base of such general knowledge, it is quite clear, that "Krahgate" is complete nonsense. It is a typical "conspiracy theory"
It's far from being a "conspiracy theory", NewMan.
I read again the original from 'William of Norwich'
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.
The Complete Krahfile contains factual and legitimate questions that are in public domain. They can be substaniated. You have dismissed 'Krahgate' as a "conspiracy theory" but appear to have ignored the factual evidence that prooves otherwise, NewMan.The 'Krahfile' contains no calumny.
-
Sorry John, but I wrote about this highschool, the fact that he has authority for single signature, and the TA-university event; what else do you need?
Ok, as more than one priest confirmed, he is Catholic, attending mass etc. Everything at the SSPX-chapel.
Lossmann is a criminal lawyer with great reputation. He publishes in scientific journals. To have a left-liberal lawyer in a h0Ɩ0cαųst-denying-trial is a clever strategy. And, "The Greens" are not communist; it is a left-liberal party, it´s Greenwich Village, not Havanna de Cuba. His own party, CDU, is traditionally the party of the Catholics. I assume that about 80% of the SSPX-faithful vote it; so do I. There are some SSPX laypeople who are member. Before the last regional elections in the state of Baden-Württemberg, the SSPX Germany called the faithful officially to vote CDU.
Sorry, there is nothing suspiscious to find.
-
Just a few points, the truth of which should be known,
Another point is his visit at an event of the alumni of Tel Aviv university. So what? TA-university is an academic institution. Dr. Krah has an excellent academic background. There are less than 10 % of German law graduates who have a doctorate, and now he is going to graduate from an Ivy League University. As you know, the academic world is interconnected, and Israelis are part of the academic community.
Tel Aviv university is not just another academic university. It is a place which produces large numbers of extremist Zionist Jews. Anti-Christian тαℓмυdic operatives who undermine both the Church and western civilization. The Mossad is heavily involved there as well. So it is not a good thing for Mr. Krah to be involved with this Israeli front and the SPX at the same time.
And I remember a SSPX-statement some time ago after which there are no doubts on the legitimacy of the state of Israel as it is recognized by the Vatican and the UN.
This is not a legitimate state. Not theologically, not in the legal sense, and not in the moral sense. So whoever maintains that it is, is simply wrong.
The nαzι-time and it´s results were a catastrophe for Germany. The country has re-established its renommee now and is proud and happy about it´s new role and acceptance.
The time before WWI was a catastrophe for Germany. The time after WWI was a catastrophe for Germany. The time after WWII was a catastrophe for Germany.
The country has re-established itself once again due to the quality and industriousness of the German people, as they have repeatedly done throughout history. However Germany today is a country with a traumatized, self critical, and patholigised population. As former Chancellor Helmut Schmidt noted, "We have falsified our own history into a criminal record!"
The German people are the first victims of the false history which Bishop Williamson and the few prelates with the courage to speak out have declared void.
Germany is the most powerful country in continental Europe, this would affect the other nations, too. Alas, +Fellay´s position seems to me very reasonable.
Not so powerful that it cannot be controlled and blackmailed by the extermist enclave. Reasonable is not the correct word, expedient perhaps, or worse.
-
This liberal use of the word "liberal" is getting ridiculous. It's an abuse of language.
You only have yourself (and others like you) to blame for that. It became ridiculous because some liberals wanted to be apart of the "right" side of the sphere without actually being apart of it. This is why you see neo-Catholics who would love to believe that they're "conservative" (far from it) and neo-Trads who would love to believe that they're "trad" (also far from it).
See, you can't be anything BUT a liberal if you have a liberal way of thinking. Hanging around traditionalists or conservatives won't change the fact that you're a liberal.
Daegus should note that Clare's 'liberal' attitude on race relations is the same as yours.
-
Excellent post, J.Paul ! Thank you so much.
-
Newman, unfortunately you distract, confuse and tell untruths. I'm not surprised you're a Krah buddy in mind.
The European Union (EU) is intrinsically anti-christian, or satanic to be precise. There's naturally an interaction with the EU states' parliaments. So it's not surprising that also all parties in the FRG's ("Federal Republic of Germany") parliament are anti-christian and enemies of God. They make a war on the traditional catholic Faith and they do so in every way. The entire EU and its national parliaments are in their vast majority pro sodomy, pro abortion, pro feminism, etc.
This fully includes the biggest party in Germany, the chancellor Merkel's fαℓѕє fℓαg CDU ("Christian Democratic Union") where Krah has been press officer in Dresden and member of the "Team Merkel".
Now how could there be peace between the enemy of God and the friends of God? These governments take the catholic Faith and the catholics as offense. No natural power can stop the growing persecution of the catholics in Europe (and elsewhere).
The Newchurch catholics, the liberals like Krah, and same minded friends like you, Newman, in your dreamland think we can all be happy together by supporting the anti-christian governments. Let's take a closer look at your liberalist delusion by examining shortly the two parties you downplayed (a) and even recommended (b) :
(a) The FRG's party "Die Grünen" (The Greens) which lawyer Loßmann belongs to, is a communist party camouflaged with some liberal elements like eco-stuff etc.
The party has a clear communist agenda since decades: totalitarian socialism i.e. massive redistribution and dispossession, internationalism, feminism, gender-mainstreaming, mass immigration, mass murdering abortion, antifascism (Stalin's coup), etc and of course the usual communistic anti-christian line.
Former and today's leading and important party members were officially communists respectively Maoists before they joined their new camouflage party.
No German with common sense denies this.
(b) The FRG's party CDU which was and still is the major part of the current government does ...
- propagate and implement mass murdering abortions and since a few weeks now also eugenics, i.e. murdering handicapped unborn children,
- propagate and implement ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖity and the satanic gender-mainstreaming
(the "nice" website www.gender-mainstreaming.net (http://www.gender-mainstreaming.net) is officially run by the CDU government!),
- propagate Islam and implement its expansion,
- propagate and implement the anti-christian Zionism,
- essentially propagate and implement any false religion,
- etc
Undoubtedly the CDU is an intrinsically anti-christian party.
And you, Newman, actually dare to defend and propagate such an evil party in a traditional catholic forum? Unbelievable.
Since the CDU actively stands for grave sins it is also sinful to vote for the CDU or to be a member of it or to support it. Any real catholic priest knows this and says so. Just not the unfortunate Fr Schmidberger and his dependent priests who are being ruled by his iron fist and have to practise a blind obedience...
So Fr Schmidberger indirectly acted in a sinful manner too, because he or rather his first assistant priest called the FRG faithful to vote for the evil party CDU. And no, you can't chose the lesser of the two evils, but you've to avoid the evil at all.
That's why fortunately Fr Schmidberger got massive flack by devout laity and priests for his CDU misdoing. He was abashed in the end and I really hope he won't repeat his misdoing.
-
Newman, you can save your downplaying of cօռspιʀαcιҽs, by the way. Most Cathinfo catholics know there's massive cօռspιʀαcιҽs (the biggest one being Satan's against God and the humans), so you can only bully the "re-educated" i.e. brainwashed Germans.
Paul Craig Roberts explained in June and July 2011 very well what you and Krah do all the time:
(1) Conspiracy Theory (http://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/2011/06/20/conspiracy-theory/)
(2) cօռspιʀαcιҽs (http://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/2011/07/04/cօռspιʀαcιҽs/)
The most impudent point however is that liberal "traditionalists" like you attack Bishop Williamson for many things including his brave rejection of the NWO founding h0Ɩ0cαųst lie (http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php/Truth-about-Auschwitz), whilst on the very same time you propagate and support an intrinsically evil democratic party like the anti-christian CDU (or other anti-christian agendas like Zionism or "Israel" which by the way has been always been combated by the Church including St Pius X -- see his Herzl audience!)
Well, actually anything about Krah is suspicious, as well as about his partners Bp. Fellay, Fr. Pfluger and Fr. Schmidberger (and you).
A befriended catholic and excellent observer with good connections said the following to me, and I'm sure he's right :
Krah was planted into the SSPX by the Synagoge of Satan and their helpers, and connected to the overachiever Fr Pfluger who's the most weak point of the SSPX. And Bp Fellay in his immense naivety doesn't see through it and some other things.
By their fruits you shall know them: Virtually zero vocations in the German zone!
If the German seminary Zaitzkofen would not massively import seminarians from abroad it could shut down in awhile.
In contrast to this, the US seminary which was massively shaped by then Father and later Bishop Williamson, is full with vocations.
God bless Bishop Williamson!
-
Etelred, oh my gosh! I write about Saint Thomas of Aquinas and his teaching about how to argue, and you "argue" free of any attempt to understand the other side.
Anyway, some points to clarify: No, I´m not a "buddy" of Dr. Krah. But when reading your hate-inspired words about him, I am more and more convinced that he´s a smart and wise guy and doing the right. I will write him and tell my solidarity.
The German people, dear J.Paul, are in no way "traumatized, self critical, and patholigised." How many Germans do you know? Germany is back again and the Germans are quite satisfied with the role their country plays. And about Tel Aviv University I can´t follow you, either. As I told you, one of the founding fathers of German Catholic tradition, Professor Lauth, taught there.
Ethelred, only a short answer, because I know that you aren´t open for arguments and I don´t want to waste my time: The European Union was founded in the mid-1950s in Rome and blessed by P. Pius XII. The idea to cooperate in Europe instead of make war - as done two times before in the 20th century - is definetely a good one, and Europe is doing quite well since then, isn´t it? The CDU is traditionally the Catholic party. There was a public call in the district notices to vote it last year, as you may remember. And no doubt, at least 80 % of the SSPX-faithful vote CDU. The Greens are not communist. The communists are "Die Linke" (The Left). There is a difference between communist and left-liberal, although I dislike both.
But let me come to your interesting point, the number of priestly ordinations. You are right, the number of Germans becoming priests in the SSPX is low. But look a bit deeper: The number of German-speaking Swiss becoming priests is much higher. The district superior of Switzerland for many years used to be - Father Niklaus Pfluger. His successor is very close to him and promoting the same line; it´s Father Wuilloud. In Germany and Austria, the SSP has more ordinations than the SSPX. If you take the number of ordinations as a measure, one could argue that the SSP is doing better than the German SSPX.
But one thing is clear: If the SSPX would follow +Williamson, it would lose nearly all college-educated faithful immediately, and probably the smartest priests, too. I don´t know whether you have watched this TV-report about the SSPX, and have heard what the seminary-priests have said about +Williamson. They would never accept him, would they?
As I told you, the more I think about and read statements like yours, the more I understand and support +Fellay. To bann extremist positions and to take care on being moderate is essential to convince people and get new faithful. If we want to mission - and we have to do it - we must stop political extremists such as h0Ɩ0cαųst deniers, Hitler-fans, conspiracy theorists etc. Fides et ratio - Faith and reason belong together, and especially when referring to Saint Thomas of Aquinas, there is a duty to stay moderate and distinguished. As far as I see it, the SSPX leadership is doing it, and hence should receive our solidarity and support.
God bless +Fellay!
-
But one thing is clear: If the SSPX would follow +Williamson, it would lose nearly all college-educated faithful immediately, and probably the smartest priests, too.
I don't see that the "college-educated faithful" and the so-called "smartest priests" are making much of a difference presently. A number of them are killing the movement, IMO. To "lose" them does not for me loom as any kind of a disaster in the making. But to follow +W, he has to declare a willingness to lead. Thus far, he has not done that.
I don´t know whether you have watched this TV-report about the SSPX, and have heard what the seminary-priests have said about +Williamson. They would never accept him, would they?
+W saved the work in America. Had the seminary-priests not followed him at the time "the nine" left, there would be no SSPX in the U.S. The archbishop was ready to pack up and leave, until +W stepped in and saved the day.
As I told you, the more I think about and read statements like yours, the more I understand and support +Fellay. To bann extremist positions and to take care on being moderate is essential to convince people and get new faithful.
I'm in Post Falls, ID. We don't get "new faithful" of any significant number, as it stands. Growth here is stagnant and has been for ages. Say, Neuman, what are these "extremist positions? Does +W hold extremist positions? Are his views on the "h0Ɩ0cαųst" extremist positions?
-
Anyway, some points to clarify: No, I´m not a "buddy" of Dr. Krah. But when reading your hate-inspired words about him, I am more and more convinced that he´s a smart and wise guy and doing the right. I will write him and tell my solidarity.
!
You're right, you are not his budddy, You are his enabler. How do you sleep at night and better yet how do you go to Holy Communion every week?
You do not know how to read. These are not hate-inspired words, these are words of truth about hate-inspired actions of krah.
You don't know what the right thing is because you do not know your enemy.
Your solidarity should be with Christ in the Truth not in some man you think is smart and wise.
You are a lost sheep, many prayers needed here,
sheep
-
Etelred, oh my gosh! I write about Saint Thomas of Aquinas and his teaching about how to argue, and you "argue" free of any attempt to understand the other side.
Anyway, some points to clarify: No, I´m not a "buddy" of Dr. Krah. But when reading your hate-inspired words about him, I am more and more convinced that he´s a smart and wise guy and doing the right. I will write him and tell my solidarity.
The German people, dear J.Paul, are in no way "traumatized, self critical, and patholigised." How many Germans do you know? Germany is back again and the Germans are quite satisfied with the role their country plays. And about Tel Aviv University I can´t follow you, either. As I told you, one of the founding fathers of German Catholic tradition, Professor Lauth, taught there.
Ethelred, only a short answer, because I know that you aren´t open for arguments and I don´t want to waste my time: The European Union was founded in the mid-1950s in Rome and blessed by P. Pius XII. The idea to cooperate in Europe instead of make war - as done two times before in the 20th century - is definetely a good one, and Europe is doing quite well since then, isn´t it? The CDU is traditionally the Catholic party. There was a public call in the district notices to vote it last year, as you may remember. And no doubt, at least 80 % of the SSPX-faithful vote CDU. The Greens are not communist. The communists are "Die Linke" (The Left). There is a difference between communist and left-liberal, although I dislike both.
But let me come to your interesting point, the number of priestly ordinations. You are right, the number of Germans becoming priests in the SSPX is low. But look a bit deeper: The number of German-speaking Swiss becoming priests is much higher. The district superior of Switzerland for many years used to be - Father Niklaus Pfluger. His successor is very close to him and promoting the same line; it´s Father Wuilloud. In Germany and Austria, the SSP has more ordinations than the SSPX. If you take the number of ordinations as a measure, one could argue that the SSP is doing better than the German SSPX.
But one thing is clear: If the SSPX would follow +Williamson, it would lose nearly all college-educated faithful immediately, and probably the smartest priests, too. I don´t know whether you have watched this TV-report about the SSPX, and have heard what the seminary-priests have said about +Williamson. They would never accept him, would they?
As I told you, the more I think about and read statements like yours, the more I understand and support +Fellay. To bann extremist positions and to take care on being moderate is essential to convince people and get new faithful. If we want to mission - and we have to do it - we must stop political extremists such as h0Ɩ0cαųst deniers, Hitler-fans, conspiracy theorists etc. Fides et ratio - Faith and reason belong together, and especially when referring to Saint Thomas of Aquinas, there is a duty to stay moderate and distinguished. As far as I see it, the SSPX leadership is doing it, and hence should receive our solidarity and support.
God bless +Fellay!
Why are you watching TV Reports? Why are you watching TV? It is the Position of the SSPX to not watch TV and 3rd Order SSPX are forbidden to watch TV.
TV is controlled by our Enemies the Freemasons who distort and lie.
You have just accused a Catholic Bishop of being an "Extremist" According to the laws of the council of Trent you must prove this. Since Bishop Williamson does not support the nαzι's as you and the media claim you are guilty of calumny against a Bishop. This is a grave mortal sin. Bishop Williamson supports the truth, a truth by the way which is known across the world except in Germany. It is illegal to speak the truth in Germany. The Russians released the Aushwhich Docuмents after the cold war which prove that their were no Gas Chambers and that only a few hundred thousand Jews died. So why are you giving Billions of dollars to Israel?
By Giving Billions of dollars to Israel Germany will go down in history as commiting yet another genocide this time against the Palestinians, some of which are Christian.
Your accusations against Bishop Williamson are baseless to anyone who knows him or his positions and you are in serious mortal sin for uttering them.
Faith and Reason do belong together however it is NOT you who has these traits but it is we who are on the side of Bishop Williamson who have both Faith and Reason, it is we who actually follow St. Thomas Aquinas, in fact is Bishop Williamson who is the very best Thomistic scholar we have.
