This Week in Novus Ordo 'Holocaust Denial' Anathemas

"... negation of the Shoah, ... is a position that has no place in the Catholic Church. It is very clear ... The Holy Father has spoken clearly about this position of [Bishop] Williamson, that it's not possible, there is no place for deniers in the Catholic Church." ("Catholics must accept Vatican II, including on Judaism, Cardinal says," Cindy Wooden, Catholic News Service, May 17, 2012)

Cardinal Kurt Koch, President of the Holy See’s Commission for Religious Relations with the Jews, sat in at the recent meeting of the "Bilateral Commission of the Chief Rabbinate of Counterfeit Israel and the 'Holy' See's Commission for Religious Relations with 'The Jews'" and "expressed joy at the continuity of its work as a blessing for both communities and for humanity."

We documented that a speaker at this meeting, which Cardinal Koch would call a "blessing to humanity," was former chief economist of the bank of 'Israel' Rabbi Dr. Meir Tamari who strongly upholds the teaching of Orthodox Judaism that 'Jews' should receive interest-free loans while non-'Jews' should pay usury on loans HERE.

People, wake up. Submission to 'The Holocaust' can't save anyone's soul. Usury imposed according to a racial double-standard is not a blessing to humanity. These are curses of the worst kind. Anyone with the most minimal understanding of the Gospel and sense of temporal and spiritual self-preservation would run from this as fast as them legs could take them.

Also see:

Auschwitz: The Golgotha of the Modern Church

SSPX Superior Bishop Fellay's Zionist Business Partner Kicks Günter Grass' Corpse

"Islam accepts Jesus as a prophet and has great respect for Mary, and this certainly places Islam nearer to our religion than say, for instance, Judaism, which is far more distant from us. Islam was born in the 7th century and it has benefited to some degree from the Christian teachings of those days.

Judaism, on the other hand, is the heir to the system, which crucified our Lord. And the members of this religion, who have not converted to Christ, are those who are radically opposed to our Lord Jesus Christ. For them, there is no question whatever of recognizing our Lord. They are in opposition to the very foundation and existence of the Catholic faith on this subject. However, we cannot both be right. Either Jesus Christ is the Son of God and the Lord and Savior or He is not. This is one case where there cannot be the slightest compromise without destroying the very foundation of Catholic faith." (Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre)

More than one month after Günter Grass published his poem identifying Zionist fanatics and their nuclear weapons as the actual threat to world peace; weeks after the subsequent media lynching of Grass in response, SSPX Superior Bp. Fellay's lawyer, asset manager and general business partner, Maximillian Krah arrives in the wake of the fray to get a few kicks in himself. We shouldn't interpret Krah's tardiness as mere cowardice, however. Lord knows, with Bp. Fellay's repeat performance of the 1960's Bolshevik takeover of the Church reaching its finale, Krah must be a very busy man; there being so many laity-financed properties in so many nations to account for.

The context of Krah's attack on a Zionist-ravaged corpse is an apologia pro Israel Fictus (defense of Counterfeit Israel) in the style of Ordo Templi Orientis' Judaic guru, James Wasserman according to which 'Israel' is the bastion of Western civilization and bulwark against 'Islamic barbarism' which threatens to overrun the world and rob us of Scholastic learning, music, wine, mini-skirts and Madonna-- no, not the mother of Jesus venerated by Islam and mocked by Judaism--but that Kabbalah-imbued floozy called 'Madonna' who Krah 'likes' according to his Facebook page.

In defense of Counterfeit Israel, Krah invokes the spectre of Islamic misogynist tyranny while failing to mention that women are currently being spat upon, terrorized and beaten by Judaic 'modesty patrols' in Counterfeit Israel, and in Western Judaic communities, for wearing dress far less provocative than the mini-skirts Krah champions.

Shall we follow Templar Krah into a crusade against a spectre of tyranny to the benefit of another far more anti-Christian tyranny?

For all Krah's rhetoric in support of Scholastic learning, there's none evident in his thinking. Neither is there much understanding of the founder of the SSPX who rightly viewed Judaism as a greater evil than Islam.

