Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => SSPX Resistance News => Topic started by: John Grace on May 01, 2011, 10:40:16 AM
-
http://cathinfo-warning-pornography!/Ignis_Ardens/index.php?showtopic=7195
From the latest GB district newsletter:
QUOTE
IGNIS ARDENS
The Ignis Ardens website states that 'it is a Taditionalist Catholic forum with a pro-SSPX bias... but that 'this forum's support for SSPX is not to be taken as evidence of the SSPX's support for this forum.'
The latter part of this statement is certainly true with regard to Ignis Ardens' involvement to date in a campaign which undermines the authority of the Society's General House.
I refer to the section entitled 'Krahgate,' which, under the cover of anonymity, raises serious allegations against Menzingen's lawyer, Maximilian Krah, and, by extension, against the Superior General himself.
Whilst this file, which apparently originated elsewhere, was recently removed at the initiative of the Ignis Ardens moderator, the damage caused will be much more difficult to repair given the public nature of the internet and the propensity for calumny and detraction to spread.
In this regard Bishop Fellay does not exclude having recourse to judicial process, and this should serve a warning to those who think they can commit public slander via the internet with impunity.
Father Paul Morgan.
-
:applause:
-
sorry- i'm not up to date with this issue- anyone care to expand? Thanks in advance...
-
I am curious how is it considered slander to say that someone who attends Jєωιѕн fundraisers is used by Bishop Fellay to represent the Society in the Williamson case, or slander to reveal that someone who publicly remarks that he is a fan of Madonna, 007, and the skin flick 9 1/2 weeks is on the board of SSPX girls schools.
These are simply facts. They are simply the truth, and the truth will set the SSPX free.
Certainly in a legal sense, there is no possible way this can be called slander or libel.
These are simply facts, and the any scandal or detraction that occurs because of the revelation of these facts is not a sin because the welfare and mission of the society depends on its leaders being held accountable for their actions.
-
I can't find this statement on the GB website, can you provide a link?
-
I can't find this statement on the GB website, can you provide a link?
It's from the May newsletter which is not online yet. My understanding is Fr Morgan the District Superior was requested by Bishop Bernard Fellay to issue this note. Many of the faithful have contacted the SSPX in Britain about this.
-
If there's a link in the near future, please provide it.
-
why do everybody have to be so litigious. cant we all just get togther and have a few beers and make thing work?
-
why do everybody have to be so litigious. cant we all just get togther and have a few beers and make thing work?
Money.
-
why do everybody have to be so litigious. cant we all just get togther and have a few beers and make thing work?
Money.
(http://www.cartoonstock.com/lowres/ear0433l.jpg)
-
It certainly raises more questions for Bishop Fellay to answer.
-
Though CathInfo doesn't have a separate sub-forum for the Krah-affair, it has been discussed in the Crisis Section. I suppose it's only a matter of time before CathInfo is anathematised by the Society.
-
Bishop Fellay basically cannot handle the fact that people -even SSPX supporters- are saying that what he did was wrong. I think the Society would be better off with Bishop Williamson as its superior general.
-
sorry- i'm not up to date with this issue- anyone care to expand? Thanks in advance...
This is what started it off.The 1st posting of 'William of Norwich' back in late November 2010.
http://krahgatefile.blogspot.com/2010/12/maximilian-krah-and-menzingen-cause-for.html
Maximilian Krah and Menzingen: A Cause for Serious Concern?
http://cathinfo-warning-pornography!/Ignis_Ardens/index.php?showtopic=6405
Maximilian Krah and Menzingen: A Cause for Serious Concern?
The Timeline -
January 2009
A Corporate Attorney by the name of Maximilian Krah became publicly linked with the affairs of the Society of Saint Pius X.
January 20, 2009
Fr. Franz Schmidberger, Superior of SSPX in Germany, issued a press release in which it was stated: “We have not seen the interview given by Bishop Williamson to Swedish television. As soon as we see it we will submit it to scrutiny and obtain the advice of attorneys.”
But, in fact, the attorney to whom Menzingen would turn had already been put into place.
It was none other than Maximilian Krah of the Dresden Corporate Law company, Fetsch Rechtsanwälte: the partners being Cornelius J. Fetsch, Maximilian Krah and Daniel Adler.
Link: Fetsch Rechtsanwälte
http://www.dasoertliche.de/?id=10700323337...&arkey=14612000
January 19, 2009
One day before Fr. Schmidberger’s press release, Maximilian Krah was appointed as delegate to the Board, and manager, of the company Dello Sarto AG. The Chairman of the company is Bishop Bernard Fellay and the Board Members are First Assistant, Fr. Niklaus Pfluger, and the SSPX Bursar General, Fr. Emeric Baudot.
The purpose of the company is stated as being (Google translation):
“Advice on asset management issues and the care and management of assets of domestic and foreign individuals, corporations, foundations and other bodies, in particular of natural or legal persons which the Catholic moral, religious and moral teaching in its traditional sense of obligation and see, and the execution of projects for the mentioned persons, as well as advising on the implementation of these projects; whole purpose of description according to statutes.”
In other words, Dello Sarto AG appears to be an investment company that speculates, one has to assume, with SSPX funds in financial and other markets in the search for profits for various SSPX projects. But is it possible to get involved in today’s financial markets without being exposed to the risk and/or practice of usury?
The company was commercially registered on January 13, 2009 and issued 100 shares at 1,000 Swiss francs, giving it an initial capital of 100,000 Swiss francs.
As far as the checkbook is concerned, Maximilian Krah and Bishop Fellay alone are enabled individually to issue a payment of funds, while Frs. Pfluger and Baudot are required to obtain a co-signature to do so. Krah is not a cleric, but exercises greater financial powers than the First Assistant or Bursar. Curious.
Link: Dello Sarto AG
http://translate.google.co.uk/translate?hl...D813%26prmd%3Db
Maximilian Krah is a Board Member of other associations that control SSPX funds.
In the September 2010 edition of a publication issued by EMBA-Global we read that the “EMBA-Global programme is designed for experienced managers, professionals and executives who seek to develop the skills, knowledge and networks to operate as successful Global leaders, anywhere in the world,” and that it “brings together an elite international network of business professionals.”
Link: EMBA-Global
http://www.emba-global.com/EMBA-Global_Cla...tember_2010.pdf
Maximilian Krah is pictured on page 6 of the September 2010 publication along with the following, accompanying text:
“Maximilian Krah. German. Lawyer. Jaidhofer Privatstiftung, Vienna, Austria. Lawyer with substantial international experience. Currently a Board Member of an Austrian foundation. Responsible for wealth and asset management of the settlement capital, and for the project development of non-profit projects all over the world, which are sponsored by using the achieved funds.”
The full name of the company mentioned above is Jaidhofer Privatstiftung St. Josef and Marcellus. Jaidof is the seat of the SSPX District headquarters in Austria.
The fact that the SSPX appears to be involved in international financial markets will worry many of their faithful who would, rightly, believe that such activity is both risky on the material plane, and questionable on the moral level. There may, of course, be those who are less concerned, feeling that it is acceptable practice in the modern world, and aimed at “a final good.” Are the latter right?
Krah first made his appearance in the international sphere, as far as rank-and-file traditionalists are concerned, in the wake of what has been dubbed by the mainstream media as “the Williamson Affair.” His comments on the bishop were less than flattering, exuded a liberal view of the world, and poured oil on the fire of controversy that raged across the world, and against both the bishop and the SSPX, for months on end. It has been plain for a long time now that the “interview” and the “ensuing controversy” were a set-up, but it was, and still is, a matter of conjecture as to which person(s) and/or agencies engineered the set-up. Perhaps subsequent information in this email will throw more light on this troubling question?
What is beyond conjecture, however, is that Bishop Fellay’s attitude towards Bishop Williamson changed dramatically. Even those who will hear nothing against Bishop Fellay have noticed this change. The change has been public and persistent, and has been both insulting and humiliating for Bishop Williamson. It has also been largely carried out in the mainstream media, and, in Germany, the notoriously anti-Catholic communist magazine, Der Spiegel, has found a favored place, much to the astonishment of traditionalists everywhere. It has been there that we heard the shocking references to Bishop Williamson as “an unexploded hand grenade,” “a dangerous lump of uranium,” etc, as well as the insulting insinuations that he is disturbed or suffering from Parkinson’s Disease. The question, let it be remembered, is not whether one agrees or disagrees with Williamson, whether one likes or dislikes either Bishop Williamson or Bishop Fellay, but whether or not a man has a right to express a personal opinion on a matter of secular history. The ambush of Williamson by the Swedish interviewer, Ali Fegan, said by some Swedes to be a Turkish Jew, left Williamson on the spot: to get up and walk out in silence, thereby providing the media with the hook “that his refusal to speak is proof of his revisionist beliefs” or simply to lie. Williamson made his choice. Whether we agree or not is neither here nor there.
In the past, nearly two decades earlier in Canada, Williamson made “controversial comments” on the same subject at what was understood to be a private meeting of Catholics. A journalist, however, found out and made a story out of it. The relevance of this episode is that the attitude of Archbishop Lefebvre contrasts remarkably with that of Bishop Fellay. The first just ignored the “controversy,” treating a secular and anti-Catholic media with total disdain, and the matter quickly became a dead issue. The latter played to the media gallery, broke corporate unity with his brother in the episcopacy (specifically warned against by Archbishop Lefebvre during the 1988 consecrations), and turned what should have been a molehill into a mountain.
