Author Topic: Video Bishop Williamson: "Get rid of Bishop Fellay" (Read 3034 times)

Irish Catholic200 · « **on:** July 24, 2012, 07:17:39 PM »

http://en.gloria.tv/?media=314171

Thursday · « **Reply #1 on:** July 24, 2012, 08:32:46 PM »

This is a repost but I'd like to point out that on the original youtube video all the positive comments for Bishop Williamson have been deleted.

InstaurareEcclesiam · « **Reply #2 on:** July 25, 2012, 10:19:08 AM »

This is a wrong way to proceed, Your Lordship.

In this video, Bp. Williamsons calls for rebellion and a coup d'état against bp. Fellay and his advisors.

Of course I do agree that the Society is in peril, but this is also due to internal inconsistencies which also broke up the resistance against Modernism once given by Institut du Bon Pasteur, Campos diocese of Brazil and the founders of the FSSP (all pushed aside by Vatican 'conservative-leaning' neomodernists)...!

But attacking bp. Fellay in a video will not prove positive for His Lordship. Why did he do this? Is Mons. Williamson that angry over personal insults?

Of course the Krah issue is something else.

Thursday · « **Reply #3 on:** July 25, 2012, 11:58:48 AM »

Quote from: InstaurareEcclesiam

This is a wrong way to proceed, Your Lordship.

In this video, Bp. Williamsons calls for rebellion and a coup d'état against bp. Fellay and his advisors.

Of course I do agree that the Society is in peril, but this is also due to internal inconsistencies which also broke up the resistance against Modernism once given by Institut du Bon Pasteur, Campos diocese of Brazil and the founders of the FSSP (all pushed aside by Vatican 'conservative-leaning' neomodernists)...!

But attacking bp. Fellay in a video will not prove positive for His Lordship. Why did he do this? Is Mons. Williamson that angry over personal insults?

Of course the Krah issue is something else.

Why Bishop Fellay has to be deposed

1. In denying ordination without a valid reason, +Fellay has acted illegally under the statutes of the SSPX, demanding personal loyalty BEFORE a seminarian could be ordained.

2. The hiring of zionist lawyer, Max Krah and sponsoring his eMBA via his reponsibilities at the SSPX investment company, Dello Sarto AG. The failure to disclosure the hiring of Max Krah or the creation of SSPX European investment companies to the SSPX faithful.

3. Trying to force Bp. Williamson to fire his lawyer.

4. telling stories about the pope saying the latin mass in private which were later said to have been false by Rome

5. Continuing to on his ѕυιcιdє mission after being warned by the other three bishops

6. The story that Lefebvre never wanted to consecrate him in the first place.

7. His relationship with Krah and krahs relationship with Isreal

8. That +Fellay has no authority to forbid Mgr Williamson from exercising his right as bishop to publish his traditional sermons/tracts/lessons on-line or in any other way in keeping with his duty to do so.

9. a) Overstepping his authority by excluding Mgr Williamson from the General Chapter, when he, like all 4 bishops are 'permanent members' of the General Chapter.
b) Illegally calling for a vote during the Gen.Ch. on whether to continue the exclusion of Mgr Williamson. Not legal for the Gen Ch. to vote on this. None of this was on the agenda. +Fellay shows he flouts the rules as suits him.

10. Mgr Lefebvre had stated that he did not wish for any of the 4 bishops to be Sup Gen precisely because it would set one of them above the others, when all 4 are of equal standing; and... that it could lead the the situation now existing where one bishop is parading as more superior than the 3 other bishops and that HE knows best.

10. The removal of standard (classic) traditional Catholic books from the Angelus press. (Peter Lovest thou me?, Abbe LeRoux), Fr. Fahey's Kingship of Christ books. Banning the publication of +ABL's 238 hard-line sermons bythe French publisher friend, who was condoned and encouraged by +ABL's surviving family.

11. Aiding and abetting the hysterical "αnтι-ѕємιтє" media campaign against Msgr. Williamson by refering to his fratre as "uranium" in an interview with the anti-Catholic publication "der Spiegel".

12. Offering no legal defense for Msgr. Williamson (via instructions to his employee Max Krah). In the same time period, referring to the Jєωs as our "Elder Brothers".