You would know this of course if you were not blinded by the media, the very media you are not supposed to be supporting.
The Media is Anti-Catholic and has always been, there are as Christ our Lord said two Kingdoms, the Kingdom of Heaven and the Kingdom of Satan, all who are not true Catholics are in the Kingdom of Satan and as such it is a dogmatic fact that all who are not in the Kingdom of Heaven will always hate Christs true church.
Your claim that the college educated are on the side of Bishop Fellay and against Bishop Williamson is quite rediculous. I am in a very Pro Bishop Williamson camp which contains, among others, PhD's and Lawyers. The Smartest Priests I have ever met are the ones trained by Bishop Williamson himself.
I can only conclude from your statement that their are either two possibilites. 1: You are a Liar, 2. German Colleges must be brainwashing people.
Bishop Fellay is losing more and more support in North America and everyone around here is solidly on the side of Bishop Williamson. Bishop Williamson is by far the most intelligent clergy in the SSPX.
It is said that Archbishop Lefebre sent one name to John Paul II in 1988 and stated that if he could have only 1 Bishop it would be Bishop Williamson.
Bishop Fellay on the other hand was an afterthought, originally after the dispute with JPII Archbishop Lefebre was going to consecrate 3 Bishops but changed it to 4 to include a Swiss at the last minute.
You have stated that you in the SSPX in Germany are voting for Liberals, since Liberalism is the very thing we are fighting I found this most distressful to hear. One cannot be a good Catholic and vote for a Masonic Belief system, Liberalism is the very thing that the Masons created.
Your claims about Germany being liked is quite rediculous aswell, you sound like a Nationalist, Catholics are not Nation first people, but then again you sound like a modernist aswell.
Germany is not well thought of in Catholic circles and those are the circles you should be concerned with, when our countries do something to please the Media or the Masonic controlled United Nations we are ashamed and protest, but you seem to be proud that you are allied with the Kingdom of Satan.
You do not sound like a good Catholic and your posts are making me like Bishop Fellay even less, because if people here were to believe that Bishop Fellay believes as you do there would be a mass split in the SSPX.
I do not think you realize what is going on, nor do I think you realize the gravity of the divisions that Bishop Fellay is causing. The only Priests that would support Bishop Fellay over Bishop Williamson are the very Priests who want to make a deal with Rome.
More and More I hear of discontent with Bishop Fellay over his handling, not just on the forums but across Southern Ontario, I'd assume it would be the same in the United States.
God Bless Bishop Williamson.
-
I can only conclude from your statement that their are either two possibilites. 1: You are a Liar, 2. German Colleges must be brainwashing people.
I believe the 2nd. Newman, I'm sure you are good willed. I know many here may seem to not be fully considering your side of argument, however, I can almost say without a doubt, they have. Perhaps taking a step back to actually listen to what they are saying would do you some good as well. There are some very valid points being made my friend. It would be unwise to take the facts presented to us by the media as true.
-
To follow Bishop Williamson is to follow the mission of Archbishop Lefebvre. Bishop Williamson has remained faithful to the mission and apostolate of the late Archbishop. Attacking Bishop Williamson and defending a liberal and masonic CDU is very revealing, Newman. You appear to wish to abandon the fight of Archbishop Lefebvre, NewMan.
I hope to discuss your views with a friend of mine in Stuttgart, Newman.
-
Newman,
You mentioned the Facebook page of Max Krah. Of his 'Activities and Interests' he lists 'Agent Provocateur' This is what 'Agent Provocateur' is:
Welcome to the official fan page of luxury lingerie brand, Agent Provocateur.
"The sexiest website in the world", Vogue.
Company Overview The world famous luxury lingerie brand has stores across the fashion centres of the world, including in London, New York, Vancouver, Las Vegas, Los Angeles, Paris, Vienna, Berlin and more. The first shop was opened on London's Broadwick Street in the Soho district in 1994.
Mission Agent Provocateur believes that passion and intimacy should be indulged, and that exploring your inner desires and fantasies profoundly enriches your life.
Agent Provocateur lingerie is an opulent range of inspirational creations, designed to intensify life’s pleasures and unlock your innermost desires. Our elegant ranges, designed with both the boardroom and the boudoir in mind, ensure that women can be sexy and professional as the mood takes them.
Products Designer lingerie - Bras - Knickers - Suspender belts - Corsetry - Bodysuits - Nightwear - Hosiery - Garters - Bridal lingerie - Swimwear - Perfume - Beauty products - Massage oil - Pasties - Whips - Gloves -
'Activities and Interests' of Max Krah
Columbia University, Thomas de Maizière, Karl-Theodor zu Guttenberg, Angela Merkel, London Business School, KDStV Chursachsen, 116. Mittelschule Dresden, Kreuzgymnasium, Columbia University, Columbia Business School Executive MBA Program, LinkedIn, Mittelstandsvereinigung der CDU Dresden, CDU Dresden, Hotel Sacher, Josef Ackermann, Agent Provocateur, Joachim Gauck, Exzellenz für Dresden, Junge Union Dresden, Junge Union Sachsen & Niederschlesien, Lufthansa, Lufthansa Senator Status, The Oratory of S Philip Neri in London (Brompton Oratory), Pushkin Cafe, Russian Ministry for Economic Development, Sankt Petersburg, Moscow, Patrick Schreiber, GUT JAIDHOF, DesignerHeels, vorne-sitzen.de, Ipad 2, Boris Johnson, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, EINSTEIN KAFFEE Dresden, Bobby Jindal, Friedrich Merz, Columbia Business School, Russian Standard Deutschland, gerne-katholisch.de, EB&Flow, CDU Dresden - Ortsverband Zschachwitz, CallaJet.de (Privatjet Charter Broker), German Embassy Washington, CDU-Fraktion Sachsen, Bishop Bernard Fellay, Henryk M. Broder, The Economist, Support German Troops, Donald Rumsfeld, Dmitri Shostakovich, Wir wollen Guttenberg zurück, DER SPIEGEL, Nicolas Sarkozy, Royal Opera House, Semperoper, FÜR Stuttgart 21, Benedikt XVI, Konrad-Adenauer-Stiftung, SPAM, CDU Hamburg, EMBA Global Asia 2012and 47 more
-
Newman, you haven't answered a question I put to you directly (and you won't), because, I believe, you are just an extension of that thread-killing creep over at IA, the "bifurcated fisth" Ashmolean. Let me put it to you directly again, sirrah: Is Bishop Williamson, in your opinion, an "extremist?" Simple question, requiring a simple answer.
-
Maximilian Krah (Facebook)
Activities and Interests
Other Columbia University, Thomas de Maizière, Karl-Theodor zu Guttenberg, Angela Merkel, London Business School, KDStV Chursachsen, 116. Mittelschule Dresden, Kreuzgymnasium, Columbia University, Columbia Business School Executive MBA Program, LinkedIn, Mittelstandsvereinigung der CDU Dresden, CDU Dresden, Hotel Sacher, Josef Ackermann, Agent Provocateur, Joachim Gauck, Exzellenz für Dresden, Junge Union Dresden, Junge Union Sachsen & Niederschlesien, Lufthansa, Lufthansa Senator Status, The Oratory of S Philip Neri in London (Brompton Oratory), Pushkin Cafe, Russian Ministry for Economic Development, Sankt Petersburg, Moscow, Patrick Schreiber, GUT JAIDHOF, DesignerHeels, vorne-sitzen.de, Ipad 2, Boris Johnson, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, EINSTEIN KAFFEE Dresden, Bobby Jindal, Friedrich Merz, Columbia Business School, Russian Standard Deutschland, gerne-katholisch.de, EB&Flow, CDU Dresden - Ortsverband Zschachwitz, CallaJet.de (Privatjet Charter Broker), German Embassy Washington, CDU-Fraktion Sachsen, Bishop Bernard Fellay, Henryk M. Broder, The Economist, Support German Troops, Donald Rumsfeld, Dmitri Shostakovich, Wir wollen Guttenberg zurück, DER SPIEGEL, Nicolas Sarkozy, Royal Opera House, Semperoper, FÜR Stuttgart 21, Benedikt XVI, Konrad-Adenauer-Stiftung, SPAM, CDU Hamburg, EMBA Global Asia 2012and 47 more
DesignerHeels
Why the interest in designer high heels, Mr Krah?
-
Maximilian Krah (Facebook)
Activities and Interests
Other Columbia University, Thomas de Maizière, Karl-Theodor zu Guttenberg, Angela Merkel, London Business School, KDStV Chursachsen, 116. Mittelschule Dresden, Kreuzgymnasium, Columbia University, Columbia Business School Executive MBA Program, LinkedIn, Mittelstandsvereinigung der CDU Dresden, CDU Dresden, Hotel Sacher, Josef Ackermann, Agent Provocateur, Joachim Gauck, Exzellenz für Dresden, Junge Union Dresden, Junge Union Sachsen & Niederschlesien, Lufthansa, Lufthansa Senator Status, The Oratory of S Philip Neri in London (Brompton Oratory), Pushkin Cafe, Russian Ministry for Economic Development, Sankt Petersburg, Moscow, Patrick Schreiber, GUT JAIDHOF, DesignerHeels, vorne-sitzen.de, Ipad 2, Boris Johnson, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, EINSTEIN KAFFEE Dresden, Bobby Jindal, Friedrich Merz, Columbia Business School, Russian Standard Deutschland, gerne-katholisch.de, EB&Flow, CDU Dresden - Ortsverband Zschachwitz, CallaJet.de (Privatjet Charter Broker), German Embassy Washington, CDU-Fraktion Sachsen, Bishop Bernard Fellay, Henryk M. Broder, The Economist, Support German Troops, Donald Rumsfeld, Dmitri Shostakovich, Wir wollen Guttenberg zurück, DER SPIEGEL, Nicolas Sarkozy, Royal Opera House, Semperoper, FÜR Stuttgart 21, Benedikt XVI, Konrad-Adenauer-Stiftung, SPAM, CDU Hamburg, EMBA Global Asia 2012and 47 more
DesignerHeels
Why the interest in designer high heels, Mr Krah?
Are you guys really judging a man by his Facebook interests? C'mon.... you have more substantial evidence than this...
PS
Many times people use this as a humorous section... ie- not real interests...
-
Newman,
Again we must come back to reality,
The German people, dear J.Paul, are in no way "traumatized, self critical, and patholigised." How many Germans do you know? Germany is back again and the Germans are quite satisfied with the role their country plays. And about Tel Aviv University I can´t follow you, either. As I told you, one of the founding fathers of German Catholic tradition, Professor Lauth, taught there.
The German people as a whole are indeed suffering from an induced mass psychosis. How many Germans actually believe the falsified history of WWI and WWII? How many Germans believe that Germany is responsible for WWII?
Why does a country which is satisfied with itself continue to pay billions in reparations? How does such a contented population allow and accept laws written by Zionist extremists who despise the German to take away his liberty, freedom, and dignity? Germany is now a country which represses any show of nationalism. How can one be proud of one's country when one cannot be proud of who he is and his heritage? How can a mentally healthy and self confident nation allow itself to be bullied and humiliated by a group of racialist extemists who have played the major part in the destruction of Germany twice over?
Perhaps you are just one more re-educated person who knows and believes no more than the approved false narrative.
As for Tel Aviv University, in is indisputable fact that it is a major hotbed of Mossad intriques and prolific producer of radical тαℓмυdist Zionists who are the agents and soldiers of the terror state.
and we have to do it - we must stop political extremists such as h0Ɩ0cαųst deniers, Hitler-fans, conspiracy theorists etc. Fides et ratio - Faith and reason belong together,
This is the lanquage of the international Zionist! We have the Glorius Catholic faith, but you would have us suspend all reason to be as obedient slaves to falsehood. Who can consciously do such a thing and think that he remains Catholic?
-
Why are you [=Neuman] watching TV Reports? Why are you watching TV? It is the Position of the SSPX to not watch TV and 3rd Order SSPX are forbidden to watch TV.
TV is controlled by our Enemies the Freemasons who distort and lie.
A large part of the German-speaking SSPX laity ignores this fact. So they watch TV and read the standard mass media which are both controlled by God's enemies.
The SSPX headquarter in Stuttgart regularly encourages the FRG laity to watch certain TV shows, e.g. when there's another agitation report against the traditional catholics including the SSPX. Because then usually Fr Schmidberger or Bp Fellay is shown for 60 or so seconds. Afterwards the SSPX folks are happy and think they've improved their public relations. The motto must be: the more often you got mentioned the better!
There's several reasons for this unwise behaviour. One reason is that the deformed European SSPX seeks frantically to have a good press and good TV reports. This started with Krah's advisory activity in Stuttgart and Menzingen. Another reason is that the FRG is a very, very liberal country. And furthermore the deformed European SSPX has no deep connection to Archbishop Lefebvre anymore but uses him as a fig-leaf.
Anyway, this voluntary exposure to the barrage of mass media means a re-education of the European catholics.
I don´t know whether you have watched this TV-report about the SSPX
The SSPX superiors officially encouraged the laity to watch this TV-report. It has been made by a Jew, by the way, and was no good. That's the "Krah connection".
... and have heard what the seminary-priests have said about +Williamson. They would never accept him, would they?
Unfortunately the German SSPX seminary in Zaitzkofen tends to be brainwashed, too. E.g. Neuman's recommended TV-report made by a Jew, "nicely" showed a lection at lunchtime where one poor seminarian had to read a "h0Ɩ0cαųst" scary story to the eating seminarians...
I hope the American seminaries don't do such non-spiritual lections during lunch, but spiritual ones. Their increasing number of new priests indicates so. God bless Bishop Williamson.
-
The time before WWI was a catastrophe for Germany. The time after WWI was a catastrophe for Germany. The time after WWII was a catastrophe for Germany.
The country has re-established itself once again due to the quality and industriousness of the German people, as they have repeatedly done throughout history. However Germany today is a country with a traumatized, self critical, and patholigised population. As former Chancellor Helmut Schmidt noted, "We have falsified our own history into a criminal record!"
The German people are the first victims of the false history which Bishop Williamson and the few prelates with the courage to speak out have declared void.
Well said, and thanks also for your newest post.
As an Austrian German traveling to Federal Republic of Germany frequently, I can verify what you said. The main reason for this German self destructive traumatisation is the vicious 'h0Ɩ0cαųst' lie (http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php/Truth-about-Auschwitz). This traumatisation is also the reason why so many German-speaking SSPX priests and superiors acted and still act very hysterical about what the good Bishop Williamson said (Bp Fellay is half Swiss-French and half Swiss-German).
Bishop Williamson had mercy with us Germans when he answered the Swedish interview question truthfully. He surely knows that the Germans who now as attack dogs of the Jews attack the Bishop and try to bring him to court are re-educated i.e. brainwashed. So it's high time for another washing program: the truth!
Indeed many Germans are brainwashed constantly by the "h0Ɩ0cαųst" propaganda which is omnipresent in the German-speaking media. Beginning with Krah's advisory activity in the SSPX also the European SSPX started to become "h0Ɩ0cαųst"-ified, in fact already before January 2009. Nicely timed anyway.
In contrast to the leadership of the deformed SSPX the good Archbishop Lefebvre wisely avoided the "h0Ɩ0cαųst" and WWII lies because he knew:
Since Israel refused the true Messiah, it would give itself another messianism that is temporal and earthbound, dominating the world by money, Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ, Revolution, and social democracy.
We must not, however, forget that those Jews who were disciples of the true Messiah founded the true Israel, the spiritual kingdom, which prepares the heavenly kingdom.
The worldwide designs of the Jews are being brought about in our time, but they started with the foundation of Masonry and the Revolution which has decapitated the Church and set up worldwide socialist democracy.
("Marcel Lefebvre" by Bishop Tissier de Mallerais, Angelus Press, pages 602-603)
The Russian News & Information Agency RIA Novosti reported on 20/7/2011 something which nicely underlines what you, J.Paul, wrote in your two posts: Germany to donate another Submarine to Israel (http://de.rian.ru/world/20110720/259821908.html)
Let's translate a key passage of the German text :
Germany about to deliver the sixth submarine of the Dolphin class [...] to the Israeli marine [...]
"Israel will only pay two third of the full price", writes Kommersat. "The Germans virtually donated the first two submarines to the Israelis. The reasons for this liberality were brought to light by a conversation between the US embassy in Tel Aviv and the US foreign ministry, which later has been leaked by Wikileaks: The US diplomats explained the German liberality with the German guilt complex for the h0Ɩ0cαųst."