ENTER KRAH
Krah is instructed to find an attorney to defend Williamson. He opts for Matthias Lossmann as defense attorney, a strange choice. It is strange, because Lossmann is a member of the extremist Die Grünen party (The Greens), an organization that is well-known in Germany as a water melon: green on the outside, red on the inside. A party that is pro-feminist, pro-ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ, pro-abortion and harbors Daniel Cohn-Bendit, a member of the European Parliament in its ranks. Besides his frontline involvement in the 1968 Red turbulence in the universities in France, he is a known advocate of pedophilia, as his autobiography demonstrates. What was Krah thinking of, then, in choosing such an attorney to represent a Catholic bishop? Was Lossmann really the only attorney in Germany prepared to take this case?
Krah’s choice is strange for a second reason. Krah is a member of a political party, but not the Greens. Krah is a prominent political activist and officer in Dresden, in the east of Germany, of the liberal, pro-abortion, pro-ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ Christian Democratic Union, led by Angela Merkel. Chancellor Merkel also comes from the east of Germany and is commonly referred to in that country as “Stasi-Merkel” after revelations and photographic evidence came to light hinting that she was recruited and formed by the Stasi, the former East German State Secret Police; a common approach made to young people, particularly those seeking professional careers, in the former Communist State of the German Democratic Republic. The same Merkel that publicly reproached Benedict XVI for having lifted the so-called “excommunication” of “h0Ɩ0cαųst denier” Williamson, and demanded that the Pope reverse the decision.
Krah is pictured on the editorial page, page 3, of a CDU publication, of May 2006, in the link below:
Link: Die Dresdner Union, May 2006.
http://www.cdu-dresden.de/index.php?mo=mc_...40107b868a48%7D
He portrays himself in the journal as some kind of Christian (though we are informed via SSPX faithful that he attends the SSPX chapel in Dresden), yet chooses an attorney for Williamson that could not have been worse.
Remember, too, that after the first Der Spiegel hatchet job on Williamson, Krah turned up at the British HQ of the SSPX in London at short notice and sought to get Williamson to do a second interview with the disreputable magazine. Williamson refused to do so, in spite of the fact that Krah had come with these journalists with the express sanction of Bishop Fellay! How in God’s name could Mgr. Fellay have thought that a second bite at the apple by Der Spiegel journalists would help the cause of Williamson or the SSPX? Go figure.
Moreover, consider the approach of both Krah and Lossmann in Williamson’s first trial. There was no attempt to defend him, though it is plain that Williamson had not broken German law, contrary to public perceptions generated by the media. What occurred, according to non-Catholics who attended the trial, was a shocking parody of a defense: Krah, unctuous, smug and mocking in respect of the bishop; Lossmann, weak, hesitating, insipid. Both effectively “conceded” Williamson’s “guilt,” but nevertheless argued for “leniency.” At no time did they address the legal questions at hand, questions that did not relate directly to the “h0Ɩ0cαųst” and its veracity or otherwise, but as to whether or not the provisions of the law actually applied to the Williamson case. In other words, a Caiphas defense.
It can, therefore, come as no surprise that Williamson decided to appeal the Court’s decision, and to engage an independent attorney who would address the actual legal questions of the case. That Bishop Fellay, on the basis of media reports, ordered him publicly to sack this attorney or face expulsion is a great surprise, one might even say a scandal, for such situations require knowledge of all the facts, serious reflection, and sagacity. The Press Communiqué demonstrated none of these requirements, and merely represented one more example of Bishop Fellay’s unexplained public hostility to Mgr. Williamson. It is significant that the DICI statement referred to Williamson’s new attorney as someone who was associated with “neo-nαzιs,” this being a reference to the German National Democrats, an organization that has been in existence for about 50 years and has elected members in some regional German parliaments. If it had been “nαzι” it would have been banned under the German Constitution a long time ago – as many such groups have found out over the years in Germany. Moreover, while DICI chose the term “neo-nαzι,” the British Daily Telegraph chose “far right,” as did those well-known anti-semitic journals, The Jerusalem Post and Haaretz.
Did Krah have an input into this communiqué? We cannot know for sure, but we do know something about Krah that is not common knowledge. Maximilian Krah is Jєωιѕн. He presents himself as some sort of ‘Christian’ in the link provided above, yet we find a more revealing picture of Maximilian Krah, at this link below, in attendance at a fundraising event in New York during September 2010.
Link: American Friends of Tel Aviv University
http://www.aftau.org/site/PageServer?pagen...0_AlumniAuction
The attendees of this fundraising party are alumni of Tel Aviv University. They are raising scholarship funds to assist diasporan Jews to travel to the Zionist State of Israel to receive a formation at Tel Aviv University. Look at the photographs. Every single person is identified and every single one is clearly Jєωιѕн. There is no problem whatever with this, Krah included.
However, Krah is at the financial center of the SSPX; he has done no favors to Williamson and his case by his statements and actions; and may be responsible for things yet unknown or unseen.
Since his arrival on the scene, traditionalists have witnessed
1) The abrupt disappearance of important theological articles from District websites regarding Judaism and the pivotal role played by our “elder brothers,” as Bishop Fellay referred to them this year, in Finance, Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ and Communism, none of which could have been construed as “anti-semitic” by the time honored standards of the Catholic Church.
2) Bishop Williamson being continuously and publicly denigrated, humiliated and grossly insulted.
3) The communist journal, Der Spiegel, being favored with arranged interviews and stories to keep the “Williamson Affair” on-the-boil, thereby tending toward the “marginalization” of Williamson.
4) A scandalous and erroneous article being published in The Angelus, in which the faithful were taught that a тαℓмυdic rabbi was a saint, and that the said rabbi was positively instrumental in preparing the Incarnation of Our Lord Jesus Christ and the conversion of St. Paul.
All these facts combined necessarily raise a whole series of questions. These questions can only be answered by those in a position to know all the facts. In this case that person is Bishop Fellay, since he is the Superior General, has unrestricted access to all aspects of the Society’s work, and obviously has taken Mr. Krah into his confidence on both the financial and legal levels.
This writer is making no accusations or insinuations against Bishop Fellay at any level. He is simply requesting that he make public reply to the following questions in order that the doubt and worry, which is widespread among the clergy and faithful since the events of last year, is allayed, and soothed by the balm of Truth.
Your Excellency,
1) Were you aware that Maximilian Krah, who currently has significant power and influence in important areas of the internal workings of the SSPX, was Jєωιѕн when he was taken into your confidence?
2) Who introduced, or recommended, Maximilian Krah in his professional capacity to the Society of Saint Pius X?
3) If you were not aware of Krah’s background and political connections, why was he not carefully investigated before being brought into the inner-circle and inner-workings of SSPX?
4) Why does Krah, who is not a cleric of the SSPX or even a longtime supporter of the Society, have such singular power to handle SSPX funds?
5) Who are the shareholders of Dello Sarto AG? Are they all clergy of the SSPX or related congregations? Are the shares transferable through purchase? In the event of the death, defection or resignation of a shareholder, how are the shares distributed? Who in any of these cases has the power to confer, designate, sell or otherwise dispose of these shares? You? The Bursar? The Manager? The Board Members? The General Council?
6) Why is the Society of Saint Pius X engaged in financial activities which may be common in modern society, but which are hardly likely to be in conformity with Church teaching pertaining to money, its nature, its use and its ends?
7) Why was Krah allowed to keep the pot boiling in the “Williamson Affair” by arranging interviews and providing stories for Der Spiegel magazine? How could an alleged Christian Democrat be the intermediary with a notorious communist journal?
8) Why was Krah permitted to impose upon your brother bishop an attorney belonging to the extreme left-wing Die Grünen?
9) Why was your brother bishop threatened with expulsion from SSPX for merely hiring an attorney who was actually interested in fighting the unjust and ridiculous charge of incitement? Is it not the case that those of the Household of the Faith must take precedence over those who are without?
10) Can you explain why your public attitude to Williamson has changed, why you have continuously belittled him in public – while he has not responded in kind at any time?
11) What do you intend to do about Mr. Krah given that his position within the Society is one of influence, but who cannot seriously be regarded as someone who has the best interests of Catholic Tradition at heart? Will you move as quickly to resolve this question as you have in respect of Williamson?
There is no malice meant or intended in this communication. There is quite simply a tremendous fear for the future of the SSPX and its direction
POST SCRIPT
For those who think that the writer is muckraking, I would like to point out that it was me that made public the impending sell-out of the Transalpine Redemptorists several months before it took place. I received brickbats for the relevant post at the time, and some calumniated me – but I was shown to be correct after a short period. This writer has not posted anywhere since that time. He does so now because he possesses information, as he did in regard to the Redemptorists, which needed to be made known widely for the good of Catholic Tradition. Nothing would please me more than to have Bishop Fellay answer these serious questions and put Catholic minds everywhere at rest.
Nothing would please me more than to have Bishop Fellay answer these serious questions and put Catholic minds everywhere at rest.
Bishop Fellay has not answered the questions of 'William of Norwich' nor has he put Catholic minds at rest.
-
Though CathInfo doesn't have a separate sub-forum for the Krah-affair, it has been discussed in the Crisis Section. I suppose it's only a matter of time before CathInfo is anathematised by the Society.
It shouldn't be if you look at this request
Request for Assistance from those who love Catholic Tradition
http://catholicforum.fisheaters.com/index.php?topic=3436006.0
http://cathinfo-warning-pornography!/Ignis_Ardens/index.php?showtopic=6720
"REQUEST FOR ASSISTANCE FROM THOSE WHO LOVE CATHOLIC TRADITION
The Krahgate Team, for want of a better term, is an informal body that is determined to get answers to the many troubling questions raised by the initial posting of “William of Norwich” on November 28, 2010.