Can this lawyer of such extreme philo-Judaism not be aware of the talmudic equivalents or worse examples of nearly every outrage Islam is accused of, or is he just employing the talmudic double-standard?

If any reader happens to run into Krah, perhaps they might ask for his thoughts on the rabbis of Judaism giving themselves permission to betroth 3-year-old girls by raping them. This is the authoritative teaching of the rabbis of the Talmud and the towering 'sage' of Judaism Moses Maimonides that informs that depraved nation which Krah calls "Israel," and this barely scratches the surface of Judaism's depravity.

Nearly invariably, real or imaginary Muslim outrages invoked as justification for the Zionist crusade can be matched or exceeded by Judaic outrages nearly invariably permitted by rabbinic law which are covered up by the kosher establishment of which Max Krah is clearly a part. 

Krah's apologia, like all Zionist apologetics, presupposes ignorance, amnesia, moral depravity, pharisaic love of double-standards or some combination thereof in its audience. There is nothing, literally, nothing for a Christian to support in the Jesus and Mary-hating, master-race religion of Judaism and its nuclear-armed terrorist base of operation, Counterfeit Israel.

Also see:

The Remnant's Conspicuous Blind Spot

SSPX Joins Crusade to Rehabilitate Templars

The "Church Militant" With Rabbis in Command

Decoding the T-Party (Talmud Party)

Benedict XVI, Hexagram Mitre Make Cover of Foreign Policy Magazine 

A Lesson in "Globalism" 

Bernard-Henri Lévy Indicted for Playing the Great Game

'Noahide Law' Peddling Rabbi Incites the Mob re:Sharia Law

Former Israeli Chief Rabbi: "Gentiles" Exist Only to Serve "Jews"

SSPX Bishop Fellay's Lawyer/Business Partner is Fundraiser for Racial Supremacist State  

Church Council Up for Discussion, Not "The Holocaust"

Traducción parcial al Español aquí: Radio Cristiandad

En Italiano: Andrea Carancini

SSPX Superior, Bishop Fellay has given an 'interview' in his familiar style intended to dispel suspicions raised by his secretive negotiations with the suspicious characters in Rome where "there is no lack of indiscretions!" The 'interview' doesn't accomplish its goal.

The 'interview' is largely unremarkable: reassuring words, summary deflection of justified suspicion and criticism, summary dismissal of internet channels not under Fellay control, redirection of focus back onto an apparition claimed by 3 children in Portugal 100 years ago, reemploying the busywork of tens of millions of rosaries--all very familiar and predictable. The 'interview' can be read here:

http://www.dici.org/en/news/interview-with-bishop-bernard-fellay-superior-general-of-the-society-of-st-pius-x-the-society-of-st-pius-x-and-the-doctrinal-preamble/

One item mentioned in the 'interview' is very relevant to us here. I quote:

"... leeway has been allowed for a 'legitimate discussion' about certain points of the [Second Vatican] Council."

Note that the Novus Ordo Church allows 'discussion' of its own teaching. In this context, 'discussion' concerns doubts and outright denials. The SSPX denies that certain points contained within the authoritative documents of the Novus Ordo Church's Second Vatican Council can be reconciled with the perennial teaching of the Catholic Church. The Novus Ordo has allowed the SSPX to present its case to this effect in doctrinal 'dialogues' over the past two years. The Novus Ordo is now negotiating an arrangement to bring the SSPX into 'full communion' while allowing discussion of doubts of its own authoritative teachings. This was also stated in a February 2009 statement from the Pope's Secretary of State:

"... the Holy See will not fail, in ways judged opportune, to engage with the interested parties in examining outstanding questions, so as to attain a full and satisfactory resolution of the problems that caused this painful rupture."

Note, however, that this typically lenient allowance pertaining to the Novus Ordo's own teachings is immediately followed by a mandate in absolute terms virtually unseen in Rome in the past 100 years:

"The positions of Bishop Williamson with regard to the Shoah are absolutely unacceptable and firmly rejected by the Holy Father ...

In order to be admitted to function as a Bishop within the Church, Bishop Williamson must also distance himself in an absolutely unequivocal and public way from his positions regarding the Shoah ..."

