Author Topic: Fr. Niklaus Pflugers letter to Bishop Williamson (Read 22956 times)

Telesphorus · « **Reply #70 on:** April 17, 2013, 03:10:08 PM »

If there's one thing that's obvious, it's that these liberals are not discreet, but rather they are being in our faces about it.

They think nobody cares, that it doesn't matter, etc.

When they started to have some problems then they started back-peddling.

They were extremely arrogant and they wanted people to accuse them of being what they are - people associating themselves with the enemies of the Church, because they believe they can then rely on the "antisemite" charge.

Maybe that works in Europe. And sadly it probably works here pretty well too. But it doesn't work with the people who still care. And those people still exist.

VinnyF · « **Reply #71 on:** April 17, 2013, 03:11:42 PM »

Quote from: Quo Vadis Petre

:rolleyes: Go on that irrelevant tangent, VinnyF, as Ethelred stated "on his computer or on his user-account on an SSPX computer."

Quo,

Perhaps you and most others here consider it a tangent but what has been alleged here is very serious. This thread is all about the letter, the content of which we can all read.

The assertion I took issue with was:

This letter was signed and sent by ... Fr Niklaus Pfluger. However his close friend, Mr. Max "friend of Mossad with a Jєωιѕн name" Krah, played an important role in this letter ... That's no speculation, but a fact.

That is how this particular thread started out and I am telling you that this "Fact", that purportedly proves that Krah "played an important roles in this letter" is a forgery.

You may call it irrelevant - but it is the point of this thread as it appears right after the translation by OP himself. I am not even accusing Ethel of the calumny - but somebody had a vested interest in making sure that link between this letter and Krah was more than speculation.

And I doubt that that person resides in Mentzingen.

Incredulous · « **Reply #72 on:** April 17, 2013, 03:14:00 PM »

So is VinnyF implying Msgr. Williamson tampered with the letter?

He wouldn't need to, because the SSPX-Resistance already knows Maxie is a zionist. Nothing more to say.

Ethelred has the most authentic take on the letter since he's studied Krah's writings in his native language.

We all agree the "owner" of the letter is the SSPX.
If incrimminating evidence is found in the letter linking it to Maxie, then it must either be true or the SSPX planted it.

It would seem VinnyF's theory is all the more damning for the Society.

Maybe as a "political strategy, the neoSSPX can blame Maxie for everything and walk away from him to try and restore their credibility. He is the epitome of "damaged goods". No need to be associated with him anymore.

By the way, where is Maxie these days? I haven't heard anything about him,
since his Jaidhofer trust was exposed on the forums by Mr. Siscoe's interview.

VinnyF · « **Reply #73 on:** April 17, 2013, 03:16:53 PM »

Quote from: Incredulous

So is VinnyF implying Msgr. Williamson tampered with the letter?

He wouldn't need to, because the SSPX-Resistance already knows Maxie is a zionist. Nothing more to say.

Ethelred has the most authentic take on the letter since he's studied Krah's writings in his native language.

We all agree the "owner" of the letter is the SSPX.
If incrimminating evidence is found in the letter linking it to Maxie, then it must either be true or the SSPX planted it.

It would seem VinnyF's theory is all the more damning for the Society.

Maybe as a "political strategy, the neoSSPX can blame Maxie for everything and walk away from him to try and restore their credibility. He is the epitome of "damaged goods". No need to be associated with him anymore.

By the way, where is Maxie these days? I haven't heard anything about him,
since his Jaidhofer trust was exposed on the forums by Mr. Siscoe's interview.

I do not think that His Excellency modified the header elements of Microsoft Word docuмent.

ServusSpiritusSancti · « **Reply #74 on:** April 17, 2013, 03:34:32 PM »

Quote from: VinnyF

Quote from: ServusSpiritusSancti
Quote from: VinnyF
Quote from: ServusSpiritusSancti
Quote from: VinnyF
Quote from: John Grace
Is it all "internet rumour", VinnyF? You probably think it is.

John,

Why is it that when one exposes a potentially fabricated docuмent which has probably been altered to appear to nicely fit into a popular conspiracy theory, your first reaction is not "lets get to the truth" .. but rather "curse you for exposing the fabrication?"

Boy, Menzingen sure has you fooled, don't they?

I am just an engineer and it appears that someone tampered with a docuмent to ostensibly make it fit into the conspiracy. This entire thread was based on the great detective work that seemed to prove that this docuмent was purportedly written by Max and sent to Fr. Pfluger for publication. So if it turns out that this "proof" was fabricated, I wonder why and who would have to gain from it?

Read the (numerous) parts of the letter that kiss up to the Jews and compare them to Krah's comments about the Jews last year. The pro-Jєωιѕн junk in the letter sounds like something Krah would write.

I am not debating that. Your premise is that it sounds just like Krah and the original posting in this thread is that the "smoking gun" had been discovered buried in the header of this docuмent that absolutely linked it to Krah. And I am telling you that the "smoking gun" evidence was fabricated - that's all, just stating a fact.

Yeah, and Bishop Fellay is doing nothing wrong, the letter of the 37 French priests to Bishop Fellay was a hoax, Archbishop Lefebvre would have wanted a deal with Rome, etc.

The problem is, none of the above are facts, they're all lies. So where is your proof that the smoking gun provided by Ethelred is a "fabrication"? If you have no proof (and it seems to me that it is just your opinion) then it's not a fact.