These questions, let it be always remembered, are centred upon Maximilian Krah and his meteoric rise in importance in the internal work of the SSPX in Germany, Austria and Switzerland, most specially in relation to finance, administrative “asset management” and legal matters.
These questions are only tangentially and incidentally related to Mgr. Williamson, and whether one likes or dislikes him, agrees or disagrees with him on any subject, is not relevant to the work of the team.
The work of the team is concentrated on why Krah has emerged, what he is involved in, and why he has received patronage at high level. That many reasonable questions, backed by irrefutable evidence in the public domain, have been posed and not responded to only adds to the suspicion that replies have not been forthcoming because the truth would be something less than edifying.
There is no campaign against Mgr. Fellay, no campaign against Menzingen. There is a campaign, however, for the truth to be known, and this truth will be eventually made known.
Many of the team are unknown to one another beyond email contact, contact often being maintained between intermediaries. The team includes both members of the laity and the clergy, and membership remains permanently open. The sole qualification for entry is the supplying of information that is substantiated and verifiable on a host of questions, large and small, that are deemed important in piecing together the picture that has begun to emerge in the Catholic blogosphere in the last two months.
The team is, also, drawn from four continents (at least to this writer’s knowledge) and so draws upon a range of different language capabilities.
We invite, then, any assistance, direct or indirect, indicative or substantive, that will help fill out the information void on the following questions. These questions are not exhaustive, but are only the beginning of the process. If or when new information appears necessary, new requests for assistance will be made in this file.
Information is needed on the evangelical Protestant school that Krah attended in East Germany, a school set up in 1947 in Dresden with the approval of the East German Communist Party; one of the most fanatically anti-Catholic and anti-Christian Communist Parties in the European communist world. It is all the more strange that Dresden, which had been almost completely flattened by Allied bombing, should have been chosen for a school since millions of Germans were without shelter, were living in bombed-out ruins and the rebuilding programme was slow to take off. It also should be noted that the building – which survived the bombardment – was handed over to the “evangelical Protestants” although it had previously belonged to the Masonic order.
QUESTION: WHY WOULD COMMUNIST ATHEISTS HAND OVER A VALUABLE SHELTER TO EVANGELICAL PROTESTANTS?
QUESTION: WHO GAVE THE ORDER TO APPROVE THIS SCHOOL? WHO PRESIDED OVER THE RUNNING OF THE SCHOOL? WHO FINANCED THE SCHOOL? WHERE DID THE PUPILS COME FROM, AND WHAT WAS THE CRITERIA FOR THEIR SELECTION?
QUESTION: IS THERE ANY INDICATION THAT FORMER STUDENTS OF THIS SCHOOL – AT ANY TIME FROM ITS FOUNDATION TO THE PRESENT DAY - WENT ON TO SUCCESSFUL CAREERS IN THE EAST GERMAN REPUBLIC IN THE FIELDS OF FINANCE, LAW, POLITICS, RELIGION, EDUCATION AND ECONOMICS? ARE ANY POSSIBLE CANDIDATES NOW AT WORK IN THE REUNITED GERMANY?
In his application to EMBA-GLOBAL, the elitist international business school with structures in London and Columbia University, Maximilian Krah gave written evidence to the business school’s administrative body that he worked for the Jaidhofer Privatstiftung. He listed himself as being “a Board delegate.” This Austrian Foundation has little internet presence, is controlled by the SSPX, but the purpose of its existence is not public knowledge.
QUESTION: WHY DID MR. KRAH GIVE THE FOUNDATION AS HIS EMPLOYER, WHEN IT IS ON PUBLIC RECORD – SEE THE INITIAL POSTING IN THE COMPLETE KRAHGATE FILE – THAT HE IS LISTED AS THE MANAGER OF ANOTHER SSPX-CONTROLLED ENTITY, “DELLO SARTO,” AND IS ALSO A PARTNER IN A LEGAL FIRM IN DRESDEN, AS WELL AS ON THE BOARD OF LAETITIA AG WHOSE ORIGINS AND PURPOSE ARE OPAQUE TO SAY THE LEAST?
QUESTION: DOES MR. KRAH RECEIVE A SALARY OR STIPEND FROM EITHER THE FOUNDATION and/OR “DELLO SARTO”?
QUESTION: HOW CREDIBLE IS IT THAT MR. KRAH, A FAMILY MAN – SEE HIS “REPLY” IN THE COMPLETE KRAHGATE FILE – RUNS A LEGAL BUSINESS IN DRESDEN, “DELLO SARTO” IN SWITZERLAND, THE JAIDHOFER PRIVATSTIFTUNG IN AUSTRIA, LAETITIA AG IN SWITZERLAND, SPENDS 3 OR 4 DAYS PER MONTH IN LONDON OR NEW YORK IN ROTATION, AND REMAINS AS AN ACTIVE OFFICIAL IN THE DRESDEN BRANCH OF THE GERMAN CDU PARTY?
Our research indicates that there appears to be some kind of connection between “Dello Sarto” and the Jaidhofer Privatstiftung, although they are based in two different countries and are therefore subject to different legal jurisdictions.
QUESTION: DOES A GERMAN LAWYER HAVE A RIGHT TO PRACTISE HIS PROFESSION IN AUSTRIA AND/OR SWITZERLAND AUTOMATICALLY, OR DOES SOME KIND OF ADMINISTRATIVE APPROVAL HAVE TO TAKE PLACE IN ONE OR BOTH OF THESE TWO COUNTRIES?
QUESTION: WHAT IS THE AIM AND PURPOSE OF THE JAIDHOFER PRIVATSTIFTUNG? WHO, BESIDES MR. KRAH, SITS ON THE BOARD? ARE THE OTHER BOARD MEMBERS EXCLUSIVELY CLERICAL, OR ARE OTHER LAYMEN/WOMEN INVOLVED?
QUESTION: DOES THE DISTRICT SUPERIOR OF AUSTRIA HAVE AN AUTOMATIC POSITION ON THE BOARD OF THE FOUNDATION GIVEN THAT THE FOUNDATION IS WITHIN THE DISTRICT? IF NOT, WHY NOT?
QUESTION: ARE THE OTHER MEMBERS OF THE FOUNDATION’S BOARD, BESIDES MR. KRAH, AUSTRIAN? IF NOT, WHY NOT GIVEN THAT THE FOUNDATION IS WITHIN THE AUSTRIAN DISTRICT?
Much play has been made by Fr. Laisney and others – see “A Reply from Fr. Laisney” in the Complete Krahgate File – of the legal competence and assistance of Mr. Krah. It is this alleged competence and assistance which has, we are told, led to him being appointed the primary legal point of reference for the German district of the SSPX. It appears that Mr. Krah qualified as a lawyer in 2001, and yet is in a commanding position within SSPX structures within a five years or so:
QUESTION: IN WHAT FIELD OF LAW DOES MR. KRAH SPECIALISE?
QUESTION: WHAT CASES DID MR. KRAH UNDERTAKE IN THE EARLY DAYS FOR THE SPPX WHICH DREW ATTENTION TO HIS ALLEGED COMPETENCE? WERE THE SAID CASES ONLY IN DRESDEN, OR DID THEY EXTEND TO THE WHOLE OF GERMANY?
CONCLUSION: Help, however minor it might appear, in relation to any question, in whole or in part, will be most welcome. Remember that: while vital and disturbing questions remain unanswered by those in a position (laymen, laywomen, priest or bishop) to furnish those answers to the faithful who are the raison d’être of the SSPX, Catholic Tradition remains at risk. Vatican II was not the cause of subversive Modernism, but the long-prepared fruit of subversion by Modernists working in the dark at all levels of the Church."
Remember that: while vital and disturbing questions remain unanswered by those in a position (laymen, laywomen, priest or bishop) to furnish those answers to the faithful who are the raison d’être of the SSPX, Catholic Tradition remains at risk. Vatican II was not the cause of subversive Modernism, but the long-prepared fruit of subversion by Modernists working in the dark at all levels of the Church."
-
Earlier this morning, I tried to open a new topic at Ignis Ardens. That didn't work. Because it had to do with Bishop Fellay and the Krahgate matter, Clare, the site's moderator, scrubbed it immediately. I reprint the contents of my original topic starter below:
Clare posts a notice from a British SSPX District newsletter. Then she immediately locks the thread. Very good, Clare! I'll try to re-open it, but am not expecting much success.
Fr. Morgan writes in part the following:
Whilst this file (Krahgate), which apparently originated elsewhere, was recently removed at the initiative of the Ignis Ardens moderator, the damage caused will be much more difficult to repair given the public nature of the internet and the propensity for calumny and detraction to spread.
In this regard Bishop Fellay does not exclude having recourse to judicial process, and this should serve a warning to those who think they can commit public slander via the internet with impunity.
Father Paul Morgan.
A short open letter to Fr. Morgan.
Fr. Morgan, I'll tell you how you can help arrest the "damage caused" by Krahgate. You can get it all out in the open. Just trot out Krah's ample behind in front of a bank of mikes, along with HE Bishop Fellay, and let the two do some explaining to the SSPX public and others who are interested in learning the facts. You have it within your power to help head off this "propensity for calmny and detraction" by countering with the truth of the matter as you see it. If William of Norwich is a calumniator, as you seem to infer, then prove it, Father!
And, ah yes, we are all well aware of Bp. Fellay's own propensitiy for "having recourse to the judicial process." Where does he get all that money to litigate, from us? You must realize at this point that HE has lost the support of many in the SSPX, including myself. I personally do not care for the way he operates. He is turning more and more from a shepherd of the sheep into a tyrant of the sheep.
Your truly,
Hollingsworth
-
For what it's worth, I'm quite happy with the notice.