Nota bene, it is not demanded that Bishop Williamson absolutely and unequivocally publicly distance himself from his doubts regarding relativistic Novus Ordo teaching on religious liberty, collegiality, ecumenism. No, these "outstanding questions" are open to "examination." No such questions or examination can be countenanced in the absolutist realm of "The Holocaust," however. Here we see the resurrection of the old ipse dixit and anathema that are otherwise entirely unheard of from Catholic prelates for nearly 100 years.

This is remarkable, is it not? In light of this, perhaps readers may understand where Rabbi Michael Berenbaum is coming from when he says, “As I observe young people in relativistic societies seeking an absolute for morals and values, they now can view the Holocaust as the transcendental move away from the relativistic, and up into the absolute ..." How opportune for Rabbi Berenbaum and "The Holocaust" that the authorities of the Catholic Church hold "The Holocaust" to be absolute while Church teachings are ever increasingly relativised away.

Bishop Fellay certainly knows how to go with the relativist/absolutist flow of the Noahide Novus Ordo. Soon after the February 2009 statement from the Pope's Secretary of State was issued, Bp. Fellay was interviewed in Der Speigel saying that he would cast Bp. Williamson out of the SSPX if he "denied" "The Holocaust" again:

SPIEGEL: So why don't you exclude Williamson from the society?

Fellay: That will happen if he denies the Holocaust again.

Bp. Fellay was just blending in with Pope Benedict who a month earlier had admonished Catholics to not "forget or deny" "The Holocaust," and Archbishop Reinhard Marx who proclaimed, “Every denial of the Holocaust must be punished harshly,” Cardinal Vingt-Trois who exclaimed, "Being a Catholic is radically incompatible with denying the Holocaust," Cardinal Kasper announcing, "No Holocaust denial can be allowed or permitted, It's absolutely clear that a Holocaust denier can't have a room, a space in the Catholic Church."

There may be space between the SSPX Superior and the Novus Ordo on religious liberty and a number of other matters, but where "The Holocaust" is concerned, which Rabbi Ignaz Maybaum said "replaced Golgotha" and Pope John Paul II said was "The Golgotha of the modern world," Bp. Fellay and the Novus Ordo sing in perfect unison.

It seems to me a case of swallowing a very large camel while straining out gnats.

Suppressed SSPX Great Britain District Newsletter

District Superior's Letter November 2011

My dear brethren

The meeting of the Society’s superiors took place at Albano on 7-8th October as announced in last month’s newsletter, and Bishop Fellay did indeed use this opportunity to discuss the ‘Doctrinal Preamble’ text as received from Cardinal Levada on 14th September.

The first day of the meeting covered three issues: an overview of the contacts with Rome since 1987; a summary of the doctrinal discussions; and an oral exposition of the Doctrinal Preamble document itself.

With regard to the doctrinal talks it was disappointing to note that the Roman commission failed to acknowledge the break between traditional and conciliar teachings. Instead it insisted upon the ‘hermeneutic (interpretation) of continuity,’ stating that the new teachings included and improved the old!

It was interesting to learn that the 14th September meeting had not touched upon the doctrinal talks at all, but rather was dedicated to expounding possible practical solutions for the Society.

So it was perhaps not surprising to learn that the proposed doctrinal basis for any canonical agreement in fact contained all those elements which the Society has consistently rejected, including acceptance of the New Mass and of Vatican II as expressed in the New Catechism. Indeed, the document itself conveys the impression that there is no crisis in the Church...

Hence the stated consensus of those in attendance was that the Doctrinal Preamble was clearly unacceptable and that the time has certainly not come to pursue any practical agreement as long as the doctrinal issues remain outstanding. It also agreed that the Society should continue its work of insisting upon the doctrinal questions in any contacts with the Roman authorities.

In many ways we can see the hand of Providence in this meeting, falling as it did on the Feast of the Holy Rosary, given the clarification of Rome’s persistence in the modern errors, and the consequent necessity of continuing with the fight against modernism through fidelity to Catholic Tradition.