[...]
So even today FRG is "donating" such submarines to the war criminal Israel which cost over one billion (British: milliard) Euros. Despite the de facto bankruptcy of FRG!
By the way, the world's financial crisis doesn't exist in one country: Israel. Maybe that's the reason why Menzingen and Stuttgart hire a Zionist like Krah? :)
-
Beyond Facebook, let us come back.
First, yes, I believe that +Williamson helds extremist positions. And as far as I have read what +Fellay or Fr Schmidberger wrote, they do agree with that. +Fellay compared him with "uranium" etc.
It is interesting for me to see how different the experiences are. I am surrounded by people who are fully pro +Fellay and the SSPX-leadership and openly against +Williamson. And the parish isn´t that small and I am not isolated. The same with the priests. The best and most accepted German expert for St. Thomas of Aquinas is Fr Gaudron. He would never agree that +W is in anyway an expert in St. Thomas of Aquinas. The views you describe me from the US are completely different from what I experience here and hear from friends in Switzerland and Paris (St Nicholas).
I don´t know about the situation in Austria. But until now I thought it would be quite similar to Germany and Switzerland. So I wonder about your words, Ethelred. I don´t know about the situation of the SSPX there - it might be a very small group, right? - but the h0Ɩ0cαųst denying law is even stricter than in Germany, isn´t it?
The movie I mentioned was braodcasted in TV and got recommended by the SSPX clergy. One can buy the video-CD from the district seat in Stuttgart. I like it very much, it is fair and balanced. At all, the media reports on the SSPX have reached some fairness, especially in comparison to the first wave after the TV-interview with +W was broadcasted. It changed w/ the SPIEGEL interview of +Fellay.
Maybe your Americans and Brits do underestimate the importance of Germany in today´s church. There is the German Pope who is doing quite well and there are the German bishops, mostly horrible, who have power due to their immense financal funds they get from the German state which collects taxes for them. Germany and the Catholic church here is not under supression by outsiders, but by their own Vatican-II-minded elite.
The fight on the faith is neither about economics nor about politics and history, but on doctrine. In Germany, there is a famous Catholic author, Matussek, who wrote a book pro ecclesia, another famous novelist, Mosebach, wrote a book to support the mass "de toujours." Both are bestsellers. I don´t know another country in which such books are written by established writers, get bestsellers and are commented positively in the papers. So I do not agree in your bashing of today´s Germany. It´s a nice and friendly country. More, I see the positive results of the media camapgn by +Fellay and the SSPX. Things have changed and got better. There are good fruits. It´s not convincing to stay aside and be lucky about bad news, we all have to do what´s possible. We are not from the world, but we´re in it, so we have to communicate with those who aren´t with us yet. It´s never wrong to be nice and to care on the picture we give to others. Isn´t there a PR-consultant hired in Austria? What are the results? Anyway, I see the SSPX on a good way. Maybe an agreement with the Pope is possible within the truth. We should all contribute in the rosarys +Fellay asks to pray. May God bless him!
-
Newman:
First, yes, I believe that +Williamson (holds) extremist positions. And as far as I have read what +Fellay or Fr Schmidberger wrote, they do agree with that. +Fellay compared him with "uranium" etc.
Well, he did answer my question directly. It's on the record with Newman, viz. that he and his cohorts believe +W, at one degree or another, to be an extremist. Now Newman needs to elaborate, e.g. What specific "extremist positions" does +W hold, in his opinion?
Newman It is interesting for me to see how different the experiences are. I am surrounded by people who are fully pro +Fellay and the SSPX-leadership and openly against +Williamson.
Well, I'm here at ICC in Post Falls, ID where probably the same could be said for a great many of the 1500 plus parishioners. But they are not so open about it. I am fully pro- +W and moving rapidly towards being fully anti-Fellay. I don't see what can come out of that except an open break at some point in time. It is very tragic, but that's the way it's going to be if this kind of stuff keeps up.
Newman: So I do not agree in your bashing of today´s Germany. It´s a nice and friendly country. More, I see the positive results of the media camapgn by +Fellay and the SSPX. Things have changed and got better. There are good fruits. It´s not convincing to stay aside and be lucky about bad news, we all have to do what´s possible. We are not from the world, but we´re in it, so we have to communicate with those who aren´t with us yet.
So then, as I read Newman, to "communicate with those who aren't with us yet," i.e. to ingratiate ourselves with the politicians and press of our own country, we must seem to have changed for the better. We must repudiate +W's extremism (read 'h0Ɩ0cαųst denial). We must throw him under the bus, and to all but totally "distance" ourselves from him. That will produce "good fruits." That will put us on better terms with the FGR and insure the survival of SSPX here. It may come at the price of seeming to endorse a huge 60-year old lie, but that's what it takes presently in order to get along with the ruling powers in Germany and the rest of western Europe. And while we're at it, we might as well undercut any remaining theological credentials the bishop seems to possess. We'll inform the whole world he's not really the expert on Thomas Aquinas that he may think he is.
You know, Newman, if this really is the thinking of SSPX priests and laity alike in your neck of the woods, then I, for one, will not hesitate to bid SSPX adieu.
Newman: It´s never wrong to be nice and to care (about) the picture (i.e. image) we give (i.e. present) to others. Isn´t there a PR-consultant hired in Austria? What are the results? Anyway, I see the SSPX on a good way.
Yeah, Ethelred, that's the problem in Austria. The SSPX there needs a "PR-consultant," an ad man, as it were, someone who can sell a kinder and gentler SSPX, a less extreme and ultra-conservative SSPX, an SSPX that is not so h0Ɩ0cαųst-unfriendly, one that can convince the public at large that they really have distanced themselves from the extremist views of their senior bishop. :smirk:
Newman: Maybe an agreement with the Pope is possible within the truth. We should all contribute in the rosarys +Fellay asks to pray. May God bless him!
+F may have to yank and twist the truth around, but he'll eventually do it, by golly!
-
Newman: Quote:
First, yes, I believe that +Williamson (holds) extremist positions. And as far as I have read what +Fellay or Fr Schmidberger wrote, they do agree with that. +Fellay compared him with "uranium" etc.
Well, he did answer my question directly. It's on the record with Newman, viz. that he and his cohorts believe +W, at one degree or another, to be an extremist. Now Newman needs to elaborate, e.g. What specific "extremist positions" does +W hold, in his opinion?
[/quote]
Oh, Hollingsworth, I think he does elaborate in the basic sense, Bishop Fellay and Father Schmidberger both subscribe to the "h0Ɩ0cαųst" falsehood and require those under them to do the same. Bishop Williamson does not believe it, therefore he holds a position which is extreme to theirs. Truth and falsehood are certainly primary extremes.
Germany is no longer Germany for the Germans, it has defacto become Germany for the Jews once again.
-
I don´t know about the situation in Austria. But until now I thought it would be quite similar to Germany and Switzerland.
Many Austrian-Germans don't have a "h0Ɩ0cαųst" traumatisation and so are usually not hysterical about Bishop Williamson's true words in the Sweden TV interview. I'm talking about the people, not about the "published opinion".
So there are accordingly more SSPX priests in Austria liking the good Bishop. Furthermore many Austrian catholics are no fans of Fr Schmidberger because he appears as a Prussian "Piefke" to us. We also remember that he ruined the formerly well-resourced Austrian SSPX district.
You wrote that most FRG-German SSPX catholics you know are anti Bishop Williamson. This is my experience, too, and it's clearly one of the many bad fruits of over two years of systematic Bishop-Wiliamson-baiting (i.e. brainwashing) done by SSPX superiors like Bp Fellay, Fr Pfluger, Fr Schmidberger and of course by the Jew's agent Krah.
In catholic hierarchies usually the clerics influence the laity. This is especially true because the New-SSPX demands a non-catholic blind obedience in contrast to a catholic duly obedience. Archbishop Lefebvre explained the difference in many sermons, but the New-SSPX broke with the Archbishop in so many ways.
During the Krah connection the Austrian-German SSPX district superior Fr Michael Weigl has been transfered (i.e. kicked) for obscure reasons and replaced by another FRG-German Piefke named Fr Trutt. Then Krah took over the high-price Jaidhof Stiftung. This is an estate donated to the Austrian SSPX by a catholic woman whose husband was a Jew. Maybe a way to bind the SSPX to a gilded cage? The Krahgate files indicate so.
-
Meaningful is your, Newman's, downplaying of the most subtle enemy of the traditional Church :
There is the German Pope who is doing quite well...
According to three of the four SSPX bishops the German Pope BXVI is doing terrible however. In contrast to this, you Krah guys stay totally loyal to the ѕуηαgσgυє's best helper, BXVI, whose press officer Lombardi officially raised the "h0Ɩ0cαųst" lie to a Newchurch "dogma".
In blindness the SSPX leadership has adopted this "dogma" and so raises an historical matter to a "dogma", too, whilst on the very same time they tell their clerics and in particular Bishop Williamson not to ever utter any historical or political statement. Well, that's perfect liberal double-thinking!
So it's not surprising that Fr Pfluger and Krah hold the extremist attitude to deny Bishop Williamson being a catholic at all.
For a profound unmasking of BXVI's liberalism see Bishop Tissier's excellent Faith Imperiled by Reason: Benedict XVI’s Hermeneutics (http://bibliaytradicion.wordpress.com/tradicion/faith-imperiled-by-reason-benedict-xvis-hermeneutics/) and Bishop Williamson's recent EC series about this. Both bishops prove that BXVI does not uphold the catholic Faith but destroys the Church. In his famous Stephen Heiner interview (around 2006) Bishop Tissier also said that BXVI is much worse than Luther. Yes, Luther the greatest heretic ever.
And there's the third bishop to take the same line, see Bishop Galarreta's recent sermon in Econe (http://www.dici.org/en/news/we-do-not-have-to-choose-between-faith-and-charity-we-must-embrace-both/) where he unmasks BXVI as still being the liberal catholic who's met and combated Archbishop Lefebvre.
Bishop Galarreta says e.g. : Liberalism tries to reconcile Catholicism with the thought that sprang from 1789
And: Archbishop Lefebvre had correctly seen and described the evil of our time, of society, and above all the evil in the Church. This evil is called quite simply liberalism.
You, Newman, try to reconcile Catholicism with 1789, too. (By the way, 1789 was financed by Jews. Naturally. They're involved in any war against God since their deicide. The catholics until and including St. Pius X knew this well.)
That's why you appreciate the Jew's agent Krah and support the FRG Zionist party CDU which actively implements mass abortions, eugenics, ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖity, gender-mainstreaming, etc.
In short today's governing FRG-party CDU is an exact product of 1789. And you propagate it. At the same time you call Bishop Williamson an extremist. It's vice versa and you're double-thinking all the time.
Catholic liberalism means to live in a dreamland which is about to hit reality very hard now. It has infected most parts of the German-speaking SSPX and other parts of Europe, too. By now I'm afraid that a big part of central European's SSPX catholics mainly follow what once was the SSPX of the Archbishop, only because it's the sweetest continuation of the bad 1950's.
The New-SSPX which itself bound to BXVI's reconciliation of Catholicism and 1789, is doomed like the Newchurch and the 1789 societies are. Dear Hollingsworth, I don't think there will be a split anymore. It's too late! Europe and America as we know them will cease to exist soon, and it will happen with the New-SSPX, too.
So I really hope the next Bishop Williamson appeal will be not before summer 2012, because then there won't exist a FRG anymore, let alone an EU. God bless Bishop Williamson!
Christus vincit, Christus regnat, Christus imperat.
-
Benedict XVI(16): anti-pope.
-
Statement of Pope Pius XII(XIII) re: nαzι war crimes, Dec 24, 1942
" humanity owes this vow to those hundreds of thousands, who w/o any fault of their own, sometimes only by reason of their nationality or race, are marked down for death or gradual extinction".
-
I would say having a German in Rome making a few superficial conservative gestures was enough to attract the German zone, having no interest in ABL's political platform and eager to jetison the rebellious image. One would have to wonder what attracted the Germans to the Society in the first place unless the problem now is the liberal creep associated with a new generation. But from what I am hearing there also seems to be a new agenda at the centre with the introduction of modern corporate methods in areas of finance, public relations, litigation and control of personnel, all intended to ape the world and blend in with the religious and political status quo. I had no hopes in the outcome of the 'doctrinal talks' nor were the leadership expecting any, the whole exercise being part of this new image of co-operation for its own sake. I guess most people will not notice this volte face if carefully managed at local level. A new phase in the Society could be underway with the current regime desperate to seek some recognition inside the mainstream. But without doubt the era of militant Lefebvrism is over and this cause is now reduced to being another liturgical watering hole. Am not quite sure though where the French Revolution fits in with all this; maybe a needle has got stuck in a groove.
-
sometimes only by reason of their nationality or race, are marked down for death or gradual extinction".
Oh yes! White European Christians......
-
Wessex,
But from what I am hearing there also seems to be a new agenda at the centre with the introduction of modern corporate methods in areas of finance, public relations, litigation and control of personnel,
Wes, I believe this to be true. From a pious brotherhood to a modern business model. One can see the slickness creeping in and the rapid tightening of information and control. And as we have sadly seen, it is working.
JMJ
-
Newman was banned for believing in the so-called "h0Ɩ0cαųst" LIE that 6 million Jews were killed by the nαzιs during WW2.
He called Bishop Williamson an extremist.
Anyone who calls Bishop Williamson an extremist calls ME (and a bunch of the frequent posters here) the same epithet.
Anyone who swallows the BS that the h0Ɩ0cαųst happened as the Jews claim it did is too brainwashed to be welcome here on CathInfo. They simply won't fit in.
Matthew
-
Newman was banned for believing in the so-called "h0Ɩ0cαųst" LIE that 6 million Jews were killed by the nαzιs during WW2.
He called Bishop Williamson an extremist.
Anyone who calls Bishop Williamson an extremist calls ME (and a bunch of the frequent posters here) the same epithet.
Anyone who swallows the BS that the h0Ɩ0cαųst happened as the Jews claim it did is too brainwashed to be welcome here on CathInfo. They simply won't fit in.
Matthew
I had mistaken Newman to be an enabler. But in his last post he had tell tale signs of being an Narc. Sociopath like calling other" irrational" right after writing blatant half truths (being irrational himself).
I was going to shed light on this. No need, you did the right thing.
I will, however, give some consolation that when a Narc Sociopath does this and gets a fix it often backfires. In this case it did because this thread enlightened me and others about the truth of the + Williamson case due to the hard work and well written responses of Eldred, JP, Wessex and others.
Thanks all,
sheep
-
sometimes only by reason of their nationality or race, are marked down for death or gradual extinction".
Oh yes! White European Christians......
This does seem to be the case.
-
Thank you very much Matthew, plus all the others who defended our good Bishop Williamson. Blessings from God! I've never seen so many catholics defending Bishop Williamson in one place. It's an amazing experience and I am very thankful for it.
So, let's get back to the topic.
Is there a website or paper magazine which quotes Krah's interview during the trial in a verbatim way? Or a German-speaking witness who does so?
Because so far I've only seen summaries done by newspapers, i.e. indirect quotes. They're already vicious enough, e.g. see the bottom of the following article in the leftist Regensburg-digital:
http://www.regensburg-digital.de/williamson-prozess-bunter-vogel-brauner-schwarm/04072011/
You can feed this to Google Translator or similar:
http://translate.google.com
But the verbatim quotation of Krah's words would be very interesting.
Thanks.
-
Partly because of the ban or partial ban on Krahgate reporting on other sites such as Angelqueen and Ignis Ardens. The latter suffering from official threats and the tactics of agent provocateurs destabling threads, including memorials to General Franco and Marshal Petain .... with the moderator's blessing.
Without doing any research, I have not seen any detail accounts of Bp. W's appeal to complement Lady Renouf's report. We have to establish whether Krah was in court and/or there was any further spoken or written intervention on his part. It is hard to imagine the hand of Menzingen not being there in some way to influence events and to add to the nobbled defence.
-
Partly because of the ban or partial ban on Krahgate reporting on other sites such as Angelqueen and Ignis Ardens.
Yes, that's very unfortunate.
All the better that Cathinfo is a refuge for people defending Bishop Williamson and/or quoting the Krahgate file.
The latter suffering from official threats and the tactics of agent provocateurs destabling threads, including memorials to General Franco and Marshal Petain .... with the moderator's blessing.