And I don't think that going on about it is particularly helpful.
Now I await a ton of "Dislikes".
-
Another lucrative source of income from the SSPX: "We shall take you to Court!"
See the famous comedy, Les Plaideurs, the Litigants, by Jean Racine:
Monsieur Perrin Dandin….
Il nous veut tous juger les uns après les autres.
Il marmotte toujours certaines patenôtres
Où je ne comprends rien. Il veut, bon gré, mal gré,
Ne se coucher qu'en robe et qu'en bonnet carré.
Il fit couper la tête à son coq, de colère,
Pour l'avoir éveillé plus tard qu'à l'ordinaire ;
Il disait qu'un plaideur dont l'affaire allait mal
Avait graissé la patte à ce pauvre animal.
Mr. Perrin-Dandin… he wants to Judge us all one after the other. He is always muttering some nonsense that I don't understand. He wishes, at any cost, to sleep in his judge’s hat and robe. He had his rooster's head cut off, out of anger, for waking him up later than usual. He said that a litigant whose case (Bp W?) was looking dark had bribed the poor animal.
NEXT VICTIM? !!! :judge:
-
Bishop Fellay basically cannot handle the fact that people -even SSPX supporters- are saying that what he did was wrong. I think the Society would be better off with Bishop Williamson as its superior general.
I have said elsewhere that I am not a fan of Bishop Williamson. However, he would certainly provide the Society with a public face more consistent with its founding principles and its founder.
-
FWIW, authority has to exist BEFORE it can be undermined. The SSPX General House has no authority, in the strict, canonical sense of the term.
Even from their own perspective, they are relying upon ecclesia supplet, etc., to do what they do until they are 'regularized' or whatever. Until then, their 'authority' is more like a mutual agreement involving many persons.
-
I suppose it's only a matter of time before CathInfo is anathematised by the Society.
It will just be yet another WRONG move by those in authority, or who pretend to have authority, whether in the Vatican, political circles or Traddieland.
The remedy is to quit screwing around and be honest and transparent. Instead, when they get caught doing something wrong or questionable, they try to turn the tables and suppress all discussion of their own stupidity/wickedness. IMO, the VAST majority of those who now occupy positions of power or pseudo-power will be utterly humiliated, if not literally destroyed, during the coming Chastisement. Almost to a man, they have failed to grasp the most rudimentary elements of the worldwide, ongoing lesson...
I'd love to see it work out differently, but things are not looking too good at the moment...
-
Another lucrative source of income from the SSPX: "We shall take you to Court!"
See the famous comedy, Les Plaideurs, the Litigants, by Jean Racine:
Monsieur Perrin Dandin….
Il nous veut tous juger les uns après les autres.
Il marmotte toujours certaines patenôtres
Où je ne comprends rien. Il veut, bon gré, mal gré,
Ne se coucher qu'en robe et qu'en bonnet carré.
Il fit couper la tête à son coq, de colère,
Pour l'avoir éveillé plus tard qu'à l'ordinaire ;
Il disait qu'un plaideur dont l'affaire allait mal
Avait graissé la patte à ce pauvre animal.
Mr. Perrin-Dandin… he wants to Judge us all one after the other. He is always muttering some nonsense that I don't understand. He wishes, at any cost, to sleep in his judge’s hat and robe. He had his rooster's head cut off, out of anger, for waking him up later than usual. He said that a litigant whose case (Bp W?) was looking dark had bribed the poor animal.
NEXT VICTIM? !!! :judge:
the last joke i posted was dirty (sorry!)
this one is clean, and TRUE!
Rooster 'owned' 68kg cocaine
From correspondents in Managua
April 23, 2004
A DEFENSE attorney whose client is facing cocaine charges has argued that the narcotics were actually in the possession of the suspect's rooster and two hens.
Prosecutors dismissed the claim as “absurd and impertinent.”
Police found 67.3kg of cocaine and a revolver hidden in a cage housing a fighting rooster and two hens in the parking lot of a cockfighting den controlled by Francisco Armando Rivera.
Rivera was arrested and charged with cocaine possession, but his lawyer, Manuel Urbina, said his client was never in possession of the narcotics.
“The drugs were in the possession of a rooster and two hens and the law is very clear that whoever is in possession of the drugs is the one who should be accused,” Urbina said.
Rivera has remained in prison while Judge Martha Lorena Martinez weighs the case against him. Urbina said that the prosecution must prove that the drugs actually belonged to his client.
“I'm going to order an inspection of this rooster and the two hens,” Rivera said.
In comments to reporters later, Attorney General Julio Centeno called the defense's case “an absurd joke.”
“I'm not going to comment further because we all know the only ones who can posses things are human beings,” he said.
The Associated Press
-
the last joke i posted was dirty (sorry!)
It was vulgar, not dirty. There is a difference. Don't sweat it.
-
the last joke i posted was dirty (sorry!)
It was vulgar, not dirty. There is a difference. Don't sweat it.
muchos gracias! :)
-
Re:Posting from Hollingsworth:
"Clare posts a notice from a British SSPX District newsletter. Then she immediately locks the thread. Very good, Clare! I'll try to re-open it, but am not expecting much success."
"Fr. Morgan writes in part the following:
Whilst this file (Krahgate), which apparently originated elsewhere, was recently removed at the initiative of the Ignis Ardens moderator, the damage caused will be much more difficult to repair given the public nature of the internet and the propensity for calumny and detraction to spread.
In this regard Bishop Fellay does not exclude having recourse to judicial process, and this should serve a warning to those who think they can commit public slander via the internet with impunity.
Father Paul Morgan. "
Edited!
Another lucrative source of income FOR the SSPX: "We shall take you to Court!"
See the famous comedy, Les Plaideurs, the Litigants, by Jean Racine:
Monsieur Perrin Dandin….
Il nous veut tous juger les uns après les autres.
Il marmotte toujours certaines patenôtres
Où je ne comprends rien. Il veut, bon gré, mal gré,
Ne se coucher qu'en robe et qu'en bonnet carré.
Il fit couper la tête à son coq, de colère,
Pour l'avoir éveillé plus tard qu'à l'ordinaire ;
Il disait qu'un plaideur dont l'affaire allait mal
Avait graissé la patte à ce pauvre animal.
Mr. Perrin-Dandin… he wants to Judge us all one after the other. He is always muttering some nonsense that I don't understand. He wishes, at any cost, to sleep in his judge’s hat and robe. He had his rooster's head cut off, out of anger, for waking him up later than usual. He said that a litigant whose case (Bp W?) was looking dark had bribed the poor animal.
NEXT VICTIM? !!! :judge:
-
For what it's worth, I'm quite happy with the notice.
No biggie. It is your forum and your decision, etc.
I don't think that going on about it is particularly helpful.
That is okay -- others disagree :)
FWIW, the notice looks like mere chest thumping, meant to induce fear. I have not read ALL of the material, but I do not see anything slanderous. Embarrassing? Yes.
I await a ton of "Dislikes".
I doubt anyone will dislike you simply saying how you feel about the matter. For my part, I respect your opinion and your decision. Would I have done the same thing? Probably (well, definitely) not, but that is irrelevant.
I hope you are enjoying a wonderful Easter-tide, my dear :)
-
I am curious how is it considered slander to say that someone who attends Jєωιѕн fundraisers is used by Bishop Fellay to represent the Society in the Williamson case, or slander to reveal that someone who publicly remarks that he is a fan of Madonna, 007, and the skin flick 9 1/2 weeks is on the board of SSPX girls schools.
These are simply facts. They are simply the truth, and the truth will set the SSPX free.
Certainly in a legal sense, there is no possible way this can be called slander or libel.
These are simply facts, and the any scandal or detraction that occurs because of the revelation of these facts is not a sin because the welfare and mission of the society depends on its leaders being held accountable for their actions.
Couldnt be more right, Tele! I found out in a very cruel way that there is NO freedom of speach in the Society.
Today is the one year anniversery of my "booting " from their chapel here.
Mostly because I rolled my eyes in displeasure during the THIRD scathing sermon against sedevacantism.
-
I am curious how is it considered slander to say that someone who attends Jєωιѕн fundraisers is used by Bishop Fellay to represent the Society in the Williamson case, or slander to reveal that someone who publicly remarks that he is a fan of Madonna, 007, and the skin flick 9 1/2 weeks is on the board of SSPX girls schools.
These are simply facts. They are simply the truth, and the truth will set the SSPX free.
Certainly in a legal sense, there is no possible way this can be called slander or libel.
These are simply facts, and the any scandal or detraction that occurs because of the revelation of these facts is not a sin because the welfare and mission of the society depends on its leaders being held accountable for their actions.
Couldnt be more right, Tele! I found out in a very cruel way that there is NO freedom of speach in the Society.
Today is the one year anniversery of my "booting " from their chapel here.
Mostly because I rolled my eyes in displeasure during the THIRD scathing sermon against sedevacantism.
I never heard such a sermon at the chapel here, then again, the primary benefactors of the chapel are sedes.
-
For what it's worth, I'm quite happy with the notice.
And I don't think that going on about it is particularly helpful.
Now I await a ton of "Dislikes".
You're happy at the way he slammed Ignis Ardens forum?
That almost sounds like Stockholm syndrome.
-
Clare was never comfortable about the Krahgate thread; she mentioned that her conscience was sensitive about it from its beginning.
I would say more surrender to Divine Providence than Stockholm syndrome.
-
Thank you Elizabeth. :dancing:
-
Thank you Elizabeth. :dancing:
Clare, I ask you the question again.
It's one thing to be relieved to have the matter done with on your board, it's quite another to be threatened with lawsuits.