The second day of the meeting was dedicated to its original theme, that of communications and the media.

* * *

The Assisi III meeting is taking place on the very day I write these few lines, at which occasion we are holding a day of reparation here at St George’s House, with all-day exposition of the Blessed Sacrament.

The scandal of this inter-religious gathering can be resumed into three points:

i/ It commemorates and celebrates the scandal of Assisi I;

ii/ It replaces the Faith with religious liberty as the means to obtain world peace;

iii/ It promotes on a practical level relativism and religious indifference.

Original cached at:

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:UpPzFRVt7TYJ:www.sspx.co.uk/index.php%3Foption%3Dcom_content%26view%3Darticle%26id%3D390:district-superiors-letter-november-2011%26catid%3D114:district-superiors-letter%26Itemid%3D86

Bishop Williamson Contra Mundum

Bishop Williamson Contra Mundum

ANCESTRAL PRIDE, Eleison Comments • CCXXII (222)

Please see:

ANCESTRAL PRIDE

By Bishop Richard Williamson, SSPX
Eleison Comments • CCXXII (222)
http://www.dinoscopus.org

Letter from SSPX Superior General Bishop Fellay to Bishop Williamson

UPDATED, PLEASE READ

I've received the following notice from Bp. Williamson:

Dear Maurice Pinay,

Please publish on the same blog on which you published the Sept 23 letter of Bishop Fellay to me, the following message --

The September 23 letter from Bishop Fellay to me, as posted on the Maurice Pinay blog, is authentic, but it was put on the Internet without my knowledge and without my permission. I sent a copy to friends to ask their advice or to tell them why I was not present at the Albano meeting, but never did I want that copy to appear in public. I have no idea who posted it, nor do I ask who did so.

Bishop Richard Williamson, London, 14 Oct. 2011

Letter from Bishop Fellay to Bishop Williamson

23 September, 2011

Your Excellency,

I would be happy to invite you to the SSPX Superiors’ meeting to be held in Albano early in October, as the nature and composition of the meeting has been somewhat changed because of current events. I would also be happy to send you a text from Rome to which they want a reply. However, I find myself obliged to attach conditions to each of these points.

Firstly, as to the text, I ask of you an oath in writing that you will communicate to nobody either the text or its content. Too often in the past you have lacked discretion, so I am obliged to submit you to a procedure of this kind, which I am not happy to have to do.

Secondly, as to the meeting in Albano, I can only invite you to attend insofar as you stop publishing Eleison Comments. You have already been given the reason several times, as you have been given the order to stop. You considered that for the sake of the preaching and defence of the Faith you needed pay no attention, on the pretext that nobody had the right to stop a bishop from fulfilling his duty to preach and defend the Faith. But such preaching and defence of the Faith are inserted in concrete circumstances which may well call for superiors to intervene. Besides, no other bishop of the SSPX publishes a circular letter and considers himself thereby hindered from expressing himself.

Moreover the consequences of your attitude are harmful to the SSPX: you ooze distrust towards SSPX headquarters and the Superior General. You cannot help yourself communicating this feeling to those around you. No revolution could do a better job of undermining authority… and this you do in the name of a supposed possible betrayal on the part of the Superior General… That is very serious.

Especially when a certain number of indications show that your action is not confined to theory:

1 To an Argentinian priest from the Novus Ordo who asks for your advice, you recommend that he should not join the SSPX.

2 To an American layman you write that the apostasy of the mainstream Church is farther advanced than that of the SSPX. How can you write such things, false and unjust, against the Society of which you are still a member?

3 There exists in Anglo-saxon circles a network of infiltrators of the SSPX preparing a break-away. You are put forward as the head of this movement, you are the friend of its leaders and you are playing their game.

And you talk to us of being double tongued! As for the unity of the SSPX, the one most putting it in danger is yourself, your Excellency! Always in the name of defense of the Faith. In such a grave moment as the confrontation now taking place between ourselves and the Holy See, the outcome of which will be decisive for our own future and not without consequences for the entire Church, I ask you then, once more, to remain silent until further orders. If you were to refuse to heed this directive, it would mean both your not being invited to the Albano meeting and the starting of the canonical procedure leading to exclusion from the SSPX. So I await your reply.

