A.M.D.G.


A Catechism of the Resistance
OR

Some Common Objections Answered



Why is a Resistance necessary? What are you resisting?
The same thing that Catholics have always had to resist these last 40 years and more: modernism.

But the SSPX resists modernism: that’s why it was founded.
The SSPX used to resist modernism. But the SSPX has somehow ended up in the control of modernists and its doctrinal position has now been changed to one which involves compromises on things crucial to the Faith.

Look, had there been a deal with Rome then I’d be 100% with you fighting side by side. But there was no deal with Rome, and that’s what matters.
Forget about a deal with Rome for the moment. What is more important to the integrity of the SSPX: its canonical standing or its doctrinal position?
In 2012 lots of SSPX priests and faithful opposed a deal with Rome because it was the most obvious way that the SSPX could end up falling and officially compromising with modernism. That is why we all assumed that the deal with Rome was the biggest danger. But the SSPX in the meantime has nonetheless officially compromised with modernism, even without a deal!
Imagine a householder who makes certain that his door is locked every night. If someone warns him that the thief has come in through a window, can he simply reply: ‘But look, the door is still locked and that’s what matters!’

How can you be so sure that the SSPX was taken over? Where’s your proof? Give me chapter and verse on exactly how this came about.
There is a certain amount of interesting evidence out there which points to how it most likely happened (GREC, for example), but ultimately how it happened is not what matters. What matters is that it has happened and that it has happened is beyond doubt. One does not need to know how a man died in order to be sure that he is dead. The old, ‘no-compromise,’ doctrinally sound SSPX, the SSPX of Archbishop Lefebvre’s day, is dead and gone. That much is beyond serious dispute. The new SSPX is a very different creature indeed. The old SSPX would never have declared that Vatican II “enlightens and deepens” the Faith, that “the causes” of errors are in the Council, that the new Mass was “legitimately promulgated”, and so much more besides. Archbishop Lefebvre condemned the ‘oath of allegiance’ whereas Bishop Fellay says that he accepts it. The old SSPX raised up Bishop Williamson; the new SSPX marginalised him, slandered him publicly and then cast him out.

You refer above to the April 15th Doctrinal Declaration. But Bishop Fellay has said that he withdrew it, so that’s no longer an issue. You’re just trying to dredge up the past.
What Bishop Fellay says when he thinks that no publicly available recording of his words is being made and what he officially ‘says’ to the world (Rome included) via DICI are not always the same, but we will let that pass. Even assuming that his ‘withdrawal’ is ‘official’, it is clear from his own words that what he is referring to is the docuмent’s usefulness in reaching an agreement. What he is not referring to is the docuмent’s contents, and it is precisely the contents that are a problem, not its usefulness (which had already been killed by Rome when they turned it down in June 2012, long before he ‘withdrew’ it the following August).

But you cannot be sure that Bishop Fellay still believes what he said in the April 15th Declaration. Or do you think you can read his mind!?
Firstly, supposing that the April 15th Declaration no longer represents Bishop Fellay’s position, how much confidence can we repose in a Superior General who is capable of changing his doctrinal position with his dirty linen? Secondly, the very fact that Bishop Fellay has insisted so often that the docuмent is in the past and no longer an issue whilst refusing to address its contents surely points to his continued belief in those contents. If he no longer believes what he said he believed in April 2012, why go to all the trouble of dodging questions and playing with words (“withdrew”, “renounced”) when a simple statement to that effect would quieten all opposition?
Thirdly, a careful reading of his June 27th 2013 statement shows that the same ideas are still officially in force (E.g. Vatican II may ‘cause’ errors but it does it actually contain any errors? The New Mass isn’t as good as the old Mass, but it’s not actually evil or illegitimate per se; et al.)
Finally, consider the fact that even if Bishop Fellay had genuinely seen the error of his ways and repented (both in word and action), and we believed him, the serious implications of his actions would remain. For example: how could a son of Archbishop Lefebvre ever have signed, let alone composed and kept subsequently secret, so scandalous a docuмent? Serious questions deserve serious answers.

I don’t like the term ‘resistance’.
The word isn’t as important as what it means. Call it the counter-revolution or conscientious objectors or the ‘real SSPX’ or ‘that portion of SSPX priests and faithful who have not gone along with the new orientation,’ or whatever you like, just as long as we all know what we’re talking about. But the thing itself is good and true and necessary; objecting to the most commonly used name is no grounds for objecting to the thing itself or for not supporting it.