Do you really think it's a good thing for the society to trash Ignis Ardens and threaten lawsuits?
If you do, I think you're not thinking clearly at all.
None of us made this Krah character hobknob with Zionists or publicly state admiration for dirty films. None of use made Bishop Fellay hire this man with obvious conflict of interests to have a prominent place administering the SSPX. Those of us who have brought up this information have every right to be concerned about how the SSPX is run and the interests of those who run it. Bishop Fellay and Mr. Krah are responsible for this situation - and they would stifle people with threats of litigation! What arrogant folly.
-
And yes - for someone who speaks in a court of on behalf of the SSPX when Bishop Williamson is under legal threat because of the power of Zionism to himself attend fundraisers for Zionist causes is an OBVIOUS conflict of interests.
It is VITAL that all the faithful be aware of such a situation, and I would think if there was nothing wrong with it it wouldn't be falsely branded "slander."
(yes, those who would call such a thing slander are the real slanderers)
-
You have to remember the following questions have not been answered. A concerned faithful compiled it.
http://catholicforum.fisheaters.com/index.php?topic=3436141.0
http://cathinfo-warning-pornography!/Ignis_Ardens/index.php?showtopic=6755&hl=
"Dear Friends of the Krahgate Team,
I am following since the start the Krahgate threads on Ignis. Krah is a name which is known in Austria, but it is not a loved name. I am wanting to write since your ask for information, but I did not have many informations to give you. Now I see that Credo posts something about the Jaidhofer Foundation, and I see now that I can give more informations.
First, though, I give one piece of news that William of Norwich is not seeing (but thanks Gott William for the news you give!). If you go here and click
http://www.theresienstiftung.de/ueber-uns/...nsstruktur.html
you see that Krah is not only with the Dello Sarto and the Foundation but also with the St Therese school at Schonenberg in Germany. Click to make much large the image and look at the box ‘stiftungsvorstand’ which is meaning “the management” for the school. Why do the school need Krah on its comittee? Is nobody else possible to help the sisters and the students but the Zionist agent?
Credo is saying in its post that he received the informations about founding of the Foundation. It is true. Jaidhofer Foundation is begun on 14 January, 2009: just before founding of the Dello Sarto on 19 January, 2009. The timeing is good, yes? And the informations – two urls – of Credo contact is true. But this informations is not the all. It is important that the informations is made understood in English so everybody who wants Krah away from SSPX knows what the Foundation is really. I do not know all about it but I can say more than the Credo anonimous post.
First the Credo post is talk about Böerse Express. Go and click here for meaning of the word ‘borse’ in the google translate
http://translate.google.co.uk/translate_t?...ed=0CBYQrgYwAA#
noun
1. exchange
2. stock exchange
3. market
4. stock market
5. purse
6. board
7. change
This means what? It means that “Böerse Express” is about business, stock markets, investiments and things of like order. It is not to do with charitys and small groups for organise their affaires.
Second, click here and read from list
http://translate.google.co.uk/translate?hl...N%26prmd%3Divns
Five names from bottom is the name -
W
Jaidhofer Privatstiftung St. Josef und Marcellus (321626f) Jaidhof Foundation St. Joseph and Marcellus (321626f)
1010 Wien, Plankengasse 7
There is tree things in this which is informations. One is that “Jaidhofer Privatstiftung” is not in Jaidhof where is national HQ of SSPX in Austria, but in Wien (Vienna) – and very nice zone in Vienna! Why is the Foundation not have its adress in Jaidhof which are only less than one hour from Wien? Two, please read the list of other foundations or companies. What are we seeing? Companies like K & F Beteiligungs Gmbh – this Gmbh is meaning “limited liability company”
(I find in dictionary on line http://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/05/051305.asp)
which means real business, not small business which cuts hairs of the poodle dogs or sells sweets to the kids. We are also seeing consultancy firms, hotels, child care chain business, companies working in the carbon and steel, property management, engineering and other things. I think that religious foundation of SSPX looks strange in this list. Tree, what means the nummer (321626f)? Is it a register number specific for SSPX foundation? Or does ‘f’ mean kind of business involved in? And what means ‘W’ at beginning of Jaidhofer Privatstiftung – is it what tells the natur of the business? I am not knowing this but maybee others can say what is meaning.
Now go here and click and see “boerse express” in English – this much important for English people because it tells much I think about heart of Krahgate matter:
http://www.boerse-express.com/express/express-01102009e.pdf
Page 1 – “Banks: Capital increases to pay off the State” – news from the Goldman Sachs!
Page 2 – “Cash Calls and their Profiteers” – more about the Goldman Sachs and NOT hostile!
Page 2 – “Tailwinds of Nabucco” – story of the oil pipline that wants steal oil from asian countrys and organised by neocons and their wars.
Every page is about business but only the BIG business not small!
But for Catholics of SSPX page 6 is key to mystery. Markus Fichtinger told how Austrian finance is really international and he tells “There isn’t an Austrian equivalent to these print newspapers (he talks here about “Financial Times” at London and “Wall St Journal”), but the English version of boerse express closes this gap electronically.”
The he encourage this digitale finance paper “so that an ever increasing number of international investors receive valuable and in depth informations about Austria’s companies.”
I ask now this questions: what means it that Jaidhofer Foundation (J.F.) is appearing in finance paper aimed at the international investor for Austria? Is J.F. wanting the international investers? If it is yes, why? If it is no, why is J.F. in boerse express? Is it mistake? If it is not the mistake, is the J.F. wanting sell shares in it and is her shares only for Catholics or for all the persons including the international investers like the Goldman Sachs?
I am sorry for my not so good English but I am hoping you see that these informations are important and have strong meanings. This Krahgate problem seems to me very dangerful to SSPX of Archbishop Lefebvre inspiration. We must get the answers for the souls salvation"
A very pertinent comment was added.
"
Here's a link to the German-language Böerse Express, the Austrian version of The Financial Times or The Wall Street Journal, that advertised the launch of the Jaidhofer Foundation.
http://www.boerse-express.com
I wonder how Fr. Laisney, who apparently informed us in his purported statement that can be found in The Complete Krahgate File, and that was issued just after Bishop Fellay had been visiting Australia, that "I can testify that the SSPX is NOT involved in financial markets speculation or usury of any kind! On the contrary, we strive to avoid the financial world..." might now respond?
Congratulations are due to Fr. Laisney, by the way. He was promoted just a few days ago from 'parish priest' in New Zealand to Bursar of the entire Asian District.
Wanganui Chronicle - 31st January, 2011
http://www.wanganuichronicle.co.nz/have-yo...abroad/3938720/
QUOTE
Father Francois Laisney is moving up in the world.
The prior [senior priest] at St Anthony's Church in Gonville is leaving on Wednesday, February 2 to take up a senior role with his traditional Catholic order, in Singapore.
He has been appointed bursar of the St Pius X Society's Asia District, a position second only to the district superior.
"In a way, it is a promotion," Fr Laisney said.
Originally from France, Fr Laisney has been prior of St Anthony's Church and principal of St Anthony's School for six years and has very much enjoyed his time in Wanganui.
"It's a very devout congregation here in Wanganui, a very close-knit community."
Fr Laisney said he was leaving St Anthony's confident both the church and school were in good hands.
His roles as prior and principal will be taken over by Fr Andrew Cranshaw, who Fr Laisney praises as being "a very, very good teacher".
A new priest, Fr Michael Anderson, is joining St Anthony's from the United States.
Fr Laisney was to be farewelled by a solemn high mass yesterday, followed by a parish picnic."
-
I am curious how is it considered slander to say that someone who attends Jєωιѕн fundraisers is used by Bishop Fellay to represent the Society in the Williamson case, or slander to reveal that someone who publicly remarks that he is a fan of Madonna, 007, and the skin flick 9 1/2 weeks is on the board of SSPX girls schools.
These are simply facts. They are simply the truth, and the truth will set the SSPX free.
Certainly in a legal sense, there is no possible way this can be called slander or libel.
These are simply facts, and the any scandal or detraction that occurs because of the revelation of these facts is not a sin because the welfare and mission of the society depends on its leaders being held accountable for their actions.
Couldnt be more right, Tele! I found out in a very cruel way that there is NO freedom of speach in the Society.
Today is the one year anniversery of my "booting " from their chapel here.
Mostly because I rolled my eyes in displeasure during the THIRD scathing sermon against sedevacantism.
Even though the Society as a whole is good, you'll come across priests like that from time to time. I'm sure even the CMRI has priests that have fits if someone disagrees with them. All groups will. Doesn't sound like you did anything wrong really, sounds more like the priest just couldn't let go of the subject.
-
Re:Posting from Hollingsworth:
"Clare posts a notice from a British SSPX District newsletter. Then she immediately locks the thread. Very good, Clare! I'll try to re-open it, but am not expecting much success."
"Fr. Morgan writes in part the following:
Whilst this file (Krahgate), which apparently originated elsewhere, was recently removed at the initiative of the Ignis Ardens moderator, the damage caused will be much more difficult to repair given the public nature of the internet and the propensity for calumny and detraction to spread.
In this regard Bishop Fellay does not exclude having recourse to judicial process, and this should serve a warning to those who think they can commit public slander via the internet with impunity.
Father Paul Morgan. "
Edited!
Another lucrative source of income FOR the SSPX: "We shall take you to Court!"
See the famous comedy, Les Plaideurs, the Litigants, by Jean Racine:
Monsieur Perrin Dandin….
Il nous veut tous juger les uns après les autres.
Il marmotte toujours certaines patenôtres
Où je ne comprends rien. Il veut, bon gré, mal gré,
Ne se coucher qu'en robe et qu'en bonnet carré.