All of this is most sad, and it has nothing to do with the confrontation just mentioned, whatever you may think. The loss of one of its bishops is one of the worst things that could happen to the SSPX. It depends entirely on you to spare it such a misfortune. Do believe, your Excellency, in my fervent prayers to the Sacred Heart of Jesus,
BpF.

Why traffic in storybook depictions?

On March 27, 1963 Cardinal Bea HIMSELF met with Rabbis Marc Tanenbaum and Abraham Heschel, representatives of the 'American' 'Jewish' Committee, in Boston in Cardinal Cushing's chancery, and discussed what "The Jews" wanted to happen at the Vatican II council. This is very well documented, easily accessed information (e.g. Spiritual Radical, Edward Kaplan). Cardinal Bea then went to the AJC headquarters in New York on March 31, 1963 to further discuss what "The Jews" wanted to happen at the council with President of the Central Conference of American Rabbis, Rabbi Albert G. Minda, Heschel and Tanenbaum (see document and image below). Further, Rabbi Heschel met with Pope Paul VI on the opening day of the third session of the council, Sept 14, 1964, to discuss what "The Jews" wanted to happen at the council. The Pope changed the originally scheduled day to accommodate the rabbi's religion (it was 'the Jewish Sabbath'). This is easily sourced, widely available information.

Cardinal Bea and the Pope himself met with Rabbi Heschel who confided to an Israeli reporter that his motive for making outrageous statements about 'going to Auschwitz rather than convert' was that he wanted to attack Christian souls. This is a well documented fact. And they made concessions to this hostile figure and the hostile organizations he represented in a Vatican II Council document. There are photographs of Heshel meeting Pope Paul VI in 1971 AFTER Heschel had made this admission of hostile intent which was well known in Rome.

There are photographs of Cardinal Shehan meeting with Zachariah Shuster (of the AJC and one of Malachi Martin's handlers) to discuss Vatican II; photos of Cardinal Spellman meeting with AJC directors. This barely scratches the surface of well-documented meetings that took place between Judaic organizations and their rabbis and cardinals and even the Pope leading up to Vatican II. There were many, many such meetings and they continue to this day, seemingly on a daily, or at least weekly basis.

Why do 'traditionalists' prefer the Malachi Martinesque, storybook version of history about 'a cold winter night sometime between 1962-63 when Cardinal Bea may have sent a representative to a mysterious meeting in a synagogue basement somewhere in Strasbourg which he neither confirmed or denied took place'? Why is this so much more alluring than the documented facts?

I believe what I've been told is true: there is an insufficient love for truth among these people.

Fr. Stephen Schmidt, S. J.; President of the Central Conference of American Rabbis, Rabbi Albert G. Minda; Rabbi Abraham J. Heschel; AJC Director of Interreligious Affairs, Rabbi Marc Tanenbaum with Cardinal Augustin Bea, March 31, 1963, AJC building, 165 E. 56th St., New York City

A Lesson in Modern "Dialogue"

It has been revealed that the Palestinian Authority agreed to suppress the Goldstone Report on the 2008/2009 Gaza massacre to:

"help promote a positive atmosphere conducive to negotiations ... [to] refrain from pursuing or supporting any initiative directly or indirectly in international legal forums that would undermine that atmosphere."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/jan/26/gaza-report-palestinian-authority-stalled

Meanwhile, the Israelis are free to bomb, demolish, assassinate and steal land with impunity, none of which promotes a positive atmosphere. I think that the ostensibly noble end of "creating a positive atmosphere conducive to discussion" is not the real objective here.

Now, a few words from SSPX Superior General, Bishop Fellay regarding his discussions with Rome:

For our part, we wanted to try—willfully and deliberately—to create a serene climate around the discussions. Evidently, an indirect consequence of this can be that, concerning certain themes, unrelated or related to these discussions, for the moment one might have the impression that the Society will not have spoken with as much vehemence as on other occasions.

http://sspx.org/news/is_sspx_being_muzzled.htm

While these words suggest a lofty ideal, Bp. Fellay's actions--taking on a Zionist lawyer/business partner and jointly, vehemently smearing Bp. Williamson in the international media--are evidence that creating a serene climate is not the real objective.