I don’t like having to distinguish between one type of Traditional Catholic and another. Why can’t we just all be Traditional Catholics and leave it at that?
Once again, whether you like it or not is hardly the point. Words must reflect the things they name or they are of no use. Where there is a qualitative difference there must also be a distinction in the word used to name it. It is an unfortunate necessity, that’s all. Just like the term ‘Traditional Catholic’ was invented to distinguish us from the conciliar ‘Catholics’ with whom we have precious little in common. Just like the very term ‘Catholic’ is necessary in order to distinguish us from those who mistakenly call themselves ‘Christian.’

So there is a debate going on inside the SSPX about the best way forward – so what? Aren’t you rather blowing things out of proportion?
It is not a debate, it is a fight. Or rather it was a fight: it is more or less over now and the wrong side has won. And it wasn’t about ‘the best way forward’. It was about doctrine. One cannot overstate the importance of sound doctrine. Likewise, when the Faith is put in danger, one cannot overreact. We are morally obliged to do everything in our power to defend the Faith, no matter who is endangering it, even our superiors.

So the enemy won and the SSPX has changed its doctrine. What do you propose we do about it then?
Stop supporting the SSPX which has veered off the course set by Archbishop Lefebvre and start exclusively supporting the continuation of what Archbishop Lefebvre began.

Every group that has split off from the SSPX has itself ended up splitting and in the end has destroyed itself. What makes you think the Resistance will be any different? The Resistance will go the same way and in another few years the SSPX will still be there, still the same only larger and stronger than ever and there will be no Resistance, and the people who supported it will end up regretting it or will have lapsed altogether.
As it happens this is not true. Some groups who left the SSPX are still there (the FSSP for example). But that is beside the point.
Why is it written in the stars that the Resistance will fail? Have you ever heard of the tactic beloved of the enemies of the Church known as a self-fulfilling prophecy? Surely any work stands or falls according to whether God blesses it or not. Therefore if there is a split, if there is a difference, we ought to look at the specific points of disagreement, at cause of the split, at the cause of the difference, whether between the SSPX and the Resistance, or any of the previous groups to leave the SSPX.
Ask yourself why you think those groups were wrong to leave the SSPX. Was it not because the SSPX was holding the true course of opposing the conciliar religion and proclaiming true doctrine without compromise? Was it not the case that those groups that left the SSPX did so because they wanted something different from what the SSPX and Archbishop Lefebvre had always stood for? You ask what is different in this situation, to which I answer this. That this time it is the SSPX which has changed. The Resistance is doing and teaching nothing new from what the old SSPX taught.

You talk as if Archbishop Lefebvre were on your side, but you can’t know that for certain.
I am firmly convinced that Archbishop Lefebvre is on or side from heaven, and that were he alive today he would be vocally supporting the Resistance. Fr. Faure, one of the original three priests chosen by Archbishop Lefebvre to receive episcopal consecration, thinks so too. And if you read what the Archbishop had to say while he was still alive, about the FSSP, for example, or about those who promoted an accommodation with modernist Rome (such as the late Jean Madiran), or about the conciliar Church, then you would see for yourself.

But both sides are able to quote Archbishop Lefebvre, so that doesn’t get us anywhere. The most one can conclude is that Archbishop Lefebvre must have been inconsistent.
Both sides are not able equally to quote Archbishop Lefebvre, don’t be so easily fooled. Only one side is able to quote the Archbishop from the time of his big decision which saved the Faith, the Mass and the Priesthood (the 1988 consecrations) onwards. The other side is reduced to quoting him from certain select moments earlier on. And only one side is able really to quote him at any great length. Not uncommonly the quotes used by the new SSPX are very short and one often discovers that the whole quote contradicts what they had intended it to mean (try looking up the complete quote from the letter to the Bishops-elect, which was very partially quoted in the June27th 2013 declaration, for example. The missing parts speak volumes!)
Remember that Archbishop Lefebvre died 21 years after founding the SSPX, but the situation in 1970 was not as clear as the situation in 1991. He was pioneering a movement, so to speak, dealing with a situation for which there was no precedent, and he did not have the benefit of our hindsight. That might help to explain some of the ‘inconsistency’, some of the less-hardline sounding quotes from the 1970s (asking Rome to ‘Let us do the experiment of Tradition’ for example). But with the benefit of experience and with the clarity which comes from the passage of time and events, have a look at what he had to say by the time of the consecrations and after. No inconsistency there. If you took the trouble to read and study him properly you would see that for yourself. And by the way, if you find it difficult to obtain ‘I Accuse the Council’ from Angelus Press, you may wish to reflect on why that might be.