Il fit couper la tête à son coq, de colère,
Pour l'avoir éveillé plus tard qu'à l'ordinaire ;
Il disait qu'un plaideur dont l'affaire allait mal
Avait graissé la patte à ce pauvre animal.
Mr. Perrin-Dandin… he wants to Judge us all one after the other. He is always muttering some nonsense that I don't understand. He wishes, at any cost, to sleep in his judge’s hat and robe. He had his rooster's head cut off, out of anger, for waking him up later than usual. He said that a litigant whose case (Bp W?) was looking dark had bribed the poor animal.
NEXT VICTIM? !!! :judge:
http://img196.imageshack.us/img196/4029/010372.jpg
-
I can't find this statement on the GB website, can you provide a link?
The NewsLetter for MAY is in PDF format on the District website http://www.sspx.co.uk/
-
Its now nearly 6mths since the 'Krahgate' story first broke on AngelQueen forum.
-
Its now nearly 6mths since the 'Krahgate' story first broke on AngelQueen forum.
And it has effectively been shut down by enforced silence and intimidation.
-
This sort of bullying was not uncommon before Vatican II which is one reason many welcomed that Council.
-
This sort of bullying was not uncommon before Vatican II which is one reason many welcomed that Council.
Have you read the 'Krah file'? It certainly has been bully boy tactics of Bishop Fellay and Krah to hint at legal action to a woman with Multiple sclerosis. Disgusting tactics from Menzingen.
-
This sort of bullying was not uncommon before Vatican II which is one reason many welcomed that Council.
Have you read the 'Krah file'? It certainly has been bully boy tactics of Bishop Fellay and Krah to hint at legal action to a woman with Multiple sclerosis. Disgusting tactics from Menzingen.
You forgot to mention she has children as well.
-
About 15 years ago I said to an SSPX priest:
If I said such and such thing about you would you say that it would be calumny?
Yes, he answered.
And if you said the very same thing about me would that constitute calumny?
No, he retorted
-
About 15 years ago I said to an SSPX priest:
If I said such and such thing about you would you say that it would be calumny?
Yes, he answered.
And if you said the very same thing about me would that constitute calumny?
No, he retorted
They have a severe arrogance problem. It's going to cost them everything eventually.
-
Telesphorus, the "beauty" is that they can walk out of the Society if they feel they have been wronged. For so many of us layfolk, we have burnt our boats and have absolutely no where to go.
-
Whilst the note mentions calumny, I am of the understanding the reference to calumny is in reference to the internet in general. At no time in the note did it state the material in 'The Complete Krah File' is false. Bishop Fellay may not being liked questioned or answering questions but certainly can't use the term calumny.
-
Use of the 'calumny charge' is but a scare tactic meant to silence those who have reasonable concerns and questions. BF knows darn well he'd be nailed to the wall if he actually had to prove it in a court of law. IMO, a court is the LAST place he'd want to be, as it would provide an 'uncontrollable' platform for those he means to silence.
-
Use of the 'calumny charge' is but a scare tactic meant to silence those who have reasonable concerns and questions. BF knows darn well he'd be nailed to the wall if he actually had to prove it in a court of law. IMO, a court is the LAST place he'd want to be, as it would provide an 'uncontrollable' platform for those he means to silence.
In England it's different.
-
Could you be less specific? ;)
-
Use of the 'calumny charge' is but a scare tactic meant to silence those who have reasonable concerns and questions. BF knows darn well he'd be nailed to the wall if he actually had to prove it in a court of law. IMO, a court is the LAST place he'd want to be, as it would provide an 'uncontrollable' platform for those he means to silence.
Exactly. Well said,gladius_veritatis
-
This sort of bullying was not uncommon before Vatican II which is one reason many welcomed that Council.
es, but what they actually welcomed was a Maoist revolution replete with canonical firing squads to dispatch those who refused the revolution.
JMJ
-
Use of the 'calumny charge' is but a scare tactic meant to silence those who have reasonable concerns and questions. BF knows darn well he'd be nailed to the wall if he actually had to prove it in a court of law. IMO, a court is the LAST place he'd want to be, as it would provide an 'uncontrollable' platform for those he means to silence.
That actually hits it directly on the head. The only caveat being, that H.E. has an almost unlimited source of funds to play with which to dabble in the courtroom, whereas most of us could not afford a day's worth of competent legal representation. Regardless, they are simply playing at intimidation from the ivory tower, casting epiphets down upon the rabble.
JMJ
-
Use of the 'calumny charge' is but a scare tactic meant to silence those who have reasonable concerns and questions. BF knows darn well he'd be nailed to the wall if he actually had to prove it in a court of law. IMO, a court is the LAST place he'd want to be, as it would provide an 'uncontrollable' platform for those he means to silence.
That actually hits it directly on the head. The only caveat being, that H.E. has an almost unlimited source of funds to play with which to dabble in the courtroom, whereas most of us could not afford a day's worth of competent legal representation. Regardless, they are simply playing at intimidation from the ivory tower, casting epiphets down upon the rabble.
JMJ
Real Catholics are prepared to contend with the powers and principalities - and know that right and wrong aren't decided by frivolous suits in court.
-
Use of the 'calumny charge' is but a scare tactic meant to silence those who have reasonable concerns and questions. BF knows darn well he'd be nailed to the wall if he actually had to prove it in a court of law. IMO, a court is the LAST place he'd want to be, as it would provide an 'uncontrollable' platform for those he means to silence.
That actually hits it directly on the head. The only caveat being, that H.E. has an almost unlimited source of funds to play with which to dabble in the courtroom, whereas most of us could not afford a day's worth of competent legal representation. Regardless, they are simply playing at intimidation from the ivory tower, casting epiphets down upon the rabble.
JMJ
Real Catholics are prepared to contend with the powers and principalities - and know that right and wrong aren't decided by frivolous suits in court.
But, alas, it appears that what once was a "pious union" has now become a lucrative business, and as such, must now employ the methods and collaborations of the same powers and principalities to subdue its perceived enemies in the courts of тαℓмυdic justice.
-
I think so many organisations over time lose their commitment to a cause and start to compromise their objectives. If Bp. Fellay can't resist negotiating with Rome all the time, it is not hard to imagine him wanting to fit into the modern world more comfortably. Of course, the world of business is very corrupt and one would expect true Catholics to avoid benefiting from doing that, but I fear high principle has given way to material gain and political acceptance. The moral gloss has gone and we just have another puveyor of liturgical antiquity.
-
It appears Ignis Ardens staff have locked the thread on Quo Vadis, SSPX? Part I: The Failure of the Negotiations. It's fair to ask Quo Vadis, Ignis Ardens?
-
Let's pray for the moderator of Ignis Ardens, Clare.
http://cathinfo-warning-pornography!/Ignis_Ardens/index.php?showtopic=7348
As most of you know, I have MS. I'd been doing ok, until the weekend. I'm still doing ok in the morning, but my legs pack in in the afternoon now, instead of in the evening; and they don't recover until late evening, whereas before I'd recharge fairly soon after giving up the ghost!
It's a nuisance! It means that I have to drag myself around the house, holding onto doorframes and furniture.
Occasionally, I mysteriously recover for a short time. It's unpredictable. At least I'm still ok in the morning.
Please pray that this is a temporary blip, and I'll be back to my normal state soon.
Oh, and my right eye's gone a bit funny too. Sometimes I find I'm looking through things, as though I'm looking at a magic eye picture.
:pray:
-
Thank you for the prayers, John Grace. Much appreciated.
It appears Ignis Ardens staff have locked the thread on Quo Vadis, SSPX? Part I: The Failure of the Negotiations. It's fair to ask Quo Vadis, Ignis Ardens?
Really, there's nothing sinister about it. I would have locked it even before Krahgate, after letting it run its course. There have been several topics which had become overly sede and overly critical of the SSPX and which I locked in the past. But now, when I make the same decisions, I am diagnosed with "Menzingen flu"!
Ignis is heading in the same direction as ever, with a pro-SSPX bias, as the rules have stated from the outset.
-
Thank you for the prayers, John Grace. Much appreciated.
It appears Ignis Ardens staff have locked the thread on Quo Vadis, SSPX? Part I: The Failure of the Negotiations. It's fair to ask Quo Vadis, Ignis Ardens?
Really, there's nothing sinister about it. I would have locked it even before Krahgate, after letting it run its course. There have been several topics which had become overly sede and overly critical of the SSPX and which I locked in the past. But now, when I make the same decisions, I am diagnosed with "Menzingen flu"!
Ignis is heading in the same direction as ever, with a pro-SSPX bias, as the rules have stated from the outset.
It still didn't answer the question Quo Vadis, Ignis Ardens?
-
...
Ignis is heading in the same direction as ever, with a pro-SSPX bias, as the rules have stated from the outset.
It still didn't answer the question Quo Vadis, Ignis Ardens?
As I said it is heading in the same direction as ever.
If you don't like where it's going now, you never liked where it was going.
-
It appears Ignis Ardens staff have locked the thread on Quo Vadis, SSPX? Part I: The Failure of the Negotiations. It's fair to ask Quo Vadis, Ignis Ardens?
It's fair for forum admins to run their own forums the way they see fit, right?
Every forum mod ends up locking threads and banning troublemakers. :king:
It all works out in the end.
-
The thread, Quo Vadis SSPX?, was deleted at the request of Stephen Heiner earlier today.
PATRICIUS.
-
Thank you for the prayers, John Grace. Much appreciated.
It appears Ignis Ardens staff have locked the thread on Quo Vadis, SSPX? Part I: The Failure of the Negotiations. It's fair to ask Quo Vadis, Ignis Ardens?