That's the way of the "liberal traditionalists" as Bishop Williamson described them in his EC 185 (http://eleisonkommentar.blogspot.com/2011/01/ec-185-traditionelle-infektion.html) and EC 186 (http://eleisonkommentar.blogspot.com/2011/02/ec-186-liberale-verseuchung.html).
Without doing any research, I have not seen any detail accounts of Bp. W's appeal to complement Lady Renouf's report. We have to establish whether Krah was in court and/or there was any further spoken or written intervention on his part.
Well, we know for sure that Krah was in the court because he was called as witness and as such he did an oral interview. During his oral interview Krah defamed Bishop Williamson again. The leftist Regensburg-Digital magazine and several others report this correctly.
Just a word for word transcript of Krah's oral interview is still missing.
-
It is hard to imagine the hand of Menzingen not being there in some way to influence events and to add to the nobbled defence.
Well, Krah is the official SSPX lawyer and is frequently entering and leaving Stuttgart, Jaidhof and Menzingen. Also he's a close friend with Bp. Fellay's first assistant Fr Pfluger, and he's advisor of Bp Fellay. So it's safe to say Krah defamed the good Bishop with the permission of Menzingen.
Bp Fellay dislikes the good Bishop not only because of his clear attitudes on historical and political topics, but also or rather mainly because of Bishop Williamson's theological positions. For example Bishop Williamson's condemnation of pope BXVI's heresies (liberalism, subjectivism), his opposition to Menzingen's glorifying of BXVI, and his opposition to their hoping for an Ordinariat, etc.
Our main problem is: "Bp Fellay's SSPX is no longer the SSPX of the Archbishop."
This sentence is also the reason why we see Bishop Williamson accused by a German court. It was a Newchurch catholic German intelligence officer who said to a close friend of mine in 2009: The day Bishop Fellay dropped Bishop Williamson publicly (instead of acting like a real catholic and defending his brother in faith!) was the start sign for the Judaized and Freemason'ed authorities of Argentina to blow off Bishop Williamson from their country like a tramp. And basically the situation is so until today. And it's a shame for all catholics.
P.S. I know more German-speaking Newchurch catholics who defend Bishop Williamson for his Sweden Interview than I know (German-speaking) SSPX catholics doing so. This is weird, isn't it!?
P.P.S. Maybe you remember that at the end of his life the brave Archbishop Lefebvre was in a French court charged with the very same NWO imputation as the British Bishop is today: "incitement of the people".
A French Jєωιѕн group sued Archbishop Lefebvre for his profound critics on Islam. Funny, isn't it? The Jews as the Islams' advocate. By the way, in the end the Archbishop got sentenced. IIRC the sentence was proclaimed on the same day the Archbishop died...
-
Partly because of the ban or partial ban on Krahgate reporting on other sites such as Angelqueen and Ignis Ardens. The latter suffering from official threats and the tactics of agent provocateurs destabling threads, including memorials to General Franco and Marshal Petain .... with the moderator's blessing.
There has been a definite change, over the last two years, in the Societies policies. They have become much more aggressive and worldly. The use of the litigious threats and other pressures, such as those which were publicly employed
against Bishop Williamson, to accomplish thier goals is an ominous sign. It objectively appears that a new way of thought has entered into the leaders.
You can see that they accomplished the objective of instilling fear of discussing certain unwanted topics as well as the supression of certain facts and writings.
As to the second statement, it is confounding how the "new" provocateurs were able to appear rather suddenly about the same time as the public threats and almost immediately begin to direct, or more correctly, misdirect discussions on the forum so as to acheive the same results. It is not worth attempting a serious dicussion as it always seems to be met with sarcasm, insults, and almost immediate diversion of the topic into something entirely unrelated.
It may just be co-incidence however, they objectively seem to function as gatekeepers.
It is hard to imagine the hand of Menzingen not being there in some way to influence events and to add to the nobbled defence.
Indeed! Mr. Krah is the paid agent of the Society. In relation to its business, of which the Bishop's trial is a part, as evidenced by the constant interference in his choices of council, one must conclude that Mr. Krah's "evidence" and its intended damage, was fully approved of by his employer.
These are tragic days for the Catholic Church.
-
P.S. I know more German-speaking Newchurch catholics who defend Bishop Williamson for his Sweden Interview than I know (German-speaking) SSPX catholics doing so. This is weird, isn't it!?
Yes, we tend to regard all conciliar Catholics as being liberal in every way and yet there could be pockets of some resistance in unusual places. And this also includes support from cultural/nominal Catholics, non-Catholics and aetheists which numerically would far exceed the meagre traditionalist response. Not everyone of course is acutely aware of world events and the location of power and would regard the bishop's case and others like it as being over their heads. However, there would be others with enough sense of justice moved to speak out in support of the bishop coming from the general population. It may seem incredible that a major source of division among trads would be over a view of modern history but then religious principle has to be tested in the real world.
-
P.S. I know more German-speaking Newchurch catholics who defend Bishop Williamson for his Sweden Interview than I know (German-speaking) SSPX catholics doing so. This is weird, isn't it!?
If this is true it would not surprise me. A lot of SSPXers allow their personal distaste for his preaching (he says women shouldn't attend university as a general rule -- gasp! Bishop Williamson believes women should be stupid! -- He's anti-woman!) color their opinions on his case.
-
P.S. I know more German-speaking Newchurch catholics who defend Bishop Williamson for his Sweden Interview than I know (German-speaking) SSPX catholics doing so. This is weird, isn't it!?
.
I know, it is weird. But when you think about it , it's not who he is (Bishop) or his societal, religious views. It,s more a freedom issue.
For me, I knew he was a Bishop in the SSPX but I did not know his religious ideas. I didn't need to know his ideas to defend him because I believe if +Williamson goes down we all go down. Why don't the(SSPX) see this?
Or in cases of the non-Catholic world they see this as a "who will be next" thing. They know it will not end with +W.
sheep
-
P.S. I know more German-speaking Newchurch catholics who defend Bishop Williamson for his Sweden Interview than I know (German-speaking) SSPX catholics doing so. This is weird, isn't it!?
P.P.S. Maybe you remember that at the end of his life the brave Archbishop Lefebvre was in a French court charged with the very same NWO imputation as the British Bishop is today: "incitement of the people".
A French Jєωιѕн group sued Archbishop Lefebvre for his profound critics on Islam. Funny, isn't it? The Jews as the Islams' advocate. By the way, in the end the Archbishop got sentenced. IIRC the sentence was proclaimed on the same day the Archbishop died...
Thank you Ethelred, for explaining and making known just how hopeless the situation has become in the SSPX.
-
Bp Fellay's SSPX is no longer the SSPX of the Archbishop
Bishop Fellay has questions to answer.That is for certain.
-
I know more German-speaking Newchurch catholics who defend Bishop Williamson for his Sweden Interview than I know (German-speaking) SSPX catholics doing so. This is weird, isn't it!?
The grace of God at work. Thank God for this interview on Swedish tv. It brought many to Catholic Tradition.
-
Thank you Ethelred, for explaining and making known just how hopeless the situation has become in the SSPX.
With pleasure.
Clearly Bishop Williamson is the true follower of Archbishop Lefebvre. Just look at his excellent Eleison Comments (http://eleisonkommentar.blogspot.com). They're clear, smart and always a wonderful so-called "application of the Faith" of the Church.
How on earth can Menzingen battle the ECs and their author !
Archbishop Lefebvre also knew how to do "applications of the Faith". This method has the power to reinforce catholics and to attract many not-yet-so-catholic people in a subtle way to Our Lord. Too few clerics in the today's SSPX know how to do it anymore. It's not such a surprise, because too many of them are busy with battling the good Bishop Williamson... Weird!
Let's take an important sentence from EC CLXII: Discussions blind-sided? (http://eleisonkommentar.blogspot.com/2010/08/ec-162-unterlaufung-der-gesprache.html), August 21, 2010 :
From France and Germany, I was told me a few weeks ago that a large proportion of Catholics attending SSPX Mass centres are only hoping and waiting for some agreement to come out of the discussions. If – repeat, if – this is true, it is very serious. Such Catholics may get full marks for wishing not to be cut off from what appears to be Rome, but they get low marks for not grasping that as long as the discussions remain doctrinal, there is no way in which the neo-modernist teaching of Vatican II can be reconciled with the Catholic doctrine of the true Church. Such Catholics may venerate and love Archbishop Lefebvre as they see him, but they have not understood what he was all about. They had best wake up if they are not in one way or another to fall into the arms of the neo-modernist Romans.
I've to confirm that this describes the situation in the German-speaking SSPX, so it is hopeless. We're surrounded by Krahs and Pflugers (Krah for example always talks about the agreement). I'm afraid also the French SSPX has a such a state of mind and hence huge problems with Bishop Williamson. But at least their Bishop Tissier de Mallerais is theologically with him. Just look at the recent ECs about Benedict's Thinking.
On the other hand, I'm delighted to see the English-speaking US Americans' and Canadians' support for our good Bishop, like you here on Cathinfo. If I judge your reports correctly, then the good Bishop still has got a solid base of support in the US American and Canadian catholics. (But some of my pen pals say this is combated by SSPX clerics, including superiors, and laymen...)
If so, this is promising!
If I did not assume that the crash of the world wide financial system was immanent (it's said: latest in September) with incredible consequences for us all, and then followed by the Chastisement some time later, I would agree with the good Hollingsworth and say that there could occur a purging split in the SSPX: On the one side those wanting to stay with Bishop Williamson's traditional SSPX, and on the other side those wanting to stay with Bishop Fellay's New-SSPX and "the poor, sick Pope BXVI and all his heresies".
(I'm sorry to again have to outline the irreconcilable opposition of Bp Fellay and Bp Williamson. I know many would love there was no such opposition, but it clearly is, and this is the predetermined breaking point.)
P.S. The quote: "The poor, sick Pope BXVI and all his heresies" is a direct-quote from Bishop Tissier when he ordinated priests in Germany's Zaitzkofen on June 30, 2007. Unfortunately his sentence has been censored by the German-speaking SSPX superiors and for the very first time ever, an official ordination sermon of a SSPX Bishop has not been printed in the official German SSXP newsletter... How sad. How untruthful.
-
P.S. The quote: "The poor, sick Pope BXVI and all his heresies" is a direct-quote from Bishop Tissier when he ordinated priests in Germany's Zaitzkofen on June 30, 2007. Unfortunately his sentence has been censored by the German-speaking SSPX superiors and for the very first time ever, an official ordination sermon of a SSPX Bishop has not been printed in the official German SSXP newsletter... How sad. How untruthful.
This is what bothers me. This isn't speculation or anything like that -- it's a fact, and a bad one. Something is going on in the SSPX, and it isn't good.
-
I know more German-speaking Newchurch catholics who defend Bishop Williamson for his Sweden Interview than I know (German-speaking) SSPX catholics doing so. This is weird, isn't it!?
The grace of God at work. Thank God for this interview on Swedish tv. It brought many to Catholic Tradition.
Absolutely.
The distinguishing of spirits officially started with this Interview, which was just "the final straw".
-
P.S. The quote: "The poor, sick Pope BXVI and all his heresies" is a direct-quote from Bishop Tissier when he ordinated priests in Germany's Zaitzkofen on June 30, 2007. Unfortunately his sentence has been censored by the German-speaking SSPX superiors and for the very first time ever, an official ordination sermon of a SSPX Bishop has not been printed in the official German SSXP newsletter... How sad. How untruthful.
This is what bothers me. This isn't speculation or anything like that -- it's a fact, and a bad one. Something is going on in the SSPX, and it isn't good.
Yes, you're right. It is no good, and it started years before Bishop Williamson's interview on Swedish TV. So much for the false hypotheses that Bishop Williamson would be responsible for all problems in the SSPX, as the Krah-Pfluger fraction alleges.
Bishop Tissier held his sermon on June 30, 2007, in German language and some thousand SSPX laity were eyewitnesses. My direct-quote is from the beginning of his sermon and he wanted to underline how bad the situation of the Church is.
Some days later you could download an audio file of the sermon on the Zaitzkofen seminary website. However, "magically" the beginning (with this quote) and the end of the sermon were missing. Since we got more older people in German-speaking SSPX districts who don't have Internet, my hope rested on the printed version. But in the following monthly official SSPX newsletters of the German district (which is distributed in the Austrian SSPX district, too) there was no printed version of the sermon. And this was a "novelty": for the first time the ordination sermon held by a SSPX Bishop in Germany has not been published in the newsletter but censored.
I asked a Lefebvre'ian SSPX priest, why on earth they censored the entire sermon. He told me that the superiors said: "Bishop Tissier has overstepped his competences with his sentence."
(At that time Fr Schmidberger was already the German SSPX district superior.)
So it's no surprise Bishop Fellay's New-SSPX also censors Bishop Williamson. For example on the US American seminary's website where all his Rector's letters were being published, half a dozen or more of his excellent letters have silently been deleted afterwards (post 2009). I downloaded them before and so know exactly which ones.
They also censor Archbishop Lefebvre, at least in the German-speaking districts. For example by deleting certain passages of his sermons and entire sermons on their websites. Apparently the good Archbishop also "overstepped his competences" !
-
There has been an update on this thread:
A google translation follows the original article in Italian.
http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php?a=topic&t=14493&min=20#p4
http://www.doncurzionitoglia.com/caso_krah_20110725.htm
d. CURZIO NITOGLIA
25 LUGLIO 2011
http://www.doncurzionitoglia.com/caso_krah_20110725.htm
Il caso Williamson-Nahrath 2010
1°) Verso la metà del novembre 2010 mons. Richard Williamson decide di farsi difendere dall’accusa di “revisionismo” dall’avvocato Wolfram Nahrath. Quindi chiede al suo primo difensore, avv. Matthias Lossmann, se vuole difenderlo assieme a Nahrath. Lossman rifiuta e mons. Williamson gli ritira l’incarico.
2°) Il 18 novembre l’avv. Nahrath informa via fax il giudice Eisvogel che l’avv. Lossmann ha rinunciato all’incarico e che sarà lui (Nahrath) a difendere mons. Williamson.
3°) Appena 32 minuti dopo il messaggio - via fax - di Nahrath alla dottoressa Eisvogel, la redazione del settimanale Der Spiegel telefona all’avv. Nahrath e gli chiede spiegazioni sulla sua futura difesa legale di mons. Williamson.
4°) Il 19 novembre sempre Der Spiegel pubblica la notizia secondo la quale l’avv. Nahrath è un rappresentante politico del partito neo-nαzιsta tedesco per cui anche mons. Williamson sarebbe un filo-nαzιsta. In realtà il partito nαzιsta tedesco è fuori legge dal 1945, e Nahrath fa parte del “Partito nαzιonale e Democratico” (NPD), un partito di estrema destra, ma non nαzιsta. Perciò
Krah e il sionismo
1°) L’avv. Lossmann era stato scelto nel 2009 da Krah per difendere mons. Williamson. Eppure Krah, oggettivamente (il cuore o le intenzioni soggettive li scruta solo Dio e a Lui lascio il giudizio), aveva partecipato alla campagna stampa contro mons. Williamson, scoppiata il 20 gennaio del 2009, tramite interviste rilasciate alla rivista radical-socialista Der Spiegel di orientamento politico molto simile al settimanale italiano “L’Espresso” dell’ingegner Carlo De Benedetti.
2°) Inoltre Krah è un militante del “Partito Cristiano Democratico” (CDU) del Cancelliere tedesco Angela Merkel, un partito liberale, libertario, favorevole all’aborto, al divorzio, alle unioni libere, omosessuali e quindi certamente non migliore, quanto alla Fede e alla Morale, del “NPD” cui appartiene Nahrath. Vedi http://www.cdu-dresden.de/index.php?mo=mc_vjjrz_etk.pdf&id=%7B76658c61352fc5ab6a0940107b868a48%7D
3°) L’avv. Lossmann, scelto da Krah per difendere mons. Williamson nel 2009, fa parte del “Partito dei Verdi” (Die Grünen), che è, come in Italia, un partito di estrema sinistra sessantottina, pro aborto, divorzio, omosessualità, pedofilia, eutanasia, ben peggiore, quanto ad anticristianesimo, del “Partito nαzιonale e Democratico” (NPD), del quale fa parte l’avv. Nahrath.