13. Intimidating independent Catholic priests as being outside the Church and schismatic if they did not join the SSPX. (Bp. Fellay Homily given in Winona, Feb 2012).

14. The near dictatorial behavior of Bp. Fellay as SG. Secrecy and the general lack of transparency within the SSPX and the rapid expulsion of priests who dare to differ with Msgr. Fellay.

PAT317 · « **Reply #4 on:** July 25, 2012, 12:10:42 PM »

Quote from: Thursday

1. In denying ordination without a valid reason, +Fellay has acted illegally under the statutes of the SSPX, demanding personal loyalty BEFORE a seminarian could be ordained.

It should be also noted, from seminarians who are not even members of the SSPX, and who (presumably) have already taken a vow of obedience to the Superiors of their own religious order.

Quote from: Thursday

2. The hiring of zionist lawyer, Max Krah and sponsoring his eMBA via his reponsibilities at the SSPX investment company, Dello Sarto AG. The failure to disclosure the hiring of Max Krah or the creation of SSPX European investment companies to the SSPX faithful.

Not to nitpick, but I think it was Jaidhofer Privatstiftung, another SSPX company, who sponsored his EMBA Global program.

PAT317 · « **Reply #5 on:** July 25, 2012, 12:21:31 PM »

Quote from: Thursday

3. Trying to force Bp. Williamson to fire his lawyer.

Maybe I ought to finish reading your whole post & do all my comments before I hit the "reply" button!

Just wanted to note here, not only forcing +W to fire the lawyer, but then AFTER +W agreed to fire him Friday, and +F already knew this, +F still has the media announce on Saturday, "if he doesn't fire his lawyer, we'll kick him out of the SSPX."

PAT317 · « **Reply #6 on:** July 25, 2012, 12:41:06 PM »

:confused1:

Quote from: PAT317

Quote from: Thursday
3. Trying to force Bp. Williamson to fire his lawyer.

Just wanted to note here, not only forcing +W to fire the lawyer, but then AFTER +W agreed to fire him Friday, and +F already knew this, +F still has the media announce on Saturday, if he doesn't fire his lawyer, we'll kick him out of the SSPX.

Since the above was really a paraphrase ("if he doesn't fire his lawyer..."), I thought I'd find something more solid:

Quote

GENERAL HOUSE PRESS RELEASE
22-11-2010
Filed under From Tradition, News
Leave a Comment
The Superior General, Bishop Bernard Fellay, has learnt by the press of Bishop Richard Williamson’s decision, just ten days before his trial, to dismiss the lawyer charged with his defense, in favor of a lawyer who is openly affiliated to the so-called neo-nαzι movement in Germany, and to other such groups.

Bishop Fellay has given Bishop Williamson a formal order to go back on this decision and to not allow himself to become an instrument of political theses that are completely foreign to his mission as a Catholic bishop serving the Society of Saint Pius X.

Disobedience to this order would result in Bishop Williamson being expelled from the Society of Saint Pius X.

Menzingen, November 20 of 2010.

Fr. Christian Thouvenot, general Secretary

+F knew Friday, November 19, that +W agreed to fire Nahrath, but note that this press release is dated Saturday, November 20. (Or November 22, if you go by the top. :confused1:)

John Grace · « **Reply #7 on:** July 25, 2012, 12:56:31 PM »

Quote

Of course the Krah issue is something else.

If you take the questions asked by 'William of Norwich'

Quote

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 Jєω, 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.

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 Jєωs 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.

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?

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?

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.

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

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?

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.

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.

John Grace · « **Reply #8 on:** July 25, 2012, 01:00:34 PM »

Quote

+F knew Friday, November 19, that +W agreed to fire Nahrath, but note that this press release is dated Saturday, November 20. (Or November 22, if you go by the top

Quote

Timeframes and Motivations
http://cathinfo-warning-pornography!/Ignis_Ardens/index.php?showtopic=6445

Since William of Norwich went public with his posting last Sunday, there has been huge interest in the thread that it generated. Most noticeable has been the volume of new information added, some of it disputed by a handful of posters, but much of it has been accepted as incontrovertible.

