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...

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.

Quote from: Ethelred

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

Bp Fellay's SSPX is no longer the SSPX of the Archbishop

Bishop Fellay has questions to answer.That is for certain.

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. 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?, 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.  

Quote

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".

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.

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?