But my SSPX chapel still looks the same. The priest still preaches doctrinally sound sermons, it is still the same Latin Mass. I can’t tell any difference from a few years ago.
The most insidious changes are the ones which happen so gradually that one does not notice them. When someone stops saying something, for example, very often nobody notices because, well, he’s stopped saying it. Errors of omission are hard to detect. The exteriors, the things which are more easy to notice (the liturgy, the way people dress and behave, etc.) are all things which flow from doctrine. Doctrine comes first. If doctrine is changed, these things too will in time change. Don’t be fooled into thinking that just because you can’t see touch or smell it, it doesn’t matter. Nothing matters more than doctrine. If you just want a Latin Mass with incense, you can go to the Anglicans!

Well then I’ll wait and keep vigilant. But I’m staying put in my SSPX chapel until I notice the change. When they start having the Novus Ordo and dancing girls in there, then I’ll leave.
Do not trust too much in your own abilities. By the time they start having the Novus Ordo in your SSPX chapel it will be long past far too late! And by that point if you haven’t already left long ago, it will only be because you have become numb to the changes and have yourself been changing without necessarily realising it. For the first twelve years of its existence the FSSP didn’t have one single Novus Ordo Mass. And yet what did Archbishop Lefebvre say about them? “They are betraying us!”

I know a priest/man/woman/family whom I respect, who appear very devout and they still support the SSPX and Bishop Fellay.
What other people do is their concern. When you face the judgement seat of God you will answer for what you did. Do not imagine that the brave souls who helped to get the SSPX off the ground did not have to face similar experiences with people whom they respected staying in the Novus Ordo. Human Respect is as deadly now as ever it was.

Everyone knows that the Resistance is full of crazy people among the laity, ‘wierdos,’ losers, misfits, obsessives and people with no social skills. I don’t want to be associated with the likes of them.
This is an unworthy argument, which may be why so few people are prepared to own up to thinking it. Personally I know some very fine Catholics who support the Resistance. But let us assume for argument’s sake that what you say is true. The same was surely said about the SSPX faithful in the 1970s: where would you be now had it not been for them? God uses the humble and lowly to accomplish his work. Impressive people are often proud and pride blinds. Finally, by using this argument are you not essentially admitting that your ‘image,’ your ‘brand’ if I may use the term, matters more to you than the truth? When you go to Mass, are you not going there in order to associate with God? During all these (however many) years that you’ve been attending the SSPX, were you really only ever there in order to ‘be associated’ with the other people in the chapel!?

The Resistance is full of larger than life personalities. It is all about egos. These people left because their egos are too big.
Like the previous question, this way of thinking smacks of human respect by focusing on (alleged) personalities and not on principles. What matters is the doctrine and all that flows from it. Besides, are you really in a position to know why anyone else supports the Resistance? And even if you could know it, it would not change the fact that you are not answerable for them, you are only answerable to God for your own actions (or lack thereof!)

I’ve heard that: Fr. Pfeiffer is a real charlatan who steals everyone’s money and who probably murdered his own grandmother and who is unkind to cute fluffy kittens; / that Fr. Chazal is immature and is disorganised and is no good with money; / that Bishop Williamson and his friends are “Right Wing” (!!!) There’s no way I’m ever going to support a resistance which includes Fr. ________ (complete with the name of whichever priest you like least, or Bishop Williamson).
This method of reasoning is not a little ironic given that those who point out the doctrinal problems of Bishop Fellay’s various utterances and position statements are usually accused of making “personal attacks” (we have even, at times, been accused of calumny and lies!)
The battle is being fought over doctrine: do not allow the devil to distract you with this sort of personality-based squabbling. You have a duty to be as charitable as possible and to believe the best of people. Beyond that, if you don’t like a given person (even a priest), so what? The Resistance stands or falls on doctrine, the same as the SSPX always did. So you don’t like Fr. Pfeiffer, Bishop Williamson or whoever? What about all the other priests: what about Fr. Ringrose? Fr. Girouard? Dom Tomas Aquinas? Fr. Hewko, is he a charlatan too? Is Fr. Faure? More fool Archbishop Lefebvre for trusting him and promoting him for 20 plus years!
Did the SSPX only ever include priests whom everyone thought were just wonderful? Was the only reason for your supporting the SSPX that you personally liked all the priests you’d happened to meet (and anyway, where would be the merit in that?)? I suspect you might have other reasons for not supporting the Resistance and are merely using this argument as a cover. But only you can know that for sure.