Over the last few days I have been looking back at the various comments and postings, and I believe there is something not quite right about the time frame. If I am right about this, it will have a huge impact on current conclusions.
We know for sure that on Wednesday, November 17, 2010 Matthias Lossmann contacted the German press agency, Deutsche Presse-Agentur (DPA), and told them that he would be standing down from the defence of Bishop Williamson in favour of another, and that "the name would soon be made public. 'You will then see why I no longer feel called for.'"

This statement by Lossman should be mulled over. Why did he feel the need to go to a press agency and say that he was no longer involved in the Williamson case? It is hard to believe that somebody involved with the ultra-politically correct Green Party would have been the object of hatred from members of the public or the gentlemen of press, and all the more so in that he made it clear at the April 2010 court case that he had nothing at all in common with Williamson’s views. In fact his comportment during the case demonstrated plainly that he was working against Williamson’s interest. We conclude that he was “baiting a media hook” for the “controversy” that was planned to erupt. He could have said nothing about the matter, and answer any questions in the event that they arose spontaneously. He didn’t, and this speaks volumes about his motivation, not just at that point in the affair, but from the outset.
We also know that on Thursday, November 18, 2010 Williamson’s new choice of lawyer, Nahrath, sent a communication to the new judge, Eisvogel, via her personal office fax. In it, he outlined the fact that he was now under instructions from Williamson and that he wished to request a postponement of the trial in order to get up to speed on the substance of the case.

We know too that Stefan Winters from Der Spiegel rang Nahrath within half an hour, and were already aware of his status as Williamson’s lawyer. How did they come across this information? Did the judge or a court official leak this material to these journalists? Possibly, but unlikely, given that even Eisvogel’s secretary did not know that Nahrath had sent the fax. If the judge had done so, she would have risked exposure and would undoubtedly have suffered legal sanction for professional misconduct. If it were a court official, he or she would have risked their jobs. It might be argued that there could have been a political motivation. It is possible, of course. But in the absence of even a semblance of information bearing on this, we have to dismiss it from our minds.

We know that Lossman knew who the new lawyer would be. We know this because he decided to stand down from the defence as a consequence of being unwilling or unable to work with Nahrath. Therefore, we have two possibilities. Either Lossmann contacted Der Spiegel himself, or he gave the information to that known associate of Der Spiegel, Maximilian Krah. The first option is improbable for the good reason that he could have contacted Der Spiegel from the beginning and blown the story wide open himself. The second is very likely, and we have an historical precedent in this matter.

A BRIEF DIGRESSION
Cast your minds back to the period preceding the Bishop’s trial which was set for April 16, 2010. On March 4, 2010, Williamson received a communication from Fr. Thouvenot in which he was informed, at the request of Bishop Fellay, to desist from a number of things. One of these was that he was “receiving a formal order forbidding him to appear before the court of Ratisbonne, and to leave it to his lawyers [Lossman and Krah] to stabilise the situation to your advantage, and to that of the SSPX of which you are a member.”

Why this order from Fellay? Was it a product of fear, or was it motivated by something else? Given that Lossmann was a dead loss as a lawyer, and did nothing to address the actual applicability of the law being brought against Williamson, and given that Krah was, as WoN pointed out, positively injurious to Williamson’s interests, it might be conjectured, reasonably I believe (particularly in the light of subsequent events), that Fellay wanted his chosen lawyers to have a freehand in the court, unhampered by any possible objections from Williamson. If Williamson had been present in the court, it is highly unlikely that he would have tolerated the antics of Krah and Lossmann and, given his ability to speak German, would have countered their mendacious and irrelevant nonsense. He might even have dismissed them on the spot and taken his defence upon himself. This is speculation, for we cannot know the mind of Fellay, unless he tells us what was his motivation, nor can we know what Williamson might potentially have said or done.

However, what follows is not conjecture. Just a couple of days before the trial itself a Der Spiegel journalist from Berlin rang Lossmann. The conversation went like this: “Is Mgr. Williamson going to attend the trial?” “No.” “Why not?” “Orders from his Superior.” “A written order?” “Yes.” “Can I see the text?” “No.”
Shortly after this exchange, Lossman receives a call from Krah: “Do you have the letter from Menzingen?” “Yes.” “Will you copy it to me?” The answer is in the affirmative, and Lossmann sends it on. About two hours later the same journalist rings Lossman and informs him that he now had a copy of Fellay’s order.
The chances, therefore, that Lossmann did not repeat this unprofessional conduct a second time and give information concerning Williamson and Nahrath to Krah are very slim. That Der Spiegel knew within 30 minutes of Nahrath’s appointment makes the Lossmann-Krah connection almost a moral certitude.