4°) Infine, e questa è la parte oggettivamente più interessante (non voglio curarmi di tutte le altre faccende connesse a tale caso), Krah ha partecipato (“contra factum non valet argumenum”) nel settembre 2010 a New York, assieme a vecchi allievi dell’Università di Tel Aviv, ad una colletta per aiutare gli studenti ebrei della diaspora a raggiungere lo Stato d’Israele per essere formati presso l’Università sionista di Tel Aviv; si possono vedere le foto di Krah e compagni, qualificati come israeliti. Vedi http://www.aftau.org/site/PageServer?pagename=recentevents_Sept2010_AlumniAuction
I fatti sopra citati sono descritti in un commento pubblicato il 4 dicembre 2010 sul sito in lingua francese Les Intransigeants http://www.intransigeants.com/2010/12/exclusif-les-dessous-de-laffaire-williamson.
5°) La risposta di Krah ai commenti succitati è venuta alla fine del dicembre 2010, pubblicata sul sito Ignis Ardens http://cathinfo-warning-pornography!/Ignis_Ardens/index.php?showtopic=6517&st=100&#entry9644783. Essa è abbastanza illuminante e sconcertante. Sconcertante poiché oggettivamente minacciosa: “adesso conosco coloro che mi hanno calunniato e vedranno…”. Illuminante a) in quanto, se fosse stato veramente calunniato, Krah avrebbe potuto rispondere per chiarire o avrebbe potuto far ricorso alla magistratura per ottenere giustizia, come era suo diritto, e non alle minacce per intimorire (“vi conosco, vedrete”); b) poiché Krah ammette: «a settembre ho ricevuto un invito spontaneo da un amico avvocato per questa serata molto piacevole alla Galleria Witzenhausen, dove ho incontrato persone fantastiche provenienti da Israele, Stati Uniti (entrambe ebree e non), e alcuni europei che si trovano a New York. Era un regolare incontro annuale. E, naturalmente, c'è stato un gala per beneficenza. Così è stato»; c) infine poiché Krah non smentisce la raccolta fondi per l’università di Tel Aviv, che non è un semplice “chiacchierare” con ebrei, cosa del tutto lecita. Non è importante se l’avv. Krah sia di origine israelita, quel che conta è la Fede non l’etnia. Krah si professa cattolico tradizionalista e questo basta. Però l’attività filo-sionista, svolta da Krah, è un’azione lecita e legale in sé, ma difficilmente conciliabile, moralmente e dogmaticamente, con la professione della Fede cattolica tradizionale e pre-conciliare. Questo è il punto oggettivamente rilevante di questa faccenda.
San Pio X (il Santo protettore dei “tradizionalisti”) nel 1904 rispose a Teodoro Herzl (il fondatore del sionismo, 1896), che gli aveva chiesto di riconoscere il movimento sionista e l’eventuale futuro Stato di Israele: «Sino a che Israele non riconoscerà Cristo come Messia e Dio, la Chiesa non potrà riconoscere il sionismo e Israele». Quindi oggettivamente tra cattolicesimo e sionismo vi è incompatibilità e la “doppia appartenenza” non è lecita.
Attualità del caso
1°) In questi giorni si sente e si legge che si vuol denunciare alla magistratura coloro che si sono occupati del “caso Krah”.
2°) Dopo il processo del 4 luglio 2011 a mons. Williamson in Germania, Maximilien Krah ha rilasciato un’intervista oggettivamente denigratoria ed oltraggiosa contro il Vescovo britannico.
Da-http://www.sueddeutsche.de/bayern/prozess-gegen-bischof-williamson-plaudernuebergaskammern-1.1116124 : […]Una comunità di sacerdoti cattolici difficilmente può distanziarsi maggiormente da uno dei suoi membri. Dicono che monsignor Richard Williamson sia uno stravagante, uno con un profondo problema con il riconoscimento della realtà il quale "ogni due anni, con bella regolarità, crede nella fine del mondo". Così disse lunedì scorso a Ratisbona Maximilian Krah, l'amministratore legale della Fraternità in Germania, a proposito di Williamson, membro della stessa comunità. Alla fine riassume: "Un tipo balzano si potrebbe definirlo, credo". Così ciò che era stato ideato come testimonianza davanti al tribunale provinciale, fu allo stesso tempo una pubblica presa di distanza fatta dalla Fraternità nei confronti del loro confratello decaduto, del cui agire ebbe un'altra volta a giudicare un tribunale.[…] [1]
Purtroppo nessuno è intervenuto, non dico per difendere mons. Williamson, ma neppure per pacificare gli animi ed invitare ad una maggiore educazione nell’uso dei termini impiegati contro di lui. Nessuno ha preso le distanze dalle offese oggettive e pubbliche rivolte da un fedele laico cattolico-tradizionalista, quale si dice Krah, contro un Vescovo cattolico. Non è oggettivamente corretto.
3°) Quindi mi sento moralmente obbligato a prendere posizione pubblica su tale caso, non per fare pettegolezzi, né processi alle intenzioni, ma per cercare di stabilire la verità oggettiva dei fatti. Voglio sperare che ciò sia ancora legalmente lecito; moralmente lo è senza ombra di dubbio. Spero di riuscire nel mio intento. Qualora mi sia sbagliato, correggetemi pure. Perciò scrivo pubblicamente. Se la denunzia minacciata viene fatta per appurare la verità su quanto scritto riguardo Krah, essa è lecita. Se egli è stato denigrato va risarcito, altrimenti si riconosca la verità dei fatti. Se colui che minaccia la denunzia è stato calunniato, il ricorso alla giustizia è doveroso anche per difendere la propria buona fama, ma è gravemente scorretto tirare in ballo l’equiparazione antisionismo/antisemitismo e l’antigiudaismo o l’istigazione all’odio razziale, e denunciare come antisemita chi ha posto la questione se la “doppia appartenenza” al sionismo e al cattolicesimo tradizionale[2] sia lecita. Adesso c’è solo da aspettare e sperare, senza fare inutili congetture, che venga fatta chiarezza su questo “affare”, il quale è oggettivamente inquietante ed è bene che sia risolto.
4°) Sino ad ora non ho voluto occuparmi di questa faccenda, la cui parte finanziaria, etnica e “complottistica” non ritengo oggettivamente rilevante. Ho atteso risposte convincenti, che dissipino ogni dubbio circa la compatibilità tra la Fede cattolica e l’ideologia sionistica. Una risposta è venuta da Krah, ma essa è piuttosto un’intimidazione che una risposta o delucidazione. Ora sembra che si voglia rispondere. Speriamo e auguriamoci che lo si faccia correttamente e non persecutoriamente e che la verità trionfi sul dubbio, il quale tanto male ha fatto e fa ai cattolici fedeli alla Tradizione apostolica e al Magistero costante della Chiesa, che a partire da Nostra aetate (1965) ha conosciuto un “crescendo rossiniano” di cedimento al giudaismo post-biblico. Se mi si vuol denunciare per aver espresso queste perplessità sulla coerenza e correttezza di un certo modo di pensare ed agire, lo si faccia pure. “È meglio obbedire a Dio piuttosto che agli uomini” (Atti degli Apostoli), che - se così fosse - si allontanano dalle vie del Signore.
Sancte Pie X, ora pro nobis!
d. CURZIO NITOGLIA
25 LUGLIO 2011
http://www.doncurzionitoglia.com/caso_krah_20110725.htm
PS:
Molti dei ‘siti’ citati nel presente articolo sono stati fatti chiudere, ma le notizie riportate da essi sono state controllate e trovate oggettivamente conformi alla realtà. Se qualcuno trovasse qualche inesattezza lo invito a farmela notare. Sarò il primo a prenderne atto e a rettificare.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[1] San Tommaso d’Aquino nella Somma Teologica (II-II, qq. 72-75) tratta delle ingiustizie che si compiono con le parole. Nella questione 72 l’Aquinate parla della “Contumelia” ossia l’ingiuria verbale fatta non alle spalle, ma a viso aperto. Ora, in quanto le parole significano le cose esse possono arrecare molti danni.. La contumelia o ingiuria verbale lede l’onore. Nell’articolo 2, San Tommaso spiega che la contumelia è peccato mortale. Infatti (in corpore articuli) nei peccati di parola bisogna considerare soprattutto con quali disposizioni d’animo ci si esprime, ossia il fine della contumelia. Ma di per sé la contumelia implica una menomazione di onore o morale del prossimo. Quindi essa è un peccato mortale non meno del furto, che detrae la ricchezza materiale mentre la contumelia disonora l’anima del prossimo nella sua moralità. Padre Tito Centi commenta: “Di qui deriva la gravità della contumelia, la quale di suo è fatta per distruggere l’onorabilità morale, e comporta l’obbligo di riparare”: o restituzione di fama (per la contumelia) e di beni materiali (per il furto), o dannαzιone. Nell’articolo 3 il Dottore Comune spiega che in certi casi è necessario respingere le contumelie e specialmente per due motivi: primo per il bene di chi insulta, per reprimere la sua audacia, affinché non monti maggiormente in prepotenza e presunzione e reiteri codesti atti; secondo per il bene delle altrui persone, se chi viene offeso ricopre una carica pubblica (come è il caso di Sua Eccellenza mons. Williamson), onde l’offesa ricadrebbe sulla di lui carica episcopale e la disonorerebbe. Quindi chi è costituito in dignità o autorità pubblica deve difendere queste e non la sua persona, oppure qualcuno lo deve fare per lui. Chi ascolta la detrazione e la tollera senza reagire (difendendo la persona denigrata) pecca gravemente. Quando invece non reagisce, pur avendone la possibilità, non perché gli piaccia il peccato ma per rispetto umano o per negligenza, allora pecca solo venialmente. (S. Th., II-II, q. 73, a. 4, in corpore). Se si può portar pazienza nel tollerare la denigrazione verso se stessi, non è tollerabile il sopportare la denigrazione della buona fama altrui (Ivi, ad 1um). La derisione del prossimo è peccato mortale, tanto più grave quanto maggiore è il rispetto dovuto alla persona derisa (q. 75, a. 2, in corpore). Deridere un Vescovo è, oggettivamente, assai grave.
[2] Si noti che persino Paolo VI non ha voluto riconoscere esplicitamente lo “Stato di Israele” ed implicitamente la compatibilità del sionismo con il cristianesimo. Soltanto Giovanni Paolo II lo ha fatto nel 1993.
Google Tranlation
The Williamson-Nahrath 2010
1) In mid-November 2010 Mgr. Richard Williamson decides to defend himself from the accusation of "revisionism" Wolfram Nahrath Advocate. So he asks his first defender, lawyer. Matthias Lossmann, if he wants to defend it together with Nahrath. Lossman refuses and Msgr. Williamson him off the job.
2) On 18 November, the lawyer. Nahrath fax informs the judge that the lawyer Eisvogel. Lossmann has resigned and he'll (Nahrath) to defend Msgr. Williamson.
3 °) Just 32 minutes after the message - by fax - to the doctor Nahrath Eisvogel, the preparation of the weekly Der Spiegel call the lawyer. Nahrath and asks for an explanation on its future legal defense of Msgr. Williamson.
4) Always On November 19, Der Spiegel published the news that the lawyer. Nahrath is a political representative of the German neo-nαzι that Mgr. Williamson would be a pro-nαzι. In fact, the German nαzι party has been outlawed since 1945, and Nahrath is part of the "National Party and Democratic" (NPD), a far right party, but not nαzι. Therefore
Krah and Zionism
1 °) The lawyer. Lossmann was chosen in 2009 by Bishop Krah to defend. Williamson. Krah Yet, objectively (or subjective intentions of the heart only God scrutinizes them and to Him I leave the trial), had participated in the press campaign against Msgr. Williamson, erupted on January 20, 2009, through interviews with the magazine Der Spiegel radical socialist political orientation very similar to the Italian weekly "L'Espresso" engineer Carlo De Benedetti.
2 °) Krah is also a militant of the "Christian Democratic Party" (CDU) Chancellor Angela Merkel of Germany, the Liberal party, libertarian, pro-abortion, divorce, free unions, ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ, and therefore certainly not better, than the Faith and Morals, the "NPD" belongs Nahrath. See http://www.cdu-dresden.de/index.php?mo=mc_vjjrz_etk.pdf&id =% 7D% 7B76658c61352fc5ab6a0940107b868a48
3 °) The lawyer. Lossmann, Krah chose to defend Msgr. Williamson in 2009, is part of the "Green Party" (Die Grünen), which is, as in Italy, a party of the extreme left sessantottina, pro-abortion, divorce, ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖity, pedophilia, euthanasia, even worse, how to anti-Christianity, the "National and Democratic Party" (NPD), which is part of the lawyer. Nahrath.
4) Finally, and this is objectively the most interesting (I will not bothering to all other matters related to this case), has participated Krah ("contra factum non valet argumenum") in September 2010 in New York, along with old students of the University of Tel Aviv, for a collection to help students reach the Jews of the diaspora State of Israel to be trained at the University of Tel Aviv, Zionist, you can see photos of Krah and his companions, described as the Israelites . See http://www.aftau.org/site/PageServer?pagename=recentevents_Sept2010_AlumniAuction
The facts mentioned above are described in a commentary published 4 December 2010 on the site in French Les Intransigeants http://www.intransigeants.com/2010/12/exclusif-les-dessous-de-laffaire-williamson.
5th) Krah's response to the comments above came at the end of December 2010, published on the site Ignis Ardens http://cathinfo-warning-pornography!/Ignis_Ardens/index.php?showtopic=6517&st=100 & # entry9644783. It is quite illuminating and disconcerting. Disconcerting because objectively threatening: "I now know those who have slandered me and see ...." Illuminating a) as if it had been really maligned, Krah could have responded to clarify or could have recourse to the courts for justice, as was his right, and threats to intimidate ("I know you, you'll see"); b ) because Krah admits: "In September I received an invitation from a friend spontaneous attorney for this very enjoyable evening at the Witzenhausen Gallery, where I met fantastic people from Israel, United States (both Jєωιѕн and not), and some Europeans who are in New York. He was a regular annual meeting. And, of course, there was a gala for charity. So was "c) Finally, since Krah does not deny the fundraising for the University of Tel Aviv, which is not a simple" talk "with Jews, which is perfectly lawful. It is not important if the lawyer. Krah is of Israelite origin, what counts is faith not ethnicity. Krah is a Catholic traditionalist and this is enough. But the pro-Zionist activities, carried out by Krah, it is lawful and legal action in itself, but hard to reconcile, morally and dogmatically, the profession of the Catholic Faith and traditional pre-Vatican II. This is the major objective of this matter.
St. Pius X (the patron saint of "traditionalists") in 1904 responded to Theodor Herzl (the founder of Zionism, 1896), who had asked him to recognize the Zionist movement and the possible future state of Israel: "As long as Israel does not recognize Christ as the Messiah and God, the Church will not recognize Israel and Zionism. " So objectively between Catholicism and Zionism, there is no conflict and the "dual membership" is not lawful.
Current case
1 °) In these days we hear and read that you want to complain to the magistrates who dealt with the "Krah case."
2) After the process of the July 4, 2011 with Msgr. Williamson in Germany, Maximilian Krah gave an interview objectively outrageous smear against the bishop and the British.
[...] A community of Catholic priests can hardly distance himself further from one of its members. They say that Bishop Richard Williamson is a whimsical, one with a deep problem with the recognition of the reality that "every two years, with great regularity, believes in the end of the world." So on Monday said Maximilian in Regensburg Krah, the Trustee of the Society in Germany, about Williamson, a member of the community itself. At the end sums up: "A guy might call you leap, I think." So what was conceived as a witness before the provincial court, was at the same time made a public distancing by the Society in respect of their fallen brother, whose act was once a tribunal to judge. [...] [1 ]
Unfortunately, no one is speaking, do not say to defend Msgr. Williamson, but even to appease the spirits and ask for more education in the use of the words used against him. No one has distanced itself from the injuries objective and public addressed by a conservative Catholic lay faithful, which says Krah, against a Catholic bishop. It is not objectively correct.
3 °) So I feel morally obliged to take public position on this case, not to gossip, or processes the intentions, but to try to establish the objective truth of the facts. I hope that this is still legally permissible, morally it is beyond doubt. I hope in my purpose. If I am wrong, correct me. So I write publicly. If the threatened complaint is made to ascertain the truth of what is written about Krah, it is lawful. If he has been defamed is compensated, otherwise you will recognize the truth of the facts. If he who threatens the complaint has been slandered, recourse to justice is also a duty to defend its good name, but it is grossly unfair to bring up the equating Zionism / antisemitism el'antigiudaismo instigation to racial hatred, and denounce an αnтι-ѕємιтє who has raised the question whether the "double belonging" to Zionism and the traditional Catholicism [2] is legal. Now we can only wait and hope, without unnecessary speculation, which is made clear on this "deal", which is objectively disturbing and it better be solved.