What is evident in both cases is that a certain agenda plods steadily along wreaking havoc while the alleged opposition is neutralized by the alleged need for "creating a serene atmosphere" "conducive to dialogue."

This "dialogue" is no dialogue. It's a time-buying fraud. I pray that people figure this out before they've been robbed entirely of their history, property and their very souls.

Bishop Williamson tells his side of story on threatened "expulsion" from SSPX

See:

Bishop Williamson tells his side of story on threatened "expulsion" from SSPX

Developments in the Williamson appeal matter during the past week

From: Prof. Arthur R. Butz, PhD.

Date: November 27, 2010

Subject: Developments in Germany in the Williamson appeal matter during the past week concerning his “holocaust minimization” broadcast on Swedish TV and filmed in Germany

32 minutes after lawyer Nahrath, a member of the rightist NPD, informed Judge Eisvogel that he had been added to Bishop Richard Williamson's legal team, Nahrath received a phone call from Der Spiegel. It is speculated that Der Spiegel's source of news on the new development had to be its friend lawyer [Maximilian] Krah, an associate of the lawyer Lossman who resigned when Nahrath was added to the legal team.*

In order to placate the priestly Catholic fraternity of the SSPX, Williamson said he will drop his lawyer Nahrath, and his appeal, and asked that the SSPX pay his fine. SSPX Superior Fellay agreed, but the next day Fellay publicly denounced Bishop Williamson and repeated his order to Williamson to drop Nahrath or be ejected from the SSPX. Then Williamson told Fellay that he would continue his appeal but drop Nahrath, reasoning that "A willow will bend whereas an oak will snap and break." Through all of this Williamson never actually spoke to Fellay. Williamson retained a new lawyer on Nov. 26, politically neutral and with a good professional reputation, but thus far not publicly identified.

http://revisionistreview.blogspot.com/2010/11/developments-in-williamson-appeal.html

*Williamson's defense lawyer, Matthias Lossmann, told German Press Agency dpa that they had "amicably ended" their cooperation, indicating that this was in part due to Williamson's decision to hire another lawyer. He said the name would soon be made public.

"You will then see why I no longer feel called for," he added.

http://www.haaretz.com/jewish-world/news/holocaust-denying-bishop-s-lawyer-pulls-out-of-case-ahead-of-trial-1.325231

SSPX Bishop Fellay's Lawyer/Business Partner is Fundraiser for Racial Supremacist State

Bp. Fellay's Lawyer/business partner Maximilian Krah among patrons at September 27, 2010 American Friends of Tel Aviv University Fund Raiser

This bit of information comes from an investigative work anonymously posted in a few places on the internet (and immediately censored from at least one of them). I copy the entire work below with the following caveats: I don't see that the author has proven his charge that Mr. Krah is of Judaic ancestry, as likely as it seems. It would be quite "traditional," after all for such a champion of 15th-century aristocrat Catholicism; such a temporally ambitious man as Bp. Bernard Fellay to have a "Court 'Jew'." Regardless of what his actual ethnic identity may be, it's clear Maximilian Krah fulfills that role for Bp. Fellay. Mr. Krah's documented Zionist fundraising is highly problematic for anyone that claims to oppose racial supremacy.

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-homosexual, 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-homosexual 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 “holocaust 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 “Holocaust” 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-nazis,” 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 “Nazi” 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-nazi,” 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 Jewish. 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 Jewish. 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, Freemasonry 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 Talmudic 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 Jewish 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.

Does Bishop Fellay Actually Believe They Would Leave Us Alone?

SSPX Superior General Bp. Fellay recently gave another strange interview to an Italian newspaper HERE (English translation HERE).

The Orthodox [Judaic] Union has given an equally strange response:

Peace in Our Time

August 11, 2009

Bishop Bernard Fellay took direct aim at the Jewish community recently, urging us to leave Catholics "in peace." In particular, the head of the Society for St. Pius X asked Jews to stay out of intra-Catholic disputes, referencing two recent ones: the Tridentine Mass, or Good Friday Liturgy and the Bishop Williamson affair.