IS SOMEONE LYING?
We know that at roughly 9.00pm Swiss time, on Saturday, November 20, 2010, the SSPX General House posted on its website a statement issued by Fr. Thouvenot, at the explicit request of Fellay. It said in part that “The Superior General, Mgr. Bernard Fellay, learned from the press that Mgr. Williamson had revoked, just 10 days prior to his trial, the lawyer charged with his defence.” The statement concluded, as we all now know, by the assertion that if Williamson did not relieve himself of his “so-called neo-nαzι lawyer” Fellay would expel him from the SSPX.
Less well known is the fact that Fr. Thouvenot issued a further statement, at the instruction of Fellay, concerning Williamson on Sunday, November 21, 2010 early in the afternoon. It was sent by e-mail to the bishops and district superiors of the SSPX and was headed “Clarifications on the Press Statement of the General House,” and which had as its express aim to “explain” in greater precision the statement of November 20, 2010.

In its second paragraph, it stated: “Mgr. Williamson wished to engage a second lawyer who was politically well-known (“the only neo-nαzι lawyer in Germany not yet in prison,”** it is said). . . .The administrative court of Ratisbonne knew about the revocation of the first lawyer [Lossmann] on Wednesday, November 17, 2010 and the identity of his substitute began to seep out on Friday morning, November 19, 2010.”
[**Who exactly said this? Why the implication that all so-called “neo-nαzι” lawyers should be in prison? Why not Marxist ones, liberal ones and Zionist ones as well?]
How do I know about this second and lesser known statement? Because it was copied to me by a German-speaking clerical friend.

We know the following courtesy of Hollingsworth posted on page 3:
“I [Williamson] employ Nahrath. BpF sends Fr Angles to tell me (Friday mid-day) that unless I give up Nahrath he will expel me from the SSPX. It seems to me that my appeal can only go ahead with either a non-defending lawyer approved by Menzingen, or a truly defending lawyer that will not be approved by Menzingen. On my behalf Fr A e-mails (about 13h00 GMT Friday) to BpF that I give up appealing in front of the German courts, and ironically I add that it would be a kindness if Menzingen would pay the fine. BpF soon e-mails back, “Deo Gratias. No problem for paying the fine” (Friday, about 15h00 GMT).”

The time frame as outlined here is confirmed by the second and lesser known statement. It states in paragraph 4: “Mgr. Williamson made it known to Mgr. Fellay on Friday, November 19, 2010 in the early afternoon his desire to abandon the trial” and this for the good of the SSPX.

What needs to be made clear here is that Fr. Angles arrived in England on Friday morning, November 19, 2010 and breakfasted with the bishop. But Angles received his order to go to London to reason with Williamson very late Thursday evening, when Fellay was in Rome, at Albano for two days talking to priests of the Italian district. The mandate for Angles was to persuade Williamson to dump Nahrath as his lawyer and thus avoid expulsion. BUT THERE IS THE PROBLEM. For it means that Fellay knew about Nahrath on Thursday, November 18 – that is to say, he knew about Nahrath the same day that Nahrath wrote to Judge Eisvogel, the same day that Der Spiegel knew about Nahrath. Furthermore, the statement of November 20, 2010 says quite plainly: ““The Superior General, Mgr. Bernard Fellay learned from the press.” HERE IS ANOTHER PROBLEM.

Go to the following link and you will see the results of a search for “Nahrath and Williamson” in a news search.
http://news.google.com/news/search?pz=1&cf...oring=n&start=0
This search shows that there are 55 hits (as of 9.00pm GMT, December 4, 2010): the first coming on page 6 and the most recent on page 1. The story first appeared, based on a DPA (German Press Agency) release, on Saturday, November 20, 2010 in the Israeli newspaper, Ha'aretz. It was closely followed by Il Giornalettismo, a little-known online Italian paper, and then by Der Spiegel.