There are only a relatively small number of souls at my local Resistance Mass, where as there are ___(n.)__ at my local SSPX church.
The Resistance is growing, whereas the SSPX as a whole is shrinking (did you realise that the number of priests in the SSPX actually shrank since last year, in spite of the new round of ordinations?). And for what it’s worth, I’m sure if you went to your local Cathedral at the right time, you could find a Novus Ordo Mass with even more souls present than your local SSPX church. Is truth a game of numbers? What would have happened had the recusant Catholic faithful at the time of the Protestant persecution (or indeed any persecution) reasoned this way? Truth does not respect numbers.

But we need to have a normal parish life which we can’t get if we’re just among 40 or so others in a rented hall! We need a Catholic social life, we need events to attend, we need societies and guilds to join, our children need other Catholic children to play with...
Virtually all SSPX Mass centres began life in this modest way. Where would your impressive SSPX parish be now had not people been prepared to live the 40-souls-in-a-rented-hall experience thirty years ago? As for all the other trappings of a proper large parish, you may prefer them but God gives us what we need. If you act for Him in good faith, He will not let you down.

But there are still relatively few priests in the Resistance. I can’t get by without a minimum of Mass every Sunday.
Once again, God will give you sufficient grace. Suppose, back in the days of the good old anti-modernist SSPX, you lived in an area where there was SSPX Mass less frequently than every Sunday, let’s say once a month. Would you go to the Novus Ordo in the meantime on the other Sundays? Would you even, for that matter, go to the indult? Would it not be better that you stuck to principle and went once a month and on the other Sundays made your holy hour without Mass?

But it is a mortal sin to miss Sunday Mass.
There are occasions where it can be a mortal sin to attend it. St. Joan of Arc was asked to make one small compromise, to sign a false confession of guilt, in order to attend Mass. As long as she did not sign, she was forbidden to attend Mass. At one point she gave in and signed so as to be able to attend Mass. Soon after, thinking better of it, she withdrew her signature. Then the Virgin Mary appeared to her and told her that in singing the false confession she had signed her own damnation, and that had she allowed her signature to remain on the docuмent she would have gone to hell.

If we stick with the SSPX we can ‘resist from within.’
“It is the superiors who form the subjects, not the subjects who form the superiors!” – Abp. Lefebvre

But I trust my priest. You can’t deny that there are still good priests inside the SSPX. Fr. Pfeiffer & co. don’t have a monopoly.
True, there are still good priests inside the SSPX. In a similar way, one occasionally hears of ‘good,’ ‘hardline’ ‘anti-Vatican II’ priests in the FSSP, but one doesn’t go to their Masses because their private words and opinions count for nothing. They belong to an organisation that officially compromises on matters of the Faith, and by supporting that organisation, so do they. Since the old ‘no-compromise SSPX’ no longer exists, having been replaced by a new SSPX which is conciliar-friendly in its official docuмents, those ‘good’ SSPX priests are now good in spite of the (new) SSPX and not because of it.
Furthermore, the tension of interiorly disagreeing with one's Society and one’s Superiors and exteriorly going along to get along is very unhealthy, is not a Catholic way of behaving (Catholics don't infiltrate) and cannot last. Human nature dictates that the tension will resolve itself in one direction or the other: either by such a priest leaving the SSPX, or by him steadily turning into a modernist without realising it. You must hope that those ‘good’ priests still in the SSPX join the Resistance. But whatever they choose to do, you cannot use their choice as an excuse for your own wrong decision.

What if there were still a chance that Bishop Fellay might be made to resign?
The SSPX crisis is not a matter of personalities: despite what our enemies say, it is not that we merely don’t get along with Bp. Fellay! The problem is much more serious and goes much deeper. The doctrinal position has officially been changed, and many, many priests support this. Even if Bp. Fellay resigned tomorrow, the problem would remain. Unless all the complicit SSPX priests (a large number!) could be removed, and every single one of those scandalous docuмents and statements repealed and contradicted, the problem would still remain. And that is so unlikely as to be as good as impossible.

Fine, the ship may be sinking. It may even be, as you say, beyond repair and certain to sink. But the ocean outside is a stormy place.
Let us remember that the doctrinal position has officially been changed. Therefore, I would rather say not that the ship is sinking: it has sunk! Which is the better place to be: clinging to a piece of debris, tossed in a stormy sea or still in your comfy cabin on board a ship which is already fifty fathoms under the waves and still plummeting towards the ocean floor?