On the Mass, Bishop Fellay has a friend in the OU. We have long held Jews and Christians should not be in the business of telling one another what to believe or how to practice their own faith.

As for the affaire d'Williamson, this just doesn't pass any credible test: "red faced," smell or otherwise. This is no internal Church dispute, not least of which because the Bishop made the comments on Swedish TV. Bishop Williamson's public comments denying the Holocaust have nothing to do with Catholic liturgy, ritual or doctrine. They may or may not have anything to do with rank, base anti-Semitism. But without question, they are a denial of historical truth.

Friends can disagree. But friendship can't abide lies. Or as a good American Catholic, the late Senator Pat Moynihan liked to say, you're entitled to your own opinion, just not your own facts.

http://www.ou.org/public_affairs/article/57238

I wonder, how many will be gulled by this statement from the public affairs branch of the Orthodox Union? I'm not interested in what Judaic organizations want outsiders to think, which is what this PR statement is a part of. I'm interested in what they say among themselves. And in fact, we already know what the true policy (as opposed to the PR policy) of the Orthodox Union is, as it was alluded to by the Orthodox Union's Rabbi Yitzchok Adlerstein:

"There still is resistance to the new teachings in some traditional Catholic circles, still much work to be done to erase old ideas." (Rabbi Yitzchok Adlerstein, "The Catholic Church and the Jews," Cross-Currents, July 3, 2009) "The differences between accepted Church teaching and this group of Latin-speaking extremists are not subject to reconciliation.” (Rabbi Yitzchok Adlerstein, Wiesenthal Center, January 23, 2009)

And note that the Orthodox Union, like Bp. Fellay, categorizes 'The Holocaust' as a mere matter of "historical truth" here, when it's expedient to do so. Anyone who doubts that the rabbis of the Orthodox Union demand universal faith in their 'Holocaust' as the most sanctified and exalted theological event in history enforceable by harsh penalties must have recently fallen from a turnip cart. Once again, this is a public relations statement; hasbara; rabbinic lies, the kind that Bill Donahue falls for HERE. We're interested in the actual policy of the Orthodox Union. For that, read:

Rabbi Elijah Soloveichik's Trojan Horse for Christianity

Also of interest:

'Elder Brothers in the Faith' Incite IDF with Anti-Catholic Blood Libel

No Comment From Vatican on Orthodox Union's IDF Inciting Blood Libel

Expelled SSPX Priest, Fr Abrahamowicz Interviewed

An excerpt:

S.H.: Of your public statements regarding the Holocaust controversy, what caused the most problems? Why?

Fr. A.: My fellow-priests agreed with all that I said in my interview with the Tribuna de Trevise. But no one imagined the media effect it would produce. So it was the very fact of publicly attacking the Jews which made my confreres and superiors tremble and then shook their friendship. Touching the new Messiah, i.e. criticising Zionist policy, is the ultimate lèse-majesté. At present the Vatican is bowing down before the Zionist reign. So the Society, by entering into friendship with Ratzinger’s Vatican ought to sacrifice to the gods. Once the Vatican, by its spokesman Lombardi, had distanced itself from Fr Abrahamowicz, the Society went one better: it expelled its life-member, declaring that the statements made by the expelled priest gravely damaged the Society’s image in the service of the Church. But which church?

S.H.: What about Bishop Williamson? What do you think about what has happened to him?

Fr. A.: Bishop Williamson has not been expelled; he has been dismissed from his position and his observations about the technical aspects of gas chambers were scathingly criticised by his confreres in the priesthood and in the episcopate. He has been reduced to silence by his superior, Mgr Fellay. In order to avoid saying that it is forbidden to touch the new Messiah, the affair has been classified as a “historical question”, falling outside the competence of a bishop. Is that really why he is no longer allowed to exercise his ministry?