4 °) So far I have not wanted to deal with this matter, which the financial, ethnic and "conspiracy" I do not think objectively relevant. I waited convincing answers that dispel any doubts about the compatibility between the Catholic Faith Zionist ideology. An answer came from Krah, but it is pretty intimidating that a response or clarification. Now it seems that you want to respond. We hope and let us hope it is done correctly and not a persecution, and that truth triumph over doubt, who has done and is doing so much harm to the Catholic faithful to the Apostolic Tradition and the Magisterium of the Church's constant, which from Nostra Aetate (1965) has experienced a "Rossini crescendo" of post-biblical Judaism failure. If you want to denounce me for expressing these concerns on the consistency and correctness of a certain way of thinking and acting, so be it. "It is better to obey God rather than men" (Acts of the Apostles), which - if so - are turning away from God's ways.
Sancte Pie X, ora pro nobis!
d. CURZIO NITOGLIA
July 25, 2011
http://www.doncurzionitoglia.com/caso_krah_20110725.htm
PS:
Many of the 'sites' mentioned in this article have been made to close, but the news report they have been objectively evaluated and found to conform to reality. If someone finds some inaccuracy ask him to make me out. I'll be the first to take notice and to correct.
-------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------
[1] St. Thomas Aquinas in the Summa Theologica (II-II, qq. 72-75) deals with the injustices that are done with words. In question 72, Aquinas speaks of the "insults" that the report made no injury to the shoulder, but openly. Now, because words mean things they can cause much damage .. The verbal insult or injury affecting the honor. In Article 2, St. Thomas explains that the insult is a mortal sin. In fact (in corpore articulo) in the sins of speech should be considered especially with such dispositions we express ourselves, that is the end of the insult. But the insult in itself implies an impairment of honor or morality of others. So it is no less a mortal sin of theft, which deducts the material wealth and the dishonor dishonor the soul of the next in its morality. Father Tito Centi said: "From this comes the severity of the insult, which is made of her to destroy the moral integrity, and entail the obligation to repair" or restitution of Fame (for insult) and material goods ( for theft), or damnation. Common Article 3 The Doctor explains that in some cases it is necessary to reject the insults and especially for two reasons: first for the good of those who insult, to repress his audacity, so that no more mountains in the arrogance and conceit and a subsequent CODEST acts; seconds for the good of others people, if those who are offended holds a public office (as is the case of His Excellency Mgr. Williamson), so the offense would fall on his episcopal office and dishonor. So who is in dignity or authority to defend these and not his person, or someone has to do for him. Who listens to the deduction and tolerate without reaction (defending the person vilified) sins gravely. When it does not react, even given the chance, not because they like but for the sin of human respect or negligently, then venial sins. (S. Th., II-II, q. 73, a. 4, in corpore). If you can be patient to tolerate the denigration towards oneself, is not tolerable to endure the vilification of the good name of others (ibid., at 1um). The derision of others is a mortal sin, the more severe the greater the respect for the person being laughed at (q. 75, a. 2, in corpore). A mock bishop is, objectively, very serious.
[2] Note that even Paul VI did not want to explicitly recognize the "State of Israel" and by implication the compatibility of Zionism with Christianity. Only John Paul II did in 1993.
-
What we see more and more is the "hard-line" approach being taken by the cultural Left and its neocon allies. They are emboldened. Usually they can win their concessions because of the feeble resistance and impaired understanding of ordinary Catholics - but that feeble resistance and impaired understanding is nearly always a result of worldlings and Judases seeking their pieces of silver. We have always seen a "hard-line" taken against authentic traditionalism by the Judases and worldlings - they care much more about destroying their enemies than they do about avoiding harm to souls. I think we can see the arrogance that has developed among certain members of the SSPX, in always taking the "hard-line." They make a grave mistake though, in picking on people who have nothing to lose. Far worse than the Caiphases are the Judases.
-
http://cathinfo-warning-pornography!/Ignis_Ardens/index.php?showtopic=7525&st=175&hl=
QUOTE (Ashmolean @ Jul 30 2011, 12:42 PM)
As regards REVISIONISM:
I like to think that if I had Bishop Williamson's undoubted literary, expository and controversial gifts, I would attempt to use them in the service of the Church, rather than to fritter them away uselessly in attempting to settle matters concerning the secular historical record, or to attempt what must look to many people like the rehabilitation of Hitler and the nαzι party, or to worry about possible environmental disasters.
As Nemmersdorf did state in reply
Well indeed!!! with friends like these, who needs enemies?
Ashmolean is certainly not representative of Traditionalists in Britain or Ireland where Bishop Williamson has great support. What's revealing in relation to Ignis Ardens as of yet none of the moderating staff have made a reply to this remark from Ashmolean. Do they agree with him in relation to his Lordship?
-
What's revealing in relation to Ignis Ardens as of yet none of the moderating staff have made a reply to this remark from Ashmolean. Do they agree with him in relation to his Lordship?
I haven't responded to Nemmersdorf's reply either, so I suppose that must mean I agree with him too.
-
Look, John Grace.
If you have something to say about a posting on Ignis, why not say it on Ignis?
-
Look, John Grace.
If you have something to say about a posting on Ignis, why not say it on Ignis?
...Because his comments would just be deleted and he'd be banned, I'm guessing.
-
Look, John Grace.
If you have something to say about a posting on Ignis, why not say it on Ignis?
...Because his comments would just be deleted and he'd be banned, I'm guessing.
People make an awful lot of false assumptions here, and I am powerless to correct them.
-
Look, John Grace.
If you have something to say about a posting on Ignis, why not say it on Ignis?
...Because his comments would just be deleted and he'd be banned, I'm guessing.
Yes indeed, because one's comments would just be deleted and/or one would be banned, I'm knowing from personal experience.
Ignis Ardens is <edit by moderator: please stick to the facts please. We're traditional Catholics here.> No place to seriously discuss traditional catholic topics, let alone topics concerning the brave Bishop Williamson.
Hollingsworth, Wessex and a few others try to be serious over there, but in the end they just throw pearls before swine.
Europe, and England in particular (see "Irlmaier"), can only be saved by another Flood. If you listen very carefully, you can already hear the brawl of it.
-
Look, John Grace.
If you have something to say about a posting on Ignis, why not say it on Ignis?
Sounds fair, give it a try John. Test the waters, discern the spirits etc..
-
P.S. The quote: "The poor, sick Pope BXVI and all his heresies" is a direct-quote from Bishop Tissier when he ordinated priests in Germany's Zaitzkofen on June 30, 2007.
The direct quote of Bishop Tissier's German sermon on June 30, 2007 is:
"Der arme, kranke Papst mit all seinen Häresien."
So a more accurate English translation should be:
"The poor, sick Pope with all his heresies."
Just to be on the safe side. My initial translation should mean nearly the same? I am sorry in case it did not. It's much easier to read English texts than to write, for us non-native English speakers. Well, before the Babylonian Tower that matter was simpler. :-)
-
Ethelred, your language skills put us to shame. On holiday one does not want to be just a tourist. And how separation by language assists in the practice of divide and rule! Not that I am an advocate of pluralism .......
-
The good Nemmersdorf reported some news on the actual topic in the same named IA thread. I just reformat his post a little bit and insert some headings :
Bishop Williamson's Appeal in Regensburg 4 July 2011
To COMPLETE the first newspaper reports on the Bishop Williamson’s appeal 4 July 2011, here is a translation (not Google) of the two newspaper articles stating what ‘the legal representative of the German section of the SSPX’, Maximilian Krah, said in court (when called as a witness) ABOUT THE BISHOP:
1) "Williamson-Prozess: Bunter Vogel, brauner Schwarm"
www.regensburg-digital.de (http://www.regensburg-digital.de/williamson-prozess-bunter-vogel-brauner-schwarm/04072011/)
Pius brothers keep their distance
The SSPX is trying, however, increasingly to distance themselves from their famous or infamous bishop. The lawyer for the Pius brothers, Maximilian Krah, appearing as a witness, described Williamson as a person to whom “the idea that something positive could happen, is in general alien”. He was a “colourful bird” without any special function or prominent position, who essentially “for reasons of mercy” had not been thrown out of the Society.
Original German text:
Pius-Brüder gehen auf Distanz
Die Pius-Bruderschaft ist indessen bemüht, immer mehr auf Distanz zu ihrem berühmt-berüchtigtem Bischof zu gehen. Der als Zeuge geladene Rechtsanwalt der Pius-Brüder Maximilian Krah bezeichnet Williamson als einen Menschen, dem „die Vorstellung, dass etwas Positives passieren könnte, generell fremd“ sei. Er sei ein „bunter Vogel“ ohne besondere Funktion oder herausgehobene Stellung, der vor allem „aus Gründen der Barmherzigkeit“ nicht aus der Bruderschaft geworfen werde.
2) "Prozess gegen Bischof Williamson Plaudern über Gaskammern"
www.sueddeutsche.de (http://www.sueddeutsche.de/bayern/prozess-gegen-bischof-williamson-plaudern-ueber-gaskammern-1.1116124)
What had been intended by the Landgericht Regensburg as a hearing of witnesses, was also a public distancing of the SSPX from her own brother bishop Richard Williamson. The h0Ɩ0cαųst denier and traditionalist Bishop was said to have a “persistent problem with recognizing reality”.
It is hardly possible to distance themselves much further from one of their members than is being done by a Catholic community of priests. Bishop Richard Williamson is an eccentric, one who has a “persistent problem with recognizing reality” and who with “monotonous regularity assumes the end of the world every two years”. This is what was said on Monday in Regensburg by Maximilian Krah, the legal representative of the German section of St. Pius X, about Williamson, one of their own community. And he summarized in these words: “Colourful bird hits it on the nail, I think.” What had been intended by the Landgericht Regensburg as a hearing of witnesses was also a public distancing of the order from their fallen brother, about whose actions (exploits) once again a court was called upon to consider. Again the question arises: Does a British subject render himself liable to prosecution, if in an interview with a Swedish television station on German soil he denies the h0Ɩ0cαųst?
Original German text:
Was vom Landgericht Regensburg als Zeugenvernehmung gedacht war, war zugleich eine öffentliche Distanzierung der Pius-Bruderschaft von ihrem Mitbruder Richard Williamson. Der h0Ɩ0cαųstleugner und Traditionalisten-Bischof habe ein „nachhaltiges Problem mit der Realitätserkennung“.
Viel weiter kann sich eine katholische Priestergemeinschaft wohl nicht von einem ihrer Mitglieder distanzieren. Ein Exzentriker sei Bischof Richard Williamson; einer, der ein "nachhaltiges Problem mit der Realitätserkennung" habe und in "schöner Regelmäßigkeit alle zwei Jahre an den Weltuntergang glaubt". So sprach am Montag in Regensburg Maximilian Krah, der Rechtsvertreter der deutschen Pius-Sektion, über Williamson, einen der eigenen Gemeinschaft. Und fasste schließlich zusammen: "Bunter Vogel, das trifft's, glaub ich." Was vom Landgericht Regensburg als Zeugenvernehmung gedacht war, war zugleich eine öffentliche Distanzierung des Ordens von ihrem gefallenen Mitbruder, über dessen Treiben wieder einmal ein Gericht zu befinden hatte. Wieder ging es um die Frage: Ist es für einen britischen Staatsbürger strafbar, wenn er in einem Interview mit einem schwedischen Fernsehsender auf deutschem Boden den h0Ɩ0cαųst leugnet?
-
http://cathinfo-warning-pornography!/Ignis_Ardens/index.php?showtopic=7661
Ok, I hereby resign as Admin.
Why? Well, I got a PM this morning from Dr Maximilian Krah.
It is absolutely fine when there are discussions about the Williamson trial on Ignis Ardens, including my witness, which I gave on request of the defence and to their full satisfaction. Anyway, I kindly ask you for deleting such comments which once again refer to so-called 'krahgate' or are simply aggressive against me. A serious part of statements in the discussion on the 'Bishop Williamson Appeal' is a 'krahgate' revival. There was a clear statement by Fr Morgan about it, and I hope you will accept and enforce it. As shown with the sedisvacantist virgo-maria.org page, the SSPX is not accepting such slanderous campagns in the web any longer. A page like IA which states its SSPX-friendship must not take part in such campagns. It is, for example, hard to understand when a declared atheist like Lady Renouf is alowed to blame the chosen authority of the SSPX, Bishop Fellay. All this happens under your responsibility.
So please delete all 'Krahgate'-related comments in the 'BW appeal' thread.
If you have any further questions, please don't hesistiate to email me: [edit] - it is definitly better to speak with somebody instead speaking about him, isn't it? We are both Catholics and SSPX-faithful und should be able to handle this issue without the hepl of a secular judge.
Sincerely yours,
MK
PS: When reading the hate-inspired comments of persons like 'Ethelred' (whose German comments were published under names like 'Leon' and 'Carl') you should see that those who blame me not honourable men, to say the least.
I have enough stress as it is, with trying to raise the kids and coping with an illness, so I don't appreciate the extra (probably baseless) worry about "secular judge(s)".
So, I resign.
But I'm still a member.
P.S. Lügner Krah, Sie und Ihre "sauberen" Freunde sind ab Herbst dran.
P.P.S. I'm offering Clare my rosary for her being persecuted by the Jew's agent Krah.
-
To the friendly person who sent a Private Message (PM) to me: Please enable PMs in your Control Panel to be sent to you. This way I could answer you.
The option is here:
"Control Panel" -> "Changing Preferences"
Section "Privacy Options", enable "Allow others to contact you via the messenger?"
Thanks.
God bless Bishop Williamson!
-
http://cathinfo-warning-pornography!/Ignis_Ardens/index.php?showtopic=7661
Ok, I hereby resign as Admin.
Why? Well, I got a PM this morning from Dr Maximilian Krah.
It is absolutely fine when there are discussions about the Williamson trial on Ignis Ardens, including my witness, which I gave on request of the defence and to their full satisfaction. Anyway, I kindly ask you for deleting such comments which once again refer to so-called 'krahgate' or are simply aggressive against me. A serious part of statements in the discussion on the 'Bishop Williamson Appeal' is a 'krahgate' revival. There was a clear statement by Fr Morgan about it, and I hope you will accept and enforce it. As shown with the sedisvacantist virgo-maria.org page, the SSPX is not accepting such slanderous campagns in the web any longer. A page like IA which states its SSPX-friendship must not take part in such campagns. It is, for example, hard to understand when a declared atheist like Lady Renouf is alowed to blame the chosen authority of the SSPX, Bishop Fellay. All this happens under your responsibility.
So please delete all 'Krahgate'-related comments in the 'BW appeal' thread.
If you have any further questions, please don't hesistiate to email me: [edit] - it is definitly better to speak with somebody instead speaking about him, isn't it? We are both Catholics and SSPX-faithful und should be able to handle this issue without the hepl of a secular judge.
Sincerely yours,
MK
PS: When reading the hate-inspired comments of persons like 'Ethelred' (whose German comments were published under names like 'Leon' and 'Carl') you should see that those who blame me not honourable men, to say the least.
I have enough stress as it is, with trying to raise the kids and coping with an illness, so I don't appreciate the extra (probably baseless) worry about "secular judge(s)".
So, I resign.
But I'm still a member.
P.S. Lügner Krah, Sie und Ihre "sauberen" Freunde sind ab Herbst dran.
P.P.S. I'm offering Clare my rosary for her being persecuted by the Jew's agent Krah.
He certainly is a bully. I will pray for Clare.
:pray:
-
What?? People are being threatened for talking about this??
Seriously, I have not read this whole thread, I have very little knowledge of what's going on, but that is worrisome.
-
P.P.S. I'm offering Clare my rosary for her being persecuted by the Jew's agent Krah
So should we all! It is truly a disgrace. Clare is an easy going and kind lady who has been ground to dust between a vindictive hierarchy and a mob of angry laymen. ( who are angry, frustrated, and confused by the same arrogant hierarchy and its hired agents)
I surmise that she has been under both subtle and not so subtle pressures from these sources. Does anyone else observe that these are not Christian methods being employed here but, тαℓмυdic Zionist tactics?
She is now in good company with the good Bishop Williamson who still keeps alive the spirit of the Society's founder, while suffering the wrath of Jєωιѕн power.
