Does this email exist on the internet? Often newsletter's have a "view in browser" function. Or can we see screengrabs?

We warned him on several occasions about his comments on the h0Ɩ0cαųst, but to no avail. This led to the unfortunate interview for Swedish television on November 1, 2008, which at the end of January 2009 labeled the Society in Germany as "fascist, anti-Semitic" etc., a label we had been struggling with for years.
----------------------
For those who understand German, here is the original text:

Bischof Williamson war Engländer, Konvertit aus dem Anglikanismus, ein sehr gebildeter, sprachbegabter, intelligenter und fähiger Mann. Als solcher hat er viel Gutes in der Bruderschaft bewirkt, und dies war der Grund, weswegen ihn Erzbischof Lefebvre am 30. Juni 1988 mit den drei anderen Kandidaten zum Bioschof konsekriert hat.

Doch konnte man gewisse Schwächen bei ihm nicht übersehen, die schließlich aufgrund ihrer Zu-nahme vor etlichen Jahren zu seiner Trennung von der Bruderschaft führten:

Er hatte seine Schwierigkeiten damit, Gnade und Natur zu verbinden. Einerseits war er sehr gern bereit, Botschaften, Erscheinungen und anderen übernatürlichen Phänomenen Glaubwürdigkeit zuzusprechen; andererseits neigte er zu einem gewissen Naturalismus, indem er der Politik und den Zeiterscheinungen einen übermäßigen Platz in seinen Predigten und Vorträgen einräumte.

Wir warnten ihn verschiedentlich wegen seiner Äußerungen zum h0Ɩ0cαųst; ohne Erfolg. So kam es am 1. November 2008 zu dem unglücklichen Interview für das schwedische Fernsehen, das Ende Januar 2009 der Bruderschaft gerade in Deutschland das Etikett "faschistisch, antisemitisch" etc. umgehängt hat, mit der wir jahrelang zu kämpfen hatten.

Seine Widersetzlichkeit den Autoritäten der Bruderschaft gegenüber machte schließlich eine Trennung unabdingbar.

Die Irrungen und Verwirrungen, die er in den folgenden Jahren durch seine Kyrie-eleison-Kommentare hervorgerufen hat, möge Gott ihm verzeihen, noch mehr seine Bischofskonsekrationen, die jeder objektiven Notwendigkeit und jedem sensus ecclisiae entbehrten und entbehren.

Möge Gott ihm vielmehr seine früheren Verdienste reichlich belohnen. R.I.P.

Hey, you two obstreperous organisms! Take your insults elsewhere. This thread is supposed to be about Fr. Schmidberger’s excremental eulogy.

Note: I called the eulogy 💩, not Fr. Schmidberger.

However, certain weaknesses in him could not be overlooked, which, as they increased, ultimately led to his separation from the Society several years ago:

He had difficulty reconciling grace and nature. On the one hand, he was very willing to give credence to messages, apparitions and other supernatural phenomena; on the other hand, he tended towards a certain naturalism, giving politics and contemporary phenomena an excessive amount of space in his sermons and lectures.

We warned him on several occasions about his comments on the h0Ɩ0cαųst, but to no avail. This led to the unfortunate interview for Swedish television on November 1, 2008, which at the end of January 2009 labeled the Society in Germany as "fascist, anti-Semitic" etc., a label we had been struggling with for years.

His defiance of the Society's authorities ultimately made a separation inevitable.

God forgive him for the errors and confusion he caused in the years that followed with his Kyrie eleison comments, and even more so for his episcopal consecrations, which lacked and still lack any objective necessity and any sensus ecclesiae

-- certain weaknesses in him
-- that led to his separation from SSPX (so it was entirely his fault, and SSPX are blameless)

This attempting to cover up any blemish on the "Society" is probably the same mentality that they have when attempting to cover up and protect various sɛҳuąƖ predators.  While we attack Wojtyla et al. for "apologizing" on behalf of "the Church", SSPX seem to have the same attitude, that SSPX should always be held blameless, as if it were effectively the Church.  In fact, as we will see reinforced later, they do seem to think that the SSPX has all the notes, qualities, and attributes of the Church, as if the SSPX were the "spotless bride of Christ" -- while the Conciliar Church, the "concrete" Church I guess, has become thoroughly corrupt.  So SSPX are the "ideal" Church?  This entire thing is pathetically absurd.