Really, there's nothing sinister about it. I would have locked it even before Krahgate, after letting it run its course. There have been several topics which had become overly sede and overly critical of the SSPX and which I locked in the past. But now, when I make the same decisions, I am diagnosed with "Menzingen flu"!
Ignis is heading in the same direction as ever, with a pro-SSPX bias, as the rules have stated from the outset.
It still didn't answer the question Quo Vadis, Ignis Ardens?
Not relevant. Ignis is another victim of the tactics of intimidation and public excoriation. There was much more implied in the "notice", than just the words which it contains. Both clerical and secular authority were employed to silence critics. The other implications are left to the good conscience of the victims. A rather crude modus.
-
It appears Ignis Ardens staff have locked the thread on Quo Vadis, SSPX? Part I: The Failure of the Negotiations. It's fair to ask Quo Vadis, Ignis Ardens?
It's fair for forum admins to run their own forums the way they see fit, right?
Every forum mod ends up locking threads and banning troublemakers. :king:
It all works out in the end.
It still didn't answer the question Quo Vadis, Ignis Ardens?
-
The thread, Quo Vadis SSPX?, was deleted at the request of Stephen Heiner earlier today.
PATRICIUS.
Mr Heiner posted the following on Ignis Ardens.
http://cathinfo-warning-pornography!/Ignis_Ardens/index.php?showtopic=7359&st=0
One particular user made a lot of unsubstantiated accusations. I requested the thread deletion because I felt in the final analysis the thread was less rather than more edifying. I don't claim that I responded 100% appropriately in that thread either, but there's that.
-
It appears Ignis Ardens staff have locked the thread on Quo Vadis, SSPX? Part I: The Failure of the Negotiations. It's fair to ask Quo Vadis, Ignis Ardens?
It's fair for forum admins to run their own forums the way they see fit, right?
Every forum mod ends up locking threads and banning troublemakers. :king:
It all works out in the end.
It still didn't answer the question Quo Vadis, Ignis Ardens?
"Quo Vadis, Ignis Ardens?", means "Where are you going, Ignis Ardens?"
I've answered that question twice. The destination is the same place as it ever was. It has not changed, so why are you asking now?
-
Ignis is another victim of the tactics of intimidation and public excoriation.
For goodness' sake. As I've said before, I was never comfortable with Krahgate in the first place. You could almost say I was intimidated into letting it continue as long as it did!
In fact, I remember saying early on that I was "more scared of you lot" than of Menzingen! Because I could tell who'd give me more flak if I made the "wrong" decision.
-
Ignis is another victim of the tactics of intimidation and public excoriation.
For goodness' sake. As I've said before, I was never comfortable with Krahgate in the first place. You could almost say I was intimidated into letting it continue as long as it did!
In fact, I remember saying early on that I was "more scared of you lot" than of Menzingen! Because I could tell who'd give me more flak if I made the "wrong" decision.
It's quite remarkable and rather dishonest to suggest you were "intimidated into letting it continue as long as it did" The note signed by Fr Morgan has never stated the material in the 'Krahgate' is false or contains any calumny.
-
Ignis is another victim of the tactics of intimidation and public excoriation.
For goodness' sake. As I've said before, I was never comfortable with Krahgate in the first place. You could almost say I was intimidated into letting it continue as long as it did!
In fact, I remember saying early on that I was "more scared of you lot" than of Menzingen! Because I could tell who'd give me more flak if I made the "wrong" decision.
The fact that this public intimidation was directed at Ignis , and all others who might be critics, is a matter of public record.
That has nothing to do with whatever decisions you did or did not make. That is a different issue. The bad behaviour was not yours.
-
Ignis is another victim of the tactics of intimidation and public excoriation.
For goodness' sake. As I've said before, I was never comfortable with Krahgate in the first place. You could almost say I was intimidated into letting it continue as long as it did!
In fact, I remember saying early on that I was "more scared of you lot" than of Menzingen! Because I could tell who'd give me more flak if I made the "wrong" decision.
I read this on your forum, Clare.
http://cathinfo-warning-pornography!/Ignis_Ardens/index.php?showtopic=5817&st=0&
think the good Bishop's Eleison Comments are a mission, in order to open the eyes of the people towards God. With "people" I mean catholics and "not-yet-catholics" but full of good intentions. So that we concentrate on God, and see the problems which arise when we turn away from God. Modern art, capitalism, etc. are dominating indicators to this.
There's obviously nobody else in the SSPX who could fulfill this mission in such an effective way.
Shame on the entire SSPX leadership not to honor this, but on the contrary to fight this good Bishop and "his" mission. Anyone who fights a mission which brings God to the people (or the people to God) must totally be blinded - or worse.
QUOTE
I keep waiting for some kind of marching orders, but am treated instead to essays on art and capitalism. I just wonder aloud what the good bishop's game plan is.
Well, dear Hollingsworth, indeed good questions! If we trust in God we'll see what HIS plan is.
Obviously the good Bishop thinks the best he can do at the moment is to stay out of the public SSPX confrontation. Surely he helps the situation with prayers, holy masses, etc.
Still, the public confrontation started to take place (which is a good thing) and looks like the final battle for the SSPX: the catholics versus those who want to judaize the SSPX.
Good guys like William of Norwich, Veritas1961 and some more did and do a good job in opening the eyes of Catholics. So they can join the battle with prayers and/or action.
I certainly commend 'William of Norwich', 'Veritas1961' and others. I also commend the owners of this forum who don't censor truth and stand in the battlefield as true Catholic soldiers.
-
It's interesting that a thread was started on Ignis Ardens about "Cardinal Burke bottles out" yet their moderating staff "bottled it" in relation to 'Krahgate'. Ignis is owned by 'Patricius' so perhaps he will answer why 'Krahgate' was removed?
http://cathinfo-warning-pornography!/Ignis_Ardens/index.php?showtopic=7354&hl=
Cardinal Burke withdraws from London conference at last minute
-
It appears Ignis Ardens staff have locked the thread on Quo Vadis, SSPX? Part I: The Failure of the Negotiations. It's fair to ask Quo Vadis, Ignis Ardens?
It's fair for forum admins to run their own forums the way they see fit, right?
Every forum mod ends up locking threads and banning troublemakers. :king:
It all works out in the end.
Should somebody who says "get lost you snake." be banned from a forum, Elizabeth?
-
It appears Ignis Ardens staff have locked the thread on Quo Vadis, SSPX? Part I: The Failure of the Negotiations. It's fair to ask Quo Vadis, Ignis Ardens?
It's fair for forum admins to run their own forums the way they see fit, right?
Every forum mod ends up locking threads and banning troublemakers. :king:
It all works out in the end.
Clare actually does not ban anyone from Ignus as of the last time I looked.
-
One must remember that the "notice" so called was in fact not a notice, it was a threat. It is a rich idea to think that someone may be dragged into the тαℓмυdic justice system to silence that topic. And perhaps some of the money that person puts into the basket on Sunday, might be used to do it. This is a very dark contoversy, to be sure. Ignis was surely made into a scapegoat in furtherance of this suppresion, and as an example for others.
-
The General Discussion section of the Ignis Ardens forum has been closed so the question Quo Vadis, Ignis Ardens? sill applies. It seems the forum is closing down. Cath Info is to be commended for its Independence.
http://cathinfo-warning-pornography!/Ignis_Ardens/index.php?showtopic=7413
This section is temporarily closed...
-
The General Discussion section of the Ignis Ardens forum has been closed so the question Quo Vadis, Ignis Ardens? sill applies. It seems the forum is closing down. Cath Info is to be commended for its Independence.
http://cathinfo-warning-pornography!/Ignis_Ardens/index.php?showtopic=7413
This section is temporarily closed...
For how much longer are you going to post these unfounded comments of yours in relation to Ignis Ardens, John?
You quote a post from our forum which clearly states that "This section is temporarily closed" and post "It seems the forum is closing down."
Quo Vadis, John Grace?
-
In case anyone is interested, I temporarily closed that section following complaints from other members about the tone of postings. Rather than ban the culprits, I thought I'd just shut down the section they post in most of the time, in the hope that they might find something else to talk about.
As the posting says, I closed the section "so members can change the record."
Sometimes the negativity gets rather tiresome, and I do get fed up with it.
Is that so hard to understand?
-
The General Discussion section of the Ignis Ardens forum has been closed so the question Quo Vadis, Ignis Ardens? sill applies. It seems the forum is closing down. Cath Info is to be commended for its Independence.
http://cathinfo-warning-pornography!/Ignis_Ardens/index.php?showtopic=7413
This section is temporarily closed...
For how much longer are you going to post these unfounded comments of yours in relation to Ignis Ardens, John?
You quote a post from our forum which clearly states that "This section is temporarily closed" and post "It seems the forum is closing down."
Quo Vadis, John Grace?
Which "unfounded" comment? Stating it seems the forum is closing is very different to stating your forum is closing. I never said Ignis Ardens is closing.
-
In case anyone is interested, I temporarily closed that section following complaints from other members about the tone of postings. Rather than ban the culprits, I thought I'd just shut down the section they post in most of the time, in the hope that they might find something else to talk about.
To be frank Clare, I don't think it's the tone as much as the arguments.
Bernadette, Wessex, Hollingsworth and myself have been treated belligerently. If we responded in kind or went over the line it's because of the unreasoning personalized attacks on our positions.
-
In case anyone is interested, I temporarily closed that section following complaints from other members about the tone of postings. Rather than ban the culprits, I thought I'd just shut down the section they post in most of the time, in the hope that they might find something else to talk about.