A search of Der Spiegel online, in both German and English, corroborates the news search above for its first mention of the Nahrath connection to Williamson appeared on Saturday, November 20, 2010. Put more clearly: nothing appeared in Der Spiegel or any other paper about Nahrath-Williamson before Saturday, November 20, 2010. Yet we know that Fellay spoke to Angles about this matter late on Thursday, November 18, 2010, inviting him to go to London; while the lesser known statement said that news about the Nahrath-Williamson connection “began to seep out on Friday morning, November 19, 2010.”
HOW DID BISHOP FELLAY LEARN FROM THE PRESS ABOUT NAHRATH-WILLIAMSON ON THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 18, 2010, WHEN NOTHING WAS PUBLISHED BY THE PRESS UNTIL TWO DAYS LATER?
There are only a couple of options:
1. Fellay had a premonition or “a hunch” about it.
2. He received some kind of grace from the Heavens about the matter.
3. He was informed by someone in the know by phone, fax, or e-mail of the details.
Option 3 is my preferred response, because it is the only viable option. Who are the candidates for informing Fellay? They are three in number: Der Spiegel, Matthias Lossman or Maximilian Krah. Where would you put your money?
Der Spiegel is unlikely at that stage because in the article of Saturday, November 20, 2010, Fr. Thouvenot is quoted. That means that in all probability, he was telephoned by Der Spiegel on the day before, Friday, November 19, 2010 as part of the final preparations for going live. Lossman is even less likely. He could have gone direct to Fellay on Wednesday, November 17, 2010, but he went either to Der Spiegel or Krah. Besides, given his politics, Lossman has no weight within the SSPX. That leaves our old buddy, Krah.

This timeframe means that Fellay had knowledge of the Nahrath question before the time that he claimed knowledge. It means that he had made a deal with Williamson on Friday, November 19, 2010 which put the whole matter to sleep, theoretically speaking. It means that the statement of the SSPX on November 20, 2010 was a stitch up, and the idea that it was to forestall a “huge press campaign” is palpable nonsense, because Fellay, knowing what we now know about the timeframe, could have told Der Spiegel that Nahrath was already out the picture on Friday afternoon when they telephoned for a quote on Friday, November 19, 2010. That Fellay did not mention the “deal” struck with Williamson on Friday speaks for itself. That he decided to go ahead with the condemnation and threat of expulsion on November 20, 2010 on the headquarters' website also speaks for itself. Yet more sickening is the constant reference to the fragile SSPX situation in Germany that has been regularly invoked since the Swedish television set-up. The clarification of Fellay-Thouvenot on Sunday, November 21, 2010 sent to the District Superiors uses this hoary “excuse” again. It says: “The situation in Germany is still tense, and where this new event will have the effect of a bomb and directly menace our apostolate, without mentioning our image, that is to say our reputation.” We have been hearing this since early 2009. What schools, priories or various other structures have been closed down by the German authorities? What priests, monks, sisters or others have been interviewed, questioned and charged with anything? According to my knowledge: none in any class. It is all fear-mongering aimed at marginalizing Williamson in the effort to cosy up to modernist Rome. If anybody wishes to dispute this point, please supply concrete examples - and by that I don’t mean statements by SSPX priests in Germany or elsewhere, but concrete actions by the German State.

One more nugget for readers to chew on. “The Clarification” posted on Sunday, November 21, 2010 justified putting up the condemnation on November 20 at Fellay’s insistence. Although the Fellay-Williamson “deal” had been struck on Friday, November 19, 2010, Fellay went ahead with the condemnation on the 20th because, although Williamson had dropped the lawyer, Nahrath, says, Fellay, Williamson had not informed the German court of his new decision. This is sophistry at its worst. We all know, now, that Angles informed Fellay of Williamson’s decision at 1.00pm GMT on Friday, November 19, 2010. The reply from Fellay came at 3.00pm GMT – that is to say, at 4.00pm in Switzerland and Germany. I have no personal experience of the habits of German bureaucrats, but my experience elsewhere is that Friday afternoon is the worst time to find, and seek the assistance of, any kind of bureaucrat who is looking forward to his “weekend of freedom” from his daily drudgery. Wasn’t Monday soon enough for Williamson to act? Well, no. Why not? Because of “the imminent and threatening press campaign.” Well, why didn’t Fellay tell them, personally or through Thouvenot, that Nahrath was already out of the picture? Ah, you never thought of that line? Perhaps Fellay could have telephoned Krah, since he has widespread contacts and could have found the perfect bureaucrat to solve both Williamson’s and Fellay’s problem on the Friday? Oh! Fellay never thought of that.
A further posting will come in a few days relating to Krah and Der Spiegel, my work and travel permitting (Somebody tell Maximilian to bookmark this blog!). In the meantime, I leave you with this thought.