JMJ
-
To clear the confusion created by Henry V on Ignis Ardens:
1) Lady Renouf had confirmed on the 2 August 2011 that Maximilian Krah was present at the appeal 4 July 2011 :
“I can confirm as an eyewitness at both court hearings in Regensburg that Max Krah attended and gave his testimony verbally to the judge in Regensburg Courtroom on both occasions (16 April 2010 and 4 July 2011).”
2) Dr. Krah stated wrongly that he was called by the Defence as a witness in his letter to Clare.
There is now a correction to be made to the above point 2). The following correction is not according to Dr. Krah, but rather according to Prof. Dr. Weiler:
Bishop Williamson’s lawyer, Prof. Dr. Weiler has been contacted and was asked whether the Defence had called Dr. Krah to give testimony.
Prof. Dr Weiler stated that he did not call Dr. Krah, as it was not necessary, but that it was the judge who had called Dr. Krah.
He also said that witnesses are always appointed as such by the court, the Defence cannot have their “own” witnesses, they can only ask for them. If such a witness appears, he/she is witness of the court.
This should settle the matter once and for all.
-
Thank you Nemmersdorf, for that clarification, which also brings us back on topic.
So what did Krah say again in his testimony in the court, on 4 July 2011 of the "Bishop Williamson Appeal" ? You already quoted it via translation of the two reporting German newspapers. Please see my quotation on 2 August 2011 here in the thread (http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php?a=topic&t=15187&min=158) for it.
Elizabeth wrote in another thread about Krah:
I think someone should put the stuff up here, with proof of its source.
I wouldn't know how to go looking for robots--but I see bullying and we need to protect our friends.
Since Hollingsworth already summed up the testimony "stuff" nicely in another place, and we got proof of its source, let's quote him:
I reiterate, avoiding all the verbal clutter, some of the most precious little testimonial gems which Krah displayed to the press for public consumption. Mind you, these were not private, in house, remarks. They were meant to be read and 'appreciated' by any or all of the planets 6 billion inhabitants:
He declared shamelessly about his own bishop that “the idea (in +W's mind) that something positive could happen, is in general alien” ;
described his bishop as a “colourful bird”
He stated glibly, even arrogantly, that his Episcopal superior was
without any special function or prominent position in the Society (reportedly)
and that "for reasons of mercy" had not been thrown out of the Society
He described his Bishop as an eccentric, one who has a “persistent problem with recognizing reality”
He portrayed him as a false prophetic nut who with “monotonous regularity assumes the end of the world every two years”
I will do my part to keep those kinds of utterances before the eyes of forum members and all other who happen upon the site.
Thank you, Hollingsworth.
-
Ethelred,
Thank you Nemmersdorf, for that clarification, which also brings us back on topic.
It is irritating that things are constantly having to be re-explained, clarified, or repaired, due to so many various naysayers, who seem to constantly attack the sources and parse the content so as to distract from the meaning and import.
Facts in evidence that need no clarification and are indisputable:
1) Mr. Krah testified on more than one occasion, the latest being the current appeal.
2) His testimony on both occasions was very negative
3)His most recent testimony was negative, damaging, insuting, and amounts to public detraction.
4) Mr. Krah is employed by the SSPX and it is almost impossible that his bad actions have not been approved of in Menzingen. This is directly implied by the fact, that he was not instructed between the first incidence and the second, to alter his tone and characterization of Bishop Williamson.
Based upon these simple facts and Mr. Krah's questionable affiliations with the enemies of the Faith, there is certainly justification for serious concern and more intensive scrutiny of these and other related matters.
And one question, did not one of the clerics from the Society state in a communique or interview that Mr. Krah's duties with the Society had been terminated? If so who is responsible for issuing the false statement which objectively, would be a lie? Please correct me if this is not so.
-
To clear the confusion created by Henry V on Ignis Ardens:
1) Lady Renouf had confirmed on the 2 August 2011 that Maximilian Krah was present at the appeal 4 July 2011 :
“I can confirm as an eyewitness at both court hearings in Regensburg that Max Krah attended and gave his testimony verbally to the judge in Regensburg Courtroom on both occasions (16 April 2010 and 4 July 2011).”
2) Dr. Krah stated wrongly that he was called by the Defence as a witness in his letter to Clare.
There is now a correction to be made to the above point 2). The following correction is not according to Dr. Krah, but rather according to Prof. Dr. Weiler:
Bishop Williamson’s lawyer, Prof. Dr. Weiler has been contacted and was asked whether the Defence had called Dr. Krah to give testimony.
Prof. Dr Weiler stated that he did not call Dr. Krah, as it was not necessary, but that it was the judge who had called Dr. Krah.
He also said that witnesses are always appointed as such by the court, the Defence cannot have their “own” witnesses, they can only ask for them. If such a witness appears, he/she is witness of the court.
This should settle the matter once and for all.
Thanks for postiing this, Nemmersdorf
-
And one question, did not one of the clerics from the Society state in a communique or interview that Mr. Krah's duties with the Society had been terminated? If so who is responsible for issuing the false statement which objectively, would be a lie? Please correct me if this is not so.
It would be a lie as Maximilian Krah has the full backing of Bishop Fellay.My understanding is that Maximilian Krah is still the lawyer for Menzingen. Has it ever been established as to why Fr Laisney went public in relation to 'Krahgate'? His name had never been mentioned in the material first posted by 'Willliam of Norwich' on Angel Queen last year. Fr Laisney's input raised more questions than answers.
-
My curiosity is, what do we do now that we've exposed this Krah? 'Can' we even do anything, apart from what's being done. Obviously this guy is no good.
-
J. Paul :4)
Mr. Krah is employed by the SSPX and it is almost impossible that his bad actions have not been approved of in Menzingen. This is directly implied by the fact, that he was not instructed between the first incidence and the second, to alter his tone and characterization of Bishop Williamson.
This is the point to keep in mind. We may be tempted to isolate M.K. and treat him as an aggrieved individual seeking redress through the courts. But it is very difficult to separate his intended actions from Menzingen. Whatever he does, he does ultimately with the approval of Bp Fellay, one is almost forced to conclude. I would like to be disabused of that notion. This is not just about the individual M.K.. This is about the whole SSPX apostolate and its work, from the top down.
-
J. Paul :4) Mr. Krah is employed by the SSPX and it is almost impossible that his bad actions have not been approved of in Menzingen. This is directly implied by the fact, that he was not instructed between the first incidence and the second, to alter his tone and characterization of Bishop Williamson.
This is the point to keep in mind. We may be tempted to isolate M.K. and treat him as an aggrieved individual seeking redress through the courts. But it is very difficult to separate his intended actions from Menzingen. Whatever he does, he does ultimately with the approval of Bp Fellay, one is almost forced to conclude. I would like to be disabused of that notion. This is not just about the individual M.K.. This is about the whole SSPX apostolate and its work, from the top down.
Absolutely, the truly disturbing subject is just what has and is happening to the Society insofar as its policies and direction. It is extremely difficult to hold on to one's trust and confidence when things are being said and done which we have never seen before. Mr. Krah, no matter what is his place in these things, is only an agent in these changes. The true cause is still unseen, and it does seem that all good faith, and other efforts to penetrate this mystery are being systematically blocked or shut down. Hidden things can never be a good omen.
-
Please allow me to copy Nemmersdorf's latest post from the thread ...
Maximilian Krah Implies Legal Action Against IA, Again (http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php?a=topic&t=15457&f=4&min=55)
... to this topic, because I think it also clears some misunderstandings which were posted here.
Thanks to Nemmersdorf for the following update:
Comestor has posted an important clarification on Ignis Ardens about Bishop Williamson's appeal:
Comestor on IA
Aug 10 2011, 08:34 PM
As someone who was present at the Regensburg appeal hearing in July, though not at the initial Regensburg hearing last year, it might be helpful for me to summarise the position as I understand it.
When asking whether Kr was a witness for the defence, British and American readers may not fully appreciate the difference between their courts and those in Germany.
The "common law" tradition as used (for example) in Britain and the USA involves an adversarial court procedure. In other words the defence and prosecution counsel engage in courtroom combat, each with their list of witnesses, and cross-examining the other side's witnesses.
The "Napoleonic" or "Roman" law tradition used in many European countries, including Germany, involves an inquisitorial court procedure, whereby witnesses are called and questioned by the judges. The lawyers for the two sides (and sometimes lawyers for other interested parties) are present, but witnesses are called and questioned by the court.
Juries were abolished in Germany in 1924 (and apart from a two year period in Bavaria, 1948-50) have not been restored.
Sometimes the defence might request the court to call a particular witness. In the case of the Regensburg appeal Dr Weiler (unsuccessfully) requested that the court should call the Swedish television journalist. It was not at the defence's request that Kr. was called as a witness.
Therefore it was at best confusing for Kr. to refer in his PM to:
"my witness, which I gave on request of the defence".
The whole point is that at the initial trial he was very much part of the defence team: after that he was not, as he was perceived to be working contrary to Bishop Williamson's interests.
The last few pages of this thread have seen:
i) persistent efforts to cast doubt on whether Kr. even attended the July 2011 appeal, and occasionally flat denials that he did so;
ii) further efforts to cast doubt on press reports or translations of those reports concerning the words Kr. used in his testimony;
iii) an implication that whatever words Kr. used were in some sense part of an agreed defence strategy for Bishop Williamson.
While the defence did not exercise their right to block Kr. from testifying, and in some sense his derogatory remarks about Bishop Williamson could be seen as potentially mitigating sentence, Kr. was not speaking as part of the Bishop's defence, as has been implied here.
It is unfortunate that this forum has been used several times to cast doubt on the integrity of the press reports (which in this limited instance do not seem to have been untruthful or wrongly translated) and to calumniate Lady Renouf, who travelled to Regensburg for each court hearing as part of her campaign to highlight German law's denial of the European tradition of free, source-critical historical inquiry. As it happens it is only as a result of Lady Renouf's earlier endeavours (in putting together a legal defence for Dr Fredrick Toben) that the German authorities are precluded from simply extending their tyranny to Britain via a European Arrest Warrant, in which case the Bishop could be arrested and extradited from Wimbledon!
While it is no secret that Lady Renouf is not a Catholic, neither is it relevant to this topic. The press correctly reported that Lady Renouf mobilised Toben's successful legal team, who were on standby for Bishop Williamson's arrival at Heathrow in case he had any legal trouble on landing – recalling that Dr Toben was arrested and readied for extradition while merely in transit at that same airport.
It is for this reason that Lady Renouf was first in email contact with Bishop Williamson, and while she is in no sense a "representative" of the Bishop, it is for this reason that some forum members have sought her first hand reports on the trial.
Despite the fact that for whatever reason Kr.'s own account of this topic has been confusing, and at one stage wrongly gave the impression that his derogatory remarks about Bishop Williamson were a deliberate defence strategy, might it not be helpful to leave this thread open so as to allow him (or a representative) to clarify whether or not he was responsible for the internal forum private message to hollingsworth?
As things have been left, Kr. is portrayed as a monstrous autocrat, which if the PM did not actually come from him, he might not deserve.
http://cathinfo-warning-pornography!/Ignis_Ardens/index.php?showtopic=7525&st=375&#last
-
Please allow me to copy Nemmersdorf's latest post from the thread ...
Maximilian Krah Implies Legal Action Against IA, Again
... to this topic, because I think it also clears some misunderstandings which were posted here.
By tomorrow we will likely see the soldiers of doubt begin to attack this account.
-
What about the portrayal of Mr. Krah as a Grima Wormtongue?
Even if Dr. Krah were merely a puppet of Bishop Fellay's designs, I think it will be much easier to attack Krah instead of attacking His Lordship, since Krah has no aura of ecclesiastical authenticity surrounding him which we need fear damaging.
More important still, if Krah were dismissed, would the policy of the SSPX change?
You would think there would have to be a more discrete representative in the world with the requisite piety and respect for the authority of anointed hands and heads.
-
No, Krah articulates the leadership in very clear terms. His credentials and associations indicate the way the Society wants to go. Away from the integrist world of the archbishop and towards making friends with neo-conservatists.
-
No, Krah articulates the leadership in very clear terms. His credentials and associations indicate the way the Society wants to go. Away from the integrist world of the archbishop and towards making friends with neo-conservatists.
If one judges objectively by the actions, words, and expanding business venture into the realm of mammon, of the present administration as well as its demonstrable expansion of its control of all facets of disclosure and information, your conclusion is both sound and logical. We are not required to know the ultimate destination to know that the road which we travel, is both dangerous and frightening.
-
You would think there would have to be a more discrete representative in the world with the requisite piety and respect for the authority of anointed hands and heads.
Beautiful, AB
. And who can fault us for remaining hyper-vigilant after all we have been through. We have seen this before; we know the warning signs. Maybe some of us misinterpret the signs and don't have insider knowledge, but we do need to watch and pray.
-
No, Krah articulates the leadership in very clear terms. His credentials and associations indicate the way the Society wants to go. Away from the integrist world of the archbishop and towards making friends with neo-conservatists.
I find it hard to believe that the Society is entirely happy with Krah's litigious, and strikingly self-interested, behavior.
-
I find it hard to believe that the Society is entirely happy with Krah's litigious, and strikingly self-interested, behavior.
The society has recently filed some suits against St. Remy and Father Schoonbroodt that certainly fit your description above.
And what of the public threat to expel Bishop Williamson unless Nahrath was dismissed, something that first appeared in the media reported as a promise made to a Jєωιѕн organization?
This sort of behavior is that of bullies that seem confident they act with impunity.
-
I find it hard to believe that the Society is entirely happy with Krah's litigious, and strikingly self-interested, behavior.
The society has recently filed some suits against St. Remy and Father Schoonbroodt that certainly fit your description above.
And what of the public threat to expel Bishop Williamson unless Nahrath was dismissed, something that first appeared in the media reported as a promise made to a Jєωιѕн organization?
This sort of behavior is that of bullies that seem confident they act with impunity.
Just seems like a good idea to go after Krah as much as possible and hope for a change in policy.
Does that sound reasonable or am I off base?
I wasn't happy about the explusion of Father Abrahamowitz in Italy either.
-
Augustine Baker:
Even if Dr. Krah were merely a puppet of Bishop Fellay's designs, I think it will be much easier to attack Krah instead of attacking His Lordship, since Krah has no aura of ecclesiastical authenticity surrounding him which we need fear damaging.
AB: I find it hard to believe that the Society is entirely happy with Krah's litigious, and strikingly self-interested, behavior.
I doubt seriously that Kr. is a "puppet" of +F's designs. It may well be the other way around. "(A)ttacking" His Lordship is really no one's end game, in my opinion. Getting at the truth is. And the only way the truth will come out is when Menzingen clearly explains and defines Kr.'s role in the Society. They have not done that to date. If the Society is not "entirely happy" with Kr.'s behavior, we can not, with any authority whatsoever, say that they're not entirely happy. We have to at least entertain the notion, in the midst of stoney silence, that they might be "entirely happy" with him.
-
Augustine Baker: Even if Dr. Krah were merely a puppet of Bishop Fellay's designs, I think it will be much easier to attack Krah instead of attacking His Lordship, since Krah has no aura of ecclesiastical authenticity surrounding him which we need fear damaging.
AB: I find it hard to believe that the Society is entirely happy with Krah's litigious, and strikingly self-interested, behavior.
I doubt seriously that Kr. is a "puppet" of +F's designs. It may well be the other way around. "(A)ttacking" His Lordship is really no one's end game, in my opinion. Getting at the truth is. And the only way the truth will come out is when Menzingen clearly explains and defines Kr.'s role in the Society. They have not done that to date. If the Society is not "entirely happy" with Kr.'s behavior, we can not, with any authority whatsoever, say that they're not entirely happy. We have to at least entertain the notion, in the midst of stoney silence, that they might be "entirely happy" with him.
For those who aren't familiar with the reference. Grima Wormtongue was a diminutive and cunning servant of King Theoden, a parasitical and evil counselor of the King whose agenda was to serve the interests of Saruman and ultimately his own, as I think he wished to rule Rohan himself when the King had been disposed of. He kept the King from his family and his most trusted servants and encouraged a policy of non-engagement against the encroachments of Saruman's armies in Rohan.
Those of nobles of the Rohirrim called Marks, who "disobeyed" the King's orders by resisting Saruman were branded as outlaws, and it wasn't till Gandalf arrived to break Wormtongue's demonic hold over Theoden in a kind of exorcism, that the King became free to defend the true interests of Rohan and the free peoples of the West.
It might seem a little dramatic or even loony to use such an illustration, but it's what I'm going for when I think of what Krah is doing to the Society and the amount of division he's causing.