In time God may give everyone the grace to see. Why can’t we just wait until everyone sees things? Or until a lot more people see things?
He may, but let us not presume to count on it. Look at how few people (when compared to the whole Church) woke up and acted in the wake of Vatican II. I do not mean to depress you but who knows if anyone else in the SSPX will wake up and see clearly what has happened and act accordingly. For all we know, this is as good as it gets. I don’t actually think that that is so, but we ought to be prepared to face a horrible reality.
In any event, waiting around is not an option: time is not on our side. Ever since the SSPX went into a nose dive, the SSPX and the Resistance have been on divergent courses. Like a crack in the ground which slowly widens into a chasm, the time where one can jump from one side to the other is coming to an end and any priest (or faithful) who finds himself on the wrong side beyond a certain point may well end up staying there, however ‘hard-line’ he initially was. Of course, God can give grace and extraordinary things can happen, but that is the ordinary way of things.

We cannot be ahead of Providence.
Does ‘waiting for Providence’ mean waiting for God to do everything for us? Surely Providence works through human agents, at least as far as those human agents are willing to be used. How is Providence supposed to accomplish anything at all if we sit idly by, resolutely doing nothing?

But isn’t it more prudent to err on the side of caution?
‘Prudence’ is one of the most misused words, especially when it comes to the crisis in the Church. It does not simply mean ‘doing nothing’! There are times when the more cautious, more prudent thing to do is to act, and when to fail to act would be imprudent. In a serious situation, inaction is often fatal. There are even times when any decision is better than none, as long as it is made decisively.

Archbishop Lefebvre waited until 1988 before his decisive action.
 But he did not wait until 1988 to act. He set up the seminary as soon as he was asked, and having done so he persevered with it no matter what. And he certainly did not wait until 1988 to tell people to stop attending the Novus Ordo!
Furthermore, he was in an unprecedented situation. To people in 1970, it must have seemed scarcely believable that the mighty fortress of the Vatican had been infiltrated top to bottom. We have no excuse, we have a very recent precedent, and this time it is only the puny SSPX which has been infiltrated and subverted.

I’ll act when the time is right. Once I have conclusive proof/more evidence/a line in the sand, then I’ll support the Resistance.
You have had at least 18 months of serious heavy-duty evidence: 18 months of mounting scandals, 18 months of continuously liberal and heterodox declarations and interviews, 18 months of the good priests being punished while the bad and indifferent are rewarded. What more proof do you need?

Yes, but I still think we need to wait for a line in the sand.
Wasn’t the General Chapter of 2012 a line in the sand? The expulsion of Bishop Williamson on trumped-up technical grounds? The publishing of the Doctrinal Declaration which Bishop Fellay secretly sent to Rome? What more do you want? If you are waiting for an angel from heaven to come down and tell you what you ought to do, it won’t happen. There will be no clearer ‘lines in the sand’ than the several which we have seen already. There may be a whole series of small lines in the sand, and each time the situation worsens and the SSPX sinks deeper.

But what if you are wrong?
All the evidence says that we are not. If you doubt it, go over it again, re-read the six conditions of the 2012 General Chapter, re-read the June 2012 DICI interview, re-read the April 15th 2012 Doctrinal Declaration, watch to the May 2012 CNS interview, and all the rest. God sees the hearts of all men and if we have acted bravely in his cause and in good faith, we need not fear. But if you fail to help build up the Resistance and to ensure the future and continuation of Tradition, when you had the means to do so, if you continue to support the new SSPX and thus to support a doctrinal compromise with modernism, when you ought to have known better, then God will see that. And if you do it out of less than worthy motives (such as any of those listed above, or any others not included here) then He will see that too. Are you really invincibly ignorant? Are your own circuмstances really so special compared to everyone else? Were I in your situation I would be a little concerned for my eternal welfare. You should be asking yourself “What if they are right?”!




23/08/2013
To be ammended and updated.
Suggestions for other commonly used objections are welcome:
recusantsspx@hotmail.co.uk

http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php?a=topic&t=24925

 "After sending to Rome
the texts of the General Chapter of last July, I met Mgr. Di Noia on 28th
August 2012, and I informed him that I was withdrawing our April
proposal, which could no longer serve as a basis from which to work."

Bishop Fellay

6. - In addition, Bishop Fellay, through DICI.org, had desired Pope Benedict XVI to make a deal with the SSPX as his last act as Pope in February 2013.

I have read some of the content in the links provided and from posts here, the accusations against Bishop Fellay never really deviate.....

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 Jєω, 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 Jєω? 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 Jєω? 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 Jєω? 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 Jєω, 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-Jєω 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.