In the second and lesser-known statement of Fr. Thouvenot to the Bishops and District Superiors, it states in the penultimate paragraph: “We have high hopes that Mgr. Williamson will not commit an irreparable act by allowing himself to be used by political constituencies which make use of our holy religion for ends which are foreign to it.”

Of course, all priests and bishops should avoid being used for unacceptable and disreputable politics, and it should apply, therefore, as equally to the Zionist Lobby now working on the SSPX through Krah and his half-hidden clique as it must to the neo-nαzιs. The big difference being, however, that the latter is a barely existent sect that sells sensationalist newspapers for secularists, whilst the latter is a world-dominating force. SO: let your “yes” be “yes” and your “no” be “no”!

John Grace · « **Reply #9 on:** July 25, 2012, 01:05:34 PM »

William of Norwich states clearly no malice is meant or intended. These are very valid questions to ask.

Quote

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

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?

John Grace · « **Reply #10 on:** July 25, 2012, 01:10:55 PM »

And in the questions to Fr Laisney SSPX, Veritas1961 writes

Quote

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

John Grace · « **Reply #11 on:** July 25, 2012, 01:15:20 PM »

People often skim through threads so I'm just breaking down parts of WON questions to Bishop Fellay. Reasonable and valid questions to ask.

Quote

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?

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?

Marcelino · « **Reply #12 on:** July 25, 2012, 01:22:32 PM »

Quote from: Irish Catholic200

http://en.gloria.tv/?media=314171

I'd like to see the whole video.

PAT317 · « **Reply #13 on:** July 25, 2012, 01:38:34 PM »

Quote from: Marcelino

Quote from: Irish Catholic200
http://en.gloria.tv/?media=314171

I'd like to see the whole video.

Quote from: Marcelino

I'd like to see the whole video.

Not sure which one it's in, but there are 13 conferences.

SSPX Archbishop Lefebvre & Rome 1

SSPX Archbishop Lefebvre & Rome 13

Just type the title with whatever conference number you want into the youtube search, and the rest should come up.

Ethelred · « **Reply #14 on:** July 26, 2012, 03:56:19 AM »

This is Tradcat's Youtube index page which lists all 13 parts of Bishop Williamson's conference.

Quote from: InstaurareEcclesiam

This is a wrong way to proceed, Your Lordship.

But who would want to know such an obsolete wishy-washy "advice", here on this pro Bishop Williamson Cathinfo forum?

Unfortunately one has to (virtually) flee liberal Europe in order to find a place with so many Bishop Williamson supporters. Still the vultures are circling also here...

Maybe you should make an application for becoming Bishop Williamson's personal secretary. It's seems obvious to some people that he desperately needs sophisticated, sweeeet, wishy-washy consulting, isn't it?

Quote

In this video, Bp. Williamsons calls for rebellion and a coup d'état against bp. Fellay and his advisors.

"Rebellion" only the same way as Archbishop Lefebvre "rebelled" against the modernistic Church leaders. But since that is a must for every Catholic the Archbishop didn't rebel but defended the Faith. You would know this if you had studied Archbishop Lefebvre's many sermons about catholic obedience versus false obedience.

Exactly the same situation today with the Bishop. This looks like providence.

But still the mollycoddles cry for shutting the stable door after the horse has bolted! The modern delusion is sheer unbelievable. Good for us that the good Bishop is writing the Eleison Comments and giving fine conferences instead of some bean counters.

Well, Bishop Williamson is the true follower of the Archbishop. The destruction of the SSPX by Bp Fellay and his gang finally proved and still proves it (for those who didn't notice it earlier). I'm very glad God formed such an upright shepherd for these modern times. It looks like we'll hear more from him soon. :-) He's definitely in battle mode now.

God save Bishop Williamson!

P.S. Don't miss . It complements very well the good Bishop's work.