-
I wasn't happy about the explusion of Father Abrahamowitz in Italy either.
On the other hand, Fr. Abrahamowicz is quite happy about his own expulsion now! Actually the serious problems for him already started when he criticized the Motu Proprio "Summorum Pontificuм" and the Societies praise for the same.
-
Let's not forget Fr. Meramo in Mexico, who (gasp) apparently had the temerity to suggest that Bp Fellay be replaced. And Columbian priest Fr. Turco resigned voluntarily in 2010, as did Fr. Ceriani in 2009. They did not wait to be expelled.
http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2009/04/another-priest-expelled-from-sspx.html
http://www.traditioninaction.org/HotTopics/F040ht_Turco_Fellay.htm
-
Most interestingly, the majority of those priests then turn out to be sedevacantists.
-
Most interestingly, the majority of those priests then turn out to be sedevacantists.
To be or to have become? Because I do not recall that any of them would have admitted to being SVs while still in the Society. I have not seen a statement from either Fr. Abrahamowitz or the other two declaring their sedevacantism. Are you implying that should they have become SVs, that would explain their departure from the Society? I think they had some other axes to grind with the SSPX leadership.
-
Has there ever been a study on the loads of priests, seminarians and parishioners that have come and gone during the forty years? It would make interesting reading about the world of tradition as it affected a number of generations. Perhaps Bp. Tissier could write another book ...... :scratchchin:
-
Perhaps Bp. Tissier could write another book
Yeah, then the Society could threaten a lawsuit when someone went to tranlate his new work into English.
-
Perhaps Bp. Tissier could write another book
Yeah, then the Society could threaten a lawsuit when someone went to tranlate his new work into English.
As we have seen, this new orientation is for the purpose of controlling information and the managing of the public's perceptions of the Society. It is quite interesting that no efforts have been made to control the slanders, lies and intimidation in the ongoing тαℓмυdist assault upon the Society and the Church at large. No lawsuits, no threats, nothing.
All methods which are employed are indeed used against Catholics for the most part. And as I said earlier, such tactics of law suits, intimidations, expulsions, and punishments are unquestionably Judaic in practice, not examples of Christian justice.
One wonders, the Vatican has been co-opted and Judaized, and this new orientation within the SSPX seemed to blossom after the "negotiations" and close contact with Rome ensued. From some of the statements we have seen by a number of society clerics, it appears that they are now enforcing the h0Ɩ0cαųst narrative much like conciliar clerics.
Tradition and the early Fathers knew who the self proclaimed enemy of all mankind was. This seems to be very unpopular in the Tradition of today, and yet what is true does not and cannot change.
I am beggining to regret placing so many spiritual eggs in this one basket. It is giving me a very uncertain feeling.
-
J. Paul:
All methods which are employed are indeed used against Catholics for the most part. And as I said earlier, such tactics of law suits, intimidations, expulsions, and punishments are unquestionably Judaic in practice, not examples of Christian justice
I expect a Society priest to even so much as allude to the Judaic influence outside, much less inside, the Society when pigs fly.
-
It would also be interesting to learn what new seminarians are now taught about the world and how they are to engage with it. Almost like a rerun of the 60s conciliar changes. And always remember change creates less turbulence if brought in gently and slowly. Of course, young seminarians have no experience of the old world. They can only apply old theory to what they know.
-
It would also be interesting to learn what new seminarians are now taught about the world and how they are to engage with it. Almost like a rerun of the 60s conciliar changes. And always remember change creates less turbulence if brought in gently and slowly. Of course, young seminarians have no experience of the old world. They can only apply old theory to what they know.
If you recall, there was a video made in Germany, in the last year or so, showing life in one of the seminaries. When the subject of Bishop Williamson and h0Ɩ0cαųst came up, I believe they used a word such as "horrified" in thier reaction to revisionist views. We know that the administrators are h0Ɩ0cαųst narrative enforcers, so where does that leave the happless seminarian who must know that deviation means expulsion?
And of course, you are correct, the young have no sense of the true history which stands behind them. Since birth, they have been swimming in the soup of created realities. Mere clay to be moulded into slaves by the hands of the тαℓмυdic sculpture.
-
J. Paul:
When the subject of Bishop Williamson and h0Ɩ0cαųst came up, I believe they used a word such as "horrified" in thier reaction to revisionist views. We know that the administrators are h0Ɩ0cαųst narrative enforcers, so where does that leave the happless seminarian who must know that deviation means expulsion?
More selfishly, perhaps, where does that leave us? The very idea that sspx seminarians, become priests, should have to passively accept h0Ɩ0cαųst tommyrot or even actively promote it one day, leaves me cold. I am afraid that the whole work of sspx may now be sacrificed upon the altar of German political correctness.
-
More selfishly, perhaps, where does that leave us? The very idea that sspx seminarians, become priests, should have to passively accept h0Ɩ0cαųst tommyrot or even actively promote it one day, leaves me cold. I am afraid that the whole work of sspx may now be sacrificed upon the altar of German political correctness.
Well, where that would leave us is into a situation where some or all of these new priests would be men who have, either through ingnorance or by an expedient will have accepted something, which although in the secular realm, is false and erroneous. One must then ponder where else in such cleric's formation and mind are their other serious errors lurking?
Would this situation then not render this man suspect, of not being a reliable counselor or teacher?
This is a matter of importance, and though it is not a matter of the Faith, it is one which can impact one's belief. This myth is in fact a major component of the worldwide deification of the so called "Jєωιѕн people". The Catholic Church should in no way be protecting or spreading the elements of a pagan religion.
And it is not simply that they have been silent about this, for there is docuмented, a positive support for these Jєωιѕн fables by the hierarchy of the Society. The further developments of what appears to be an increasing involvement in the usurious banking industry and Jєωιѕн dominated legal system compound and raise the possibilities of being compromised or undue influence upon other areas which do touch upon the Catholic Religion and it's faithful transmission.
As an example, we have the scrubbing of the SSPX websites of all mention of the word Jews. And now critics and questioners have been threatened or litigated against with an uncharacteristic aggressiveness.
Who are the shepherds? who are the wolves? Can we even know any more?
-
More selfishly, perhaps, where does that leave us? The very idea that sspx seminarians, become priests, should have to passively accept h0Ɩ0cαųst tommyrot or even actively promote it one day, leaves me cold. I am afraid that the whole work of sspx may now be sacrificed upon the altar of German political correctness.
It's not so much what they think about such things as why they think it.
There's something fundamentally wrong with the intellectual integrity of a group that radically adjusts its message within a few short years out of fear of the Jews.
-
One can think of a few possible causes for this:
1) The rapproachement with Rome and the prospect of a canonical prize
2) Share of the limited liturgical market
3) Threat of suppression in some countries
4) The generational drift
5) Political reformers at leadership level
6) Adoption of contemporary corporate methods
7) The fading away of the old guard and of memory
Al these combine to give up the fight or turn it into a difference of opinion!
-
J. Paul: When the subject of Bishop Williamson and h0Ɩ0cαųst came up, I believe they used a word such as "horrified" in thier reaction to revisionist views. We know that the administrators are h0Ɩ0cαųst narrative enforcers, so where does that leave the happless seminarian who must know that deviation means expulsion?
More selfishly, perhaps, where does that leave us? The very idea that sspx seminarians, become priests, should have to passively accept h0Ɩ0cαųst tommyrot or even actively promote it one day, leaves me cold. I am afraid that the whole work of sspx may now be sacrificed upon the altar of German political correctness.
If they have to impose their historical version by force of law, how much time do these people have before there is a reaction against this sort of thing?
Especially in Anglo-Saxon countries, there's a real resentment when someone tells me to believe something just because it would be illegal to do otherwise.
-
As an example, we have the scrubbing of the SSPX websites of all mention of the word Jews. And now critics and questioners have been threatened or litigated against with an uncharacteristic aggressiveness.
Who are the shepherds? who are the wolves? Can we even know any more?
Good points to be reiterated often. One can not be sure who are wolves and who are true shepherds. What I have finally concluded about SSPX is that there are no really true shepherds in the upper clerical ranks. There are no shepherds in Menzingen. Are some of them wolves? We'll have to see. At the very worst presently, a number of them, including some priests, seem to be mere 'hirelings." They flee when the wolves come.
-
It would also be interesting to learn what new seminarians are now taught about the world and how they are to engage with it. Almost like a rerun of the 60s conciliar changes. And always remember change creates less turbulence if brought in gently and slowly. Of course, young seminarians have no experience of the old world. They can only apply old theory to what they know.
If you recall, there was a video made in Germany, in the last year or so, showing life in one of the seminaries. When the subject of Bishop Williamson and h0Ɩ0cαųst came up, I believe they used a word such as "horrified" in thier reaction to revisionist views. We know that the administrators are h0Ɩ0cαųst narrative enforcers, so where does that leave the happless seminarian who must know that deviation means expulsion?
And of course, you are correct, the young have no sense of the true history which stands behind them. Since birth, they have been swimming in the soup of created realities. Mere clay to be moulded into slaves by the hands of the тαℓмυdic sculpture.
I can only speak from my own personal experience.
I was in the American SSPX seminary for 3 years plus 1 semester.
We learned all the truth about the Jews, mostly from one professor -- Bishop Williamson.
I was blessed to imbibe his wisdom for 3 years.
I wouldn't say that every SSPX priest is like Bishop Williamson, unfortunately. Some don't say anything one way or the other about the Jews, so one tends to give them the benefit of the doubt.
I can say with confidence that it seems "they" are looking for a different kind of seminarian (and hence, a different kind of priest) post-Bishop Williamson. They are looking for less fiery, less eccentric, less "choleric" or leader-type individuals. That is my personal experience and opinion. Take it for what it's worth.
Matthew
-
Matthew:
I can say with confidence that it seems "they" are looking for a different kind of seminarian (and hence, a different kind of priest) post-Bishop Williamson. They are looking for less fiery, less eccentric, less "choleric" or leader-type individuals. That is my personal experience and opinion. Take it for what it's worth.
Those are the kinds of priests we encounter at our chapel. So I think you're right on. They want priests who either know little about what is going on in the present world politically and socially, or don't care. They keep their heads down, deliver innocuous milktoast sermons and hope they can pass through the present crisis without gathering too much negative attention or publicity.
-
I can only speak from my own personal experience.
I was in the American SSPX seminary for 3 years plus 1 semester.
We learned all the truth about the Jews, mostly from one professor -- Bishop Williamson.
I was blessed to imbibe his wisdom for 3 years.
I wouldn't say that every SSPX priest is like Bishop Williamson, unfortunately. Some don't say anything one way or the other about the Jews, so one tends to give them the benefit of the doubt.
I can say with confidence that it seems "they" are looking for a different kind of seminarian (and hence, a different kind of priest) post-Bishop Williamson. They are looking for less fiery, less eccentric, less "choleric" or leader-type individuals. That is my personal experience and opinion. Take it for what it's worth.
Matthew
Matthew, your first hand experience is much more valuable to understanding this confusion than all of our speculations, as it speaks directly to facts. I do agree with you, I think that they seek, dare I say it, candidates with a more "modern" generalized outlook who will in turn be more accepting of the "way that things are", and the way that they are done today.
-
Matthew, your first hand experience is much more valuable to understanding this confusion than all of our speculations, as it speaks directly to facts. I do agree with you, I think that they seek, dare I say it, candidates with a more "modern" generalized outlook who will in turn be more accepting of the "way that things are", and the way that they are done today.
And they have a nasty boot that they have no compunction about using to kick out any priests who stand up to them.
-
Matthew: I can say with confidence that it seems "they" are looking for a different kind of seminarian (and hence, a different kind of priest) post-Bishop Williamson. They are looking for less fiery, less eccentric, less "choleric" or leader-type individuals. That is my personal experience and opinion. Take it for what it's worth.
Those are the kinds of priests we encounter at our chapel. So I think you're right on. They want priests who either know little about what is going on in the present world politically and socially, or don't care. They keep their heads down, deliver innocuous milktoast sermons and hope they can pass through the present crisis without gathering too much negative attention or publicity.
:applause: Very well put! You just put into words my exact feelings and experiences of SSPX where I live.
-
And now, there is another Priest who has left the SSPX in Argentina: Father Grosso. He has been re-ordained by Bishop De Galarreta, he was in the Mendoza priory. All the faithful has been menaced: They can't go to Father Grosso Mass...
Father Comte (prior) said that Father Grosso is Father Ceriani's chicken.
link
But the faithful is angry and many of them followed father Grosso. (http://radiocristiandad.wordpress.com/2011/08/15/amenazas-mentiras-y-coaccion-la-unica-respuesta-de-la-fsspx-ante-los-sacerdotes-y-fieles-que-se-dan-cuenta-del-engano/)
-
google translation (http://radiocristiandad.wordpress.com/2011/08/15/amenazas-mentiras-y-coaccion-la-unica-respuesta-de-la-fsspx-ante-los-sacerdotes-y-fieles-que-se-dan-cuenta-del-engano/)
-
Thanks, Cristera. My Spanish is not that good, but it appears from the reading of the link you provided, that the prior made personal phone calls to all the sspx faithful. warning them that if they attended Fr. Grosso's Mass they would not be welcome back to the sspx chapel. If this is true, it is so much in keeping with the heavyhanded policy which the Society has adopted under Fellay & Co.
-
One can think of a few possible causes for this:
7) The fading away of the old guard and of memory
This is a SERIOUS issue!! A few years ago, many of the old guard passed away, one after another.
And then there is the lack of Sisters everywhere they are supposed to be.
The holy mysteries of Catholicism seem to be circling the drain at times.
-
Thanks, Cristera. My Spanish is not that good, but it appears from the reading of the link you provided, that the prior made personal phone calls to all the sspx faithful. warning them that if they attended Fr. Grosso's Mass they would not be welcome back to the sspx chapel. If this is true, it is so much in keeping with the heavyhanded policy which the Society has adopted under Fellay & Co.
Exactly, that's what happened.
And I know from a good source that a few months ago, several seminarians from La Reja were expelled because they made questions about the Fellay policy.
-
Matthew: I can say with confidence that it seems "they" are looking for a different kind of seminarian (and hence, a different kind of priest) post-Bishop Williamson. They are looking for less fiery, less eccentric, less "choleric" or leader-type individuals. That is my personal experience and opinion. Take it for what it's worth.
Those are the kinds of priests we encounter at our chapel. So I think you're right on. They want priests who either know little about what is going on in the present world politically and socially, or don't care. They keep their heads down, deliver innocuous milktoast sermons and hope they can pass through the present crisis without gathering too much negative attention or publicity.
:applause: Very well put! You just put into words my exact feelings and experiences of SSPX where I live.
Hope is beginning to fade.
-
J.Paul:
Hope is beginning to fade.
Hope in what or in whom, J.Paul?
-
J.Paul: Hope is beginning to fade.
Hope in what or in whom, J.Paul?
Sorry, have been away for a few days. Hope that this Society had more integrity and purpose of mission than others and that our trust was well placed in them. But now, things are becoming uncertain.
-
J. Paul:
Sorry, have been away for a few days. Hope that this Society had more integrity and purpose of mission than others and that our trust was well placed in them. But now, things are becoming uncertain.
Yes, uncertainty describes the present situation in the Society. I firmly believe that there are a good number of priests in the Society who have an abundance of "integrity and purpose of mission." They will eventually be compelled to step forward and help re-establish that purpose and mission. A relatively few of them have already done that, and, of course, have paid the price for doing so.
-
J. Paul: Sorry, have been away for a few days. Hope that this Society had more integrity and purpose of mission than others and that our trust was well placed in them. But now, things are becoming uncertain.
Yes, uncertainty describes the present situation in the Society. I firmly believe that there are a good number of priests in the Society who have an abundance of "integrity and purpose of mission." They will eventually be compelled to step forward and help re-establish that purpose and mission. A relatively few of them have already done that, and, of course, have paid the price for doing so.
That sounds logical. I would say that if that were to happen, Bishop Fellay and his loyalists having firm control of all assets of the Society, it would seem a near impossible task to overcome for the mentioned group to re-establish the true mission as they would immediately be out of the Society and without resources. Unless perhaps if they were to rally under the banner of a well known cleric who could become a source of benefactors and resources. It would mean a split outright, which might be inevitable anyway.
Staying true to the Faith, whole and entire, will mean perserverance until life's end for most of us. It is perhaps time to put away those childish illusions that the Princes who live in castles will rally forth to do battle with our enemies and the demons which beseige their flock.