Quote from: Augstine Baker

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:

Quote

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:

Quote

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.    

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.

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?