To be frank Clare, I don't think it's the tone as much as the arguments.
Bernadette, Wessex, Hollingsworth and myself have been treated belligerently. If we responded in kind or went over the line it's because of the unreasoning personalized attacks on our positions.
I am in agreement with Telesphorus in this matter. There have been disagreements on this forum (Cath Info) but I have never seen the moderating staff remove material that can be substantiated and is factual. I refer to the Complete Krahgate file.
-
To be frank Clare, I don't think it's the tone as much as the arguments.
Bernadette, Wessex, Hollingsworth and myself have been treated belligerently. If we responded in kind or went over the line it's because of the unreasoning personalized attacks on our positions.
To be frank, Tele, you repeatedly went ape on me in another thread, despite the fact that I was neither attacking you nor egging you on. YOU were the belligerent one, amigo... Quo vadis et quare?
You repeatedly claimed I was lying, yet I never lied about anything, little or great.
-
In case anyone is interested, I temporarily closed that section following complaints from other members about the tone of postings. Rather than ban the culprits, I thought I'd just shut down the section they post in most of the time, in the hope that they might find something else to talk about.
As the posting says, I closed the section "so members can change the record."
Sometimes the negativity gets rather tiresome, and I do get fed up with it.
Is that so hard to understand?
It seems to me that the General Discussion section was closed after several members had merely stated that the SERMONS of Archbishop Lefebvre were censored (see thread Litany of JPII : http://cathinfo-warning-pornography!/Ignis_Ardens/index.php?showtopic=7379&st=100&#last).
These members were questioning the censorship. Recently, another thread concerning the SERMONS was also removed.
IF the SERMONS “were forbidden to be published... by a particular publisher”, I wonder why they have not been published by the very SSPX Angelus Press.
-
It seems to me that the General Discussion section was closed after several members had merely stated that the SERMONS of Archbishop Lefebvre were censored (see thread Litany of JPII : http://cathinfo-warning-pornography!/Ignis_Ardens/index.php?showtopic=7379&st=100&#last).
These members were questioning the censorship. Recently, another thread concerning the SERMONS was also removed.
IF the SERMONS “were forbidden to be published... by a particular publisher”, I wonder why they have not been published by the very SSPX Angelus Press.
It seems to me that some people have a cross between an over-active imagination and no imagination at all.
-
I look at this business in terms of changing trends rather than instances and it would seem there has been a conscious or unconscious attempt by some to adjust to the prevailing social climate and let go of that ideal Catholic world. It is unfortunate that ABL has now to be viewed as SSPX property with all its unsavoury legal and material aspects. In what way the archbishop will be repackaged to reflect a more liberal Society will be revealed in due course to those who bother to notice. The direction of unofficial websites will depend on how critical or compliant they are.
-
To be frank Clare, I don't think it's the tone as much as the arguments.
Bernadette, Wessex, Hollingsworth and myself have been treated belligerently. If we responded in kind or went over the line it's because of the unreasoning personalized attacks on our positions.
To be frank, Tele, you repeatedly went ape on me in another thread, despite the fact that I was neither attacking you nor egging you on. YOU were the belligerent one, amigo... Quo vadis et quare?
You repeatedly claimed I was lying, yet I never lied about anything, little or great.
What you don't seem to get Eamon, is that you shouldn't join up with or show sympathy for the bad guys (girl) .
-
between an over-active imagination and no imagination at all.
We imagined that the St. Remy Press was taken to court and prevented from publishing the sermons of the Archbishop?
Protection of the Archbishop Lefebvre "brand" from his actual writings?
-
between an over-active imagination and no imagination at all.
We imagined that the St. Remy Press was taken to court and prevented from publishing the sermons of the Archbishop?
Protection of the Archbishop Lefebvre "brand" from his actual writings?
I'm talking about what Nemmersdorf imagines to be my reasons for temporarily closing that section.
-
I did have a policy of "doing a Menzingen" and not responding to any more comments on this thread! I'll try to adhere to it again now.
-
It seems to me that the General Discussion section was closed after several members had merely stated that the SERMONS of Archbishop Lefebvre were censored (see thread Litany of JPII : http://cathinfo-warning-pornography!/Ignis_Ardens/index.php?showtopic=7379&st=100&#last).
These members were questioning the censorship. Recently, another thread concerning the SERMONS was also removed.
IF the SERMONS “were forbidden to be published... by a particular publisher”, I wonder why they have not been published by the very SSPX Angelus Press.
It seems to me that some people have a cross between an over-active imagination and no imagination at all.
You get a thumbs down for this comment, Clare. Nemmersdorf made a particular good and valid point.
-
It seems to me that the General Discussion section was closed after several members had merely stated that the SERMONS of Archbishop Lefebvre were censored (see thread Litany of JPII : http://cathinfo-warning-pornography!/Ignis_Ardens/index.php?showtopic=7379&st=100&#last).
These members were questioning the censorship. Recently, another thread concerning the SERMONS was also removed.
IF the SERMONS “were forbidden to be published... by a particular publisher”, I wonder why they have not been published by the very SSPX Angelus Press.
It seems to me that some people have a cross between an over-active imagination and no imagination at all.
You get a thumbs down for this comment, Clare. Nemmersdorf made a particular good and valid point.
It was beside the point, as it had nothing whatsoever to do with my closing General temporarily.
I did not close it because members referred to the "censored sermons".
Hence the over-active imagination.
The lack of imagination is folks' failure to understand why I might get exasperated occasionally.
There goes my resolution again!
-
It appears Ignis Ardens staff have locked the thread on Quo Vadis, SSPX? Part I: The Failure of the Negotiations. It's fair to ask Quo Vadis, Ignis Ardens?
It's fair for forum admins to run their own forums the way they see fit, right?
Every forum mod ends up locking threads and banning troublemakers. :king:
It all works out in the end.
Should somebody who says "get lost you snake." be banned from a forum, Elizabeth?
What a weird question. How am I supposed to know? I don't run a forum. Seems like a trick question :laugh1:
-
Bernadette, Wessex, Hollingsworth and myself have been treated belligerently.
It must be noted that Bernadette,Hollingsworth and Telephorus are banned from the general discussion section of Ignis Ardens.
-
How am I supposed to know?
Well, you are Izzy-belle! :laugh1:
-
Nemmersdorf asked a fair and valid question
http://cathinfo-warning-pornography!/Ignis_Ardens/index.php?showtopic=7468
PROTEST AGAINST BANNING MEMBERS
As a member of IA I wish to protest against the banning from the General Discussion section of 3 members of this forum: Telesphorus, Bernadette and Hollingsworth.
As a member I would like to know in detail the reasons why they have been banned, that is to say which rule/rules of IA they have broken.
Please, do not use for your justification words and phrases like “demonic”, “start burning (banning) the heretics”, “sick individuals”, “slippery eels”, “Kill the snakes!”, “dishonest” etc., etc., all of which are highly emotive and of the paranoic-persecution-complex type. And, please spare me the claim that they are “demonic SSPX-bashers” or “evil” sedevacantists.
Demonstrate to me, please, which rules of the forum they have broken.
Please, don’t give me the excuse that the banning is due to sensitive souls unable to cope with differing opinions from the ‘English’ party line.
It seems there is a selective criterion at work when it comes to banning people (many complaints have been made about the individual called Ashmo).
It seems as if “a whole gaggle” of Catholics is ganging up against other Catholics on a Catholic forum. Think about it.
To quote AT (Licence Coffee Shop, Attention Hollingsworth, Jun 24 2011, 12:09 PM) : “All in good fun though....”
All in good fun though, tra la la la la ….
The thread was locked. Ignis Ardens is certainly in difficulty as a participant wrote the following.
http://cathinfo-warning-pornography!/Ignis_Ardens/index.php?showtopic=7429&st=25
I rest my case.
This forum has lost the plot, and it's clear that nothing is going to be done.
I'm not setting foot here again. Farewell.
That particular member joined on Joined: 6-August 08
so Quo vadis, Ignis Ardens is a legitimate question to ask.
-
There's a snide little clique at Ignis that simply resorts to insult and personal attack on all controversies that might reflect negatively on the neo-SSPX. Pretty catty stuff, typical of the British I suppose.
-
Ignis Ardens is certainly in difficulty as a participant wrote the following.
http://cathinfo-warning-pornography!/Ignis_Ardens/index.php?showtopic=7429&st=25
I rest my case.
This forum has lost the plot, and it's clear that nothing is going to be done.
I'm not setting foot here again. Farewell.
That particular member joined on Joined: 6-August 08
so Quo vadis, Ignis Ardens is a legitimate question to ask.
Less of the melodrama please, John Grace. Members leave forums all the time.
Ignis lost members when I started "tolerating Fascism" and the like! I daresay they were hand-wringing and asking "Quo vadis, Ignis Ardens?" at that time too!
Stop making mountains out of molehills.
-
Ignis Ardens is certainly in difficulty as a participant wrote the following.
http://cathinfo-warning-pornography!/Ignis_Ardens/index.php?showtopic=7429&st=25
I rest my case.
This forum has lost the plot, and it's clear that nothing is going to be done.
I'm not setting foot here again. Farewell.
That particular member joined on Joined: 6-August 08
so Quo vadis, Ignis Ardens is a legitimate question to ask.
Less of the melodrama please, John Grace. Members leave forums all the time.
Ignis lost members when I started "tolerating Fascism" and the like! I daresay they were hand-wringing and asking "Quo vadis, Ignis Ardens?" at that time too!
Stop making mountains out of molehills.
I'm not being melodramatic but you give weight to the point that telephorus has made
There's a snide little clique at Ignis that simply resorts to insult and personal attack