Full interview here:

True restoration: Interview with Fr. Florian Abrahamowicz in Paris (English Version)

As I have said before, the policy of Bp. Fellay noted by Fr. Abrahamowicz (in italics above) is remarkable. Bp. Fellay seems to have contrived a compulsory dispensation from speaking against a grave threat to the faith; from doing what priests and bishops are obligated to do. 'The Holocaust' is not a mere historical matter as Bp. Fellay says. It has become a matter of theology and religious observance, as documented HERE, HERE, HERE, HERE, HERE, HERE, HERE, HERE, HERE, and it threatens our core beliefs at least as much as the theological errors of Vatican II.

Rabbis' Wrath

Read of the lying, racism, double-standards, corruption, injustice, violence and mercilessness of the bishops' elder brothers in the faith and the religion of their faith in a recent Jerusalem Post article:

Rabbi's Wrath by Matthew Wagner

Part 2 of Bishop Fellay Interview (updated)

Video at this link:

http://gloria.tv/?media=27739

Note that in the interview, which took place April 5, 2009, Bishop Fellay says he believes that first contact with Rome regarding doctrinal discussions could take place as early as June 2009. Coincidentally, Bishop Fellay was reported to have visited the CDF last week (en Español, in English).

On April 18, 2009, it was revealed on Bishop Williamson's Dinoscopus blog that Bishop Tissier de Mallerais had stated that it had been decided that the form of the discussions would be in writing and that they would not be made public.

Eleison Comments XCIII: Difficult Discussions

UPDATE:

Rorate Caeli reported:

Roadmap for Holy See - SSPX doctrinal talks established


According to French Rome-based religious news agency I.Media, as reported by Italian news agency ASCA (translation by Father Zuhlsdorf):

This morning the Vatican Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith discussed how to begin the doctrinal dialogue with the Lefebvrite Preiestly Fraternity of St. Pius X, for whom four bishops – among whom is the negationist [Bp.] Richard Williamson – Pope Benedict XVI in February revoked an excommunication.

According to the French agency I.Media, the cardinals of the ex-Holy Office – to whom Pope Ratzinger entrusted the dialogue wiht the Lefebvrites in view of their eventual reinstatement, in the future, in the structure of the Church – discussed a text "drawn up to clarify the parameter of the doctrinal dialogue with the Fraternity". This dialogue should start with the necessity "of accepting the Second Vatican Council and the Magisterium of the Pope" subsequent to the Council.

According to I.Media, the Superior of the Lefebvrites, [Bp.] Bernard Fellay, was received at the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith on 5 June last and, even if there hasn’t been identified the "team" which on the two sides will effectively conduct the dialogue, it is probable that there will take part the Swiss Domincan Fr. Charles Morerod, the new Secretary for the International Theological Commission and, on the part of the Lefebvrites, Fr. [l’abbate] Gregoire Celier, co-author of a recent book on Benedict XVI.

Meanwhile, as the "doctrinal" dialogue with the Vatican moves along its first steps, the Lefebvrites have decided to challenge again the authority of the of the Pope, announcin the ordination of at least 21 new priests in three parts of the world.

http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2009/06/rules-for-holy-see-sspx-doctrinal-talks.html

Petition in Support of SSPX Bishop Williamson

A petition is still open for those who would like to show support for Bishop Williamson:

http://petitions.tigweb.org/FSSPX

SSPX Bp. Fellay Interview

http://www.gloria.tv/?media=27430

I remain puzzled by the fact that the Bp. Williamson "Holocaust denial" controversy continues to be framed as a mere matter of history and law by Bp. Fellay (and even Bp. Williamson himself before he was silenced) when everyone from politicians to academics to the rabbis to the bishops and even the Pope piously speaks of it in theological language.

Every Catholic is within their right and responsibility to resist the errors of "Holocaust" theology as much as any other theological error.

On Bishop Williamson's Second Apology

Bishop Williamson has apologized again, inappropriately in my view, for the shock and awe campaign that has come as a response to his public expression of his thoughts on certain elements of "Holocaust" doctrine. In fact, the responsibility for the calamitous, altogether disconnected and disproportionate reaction of this past month lies squarely on the rabbis and Judaic power-brokers and their accomplices in governments, in the media, in the curia and in the parishes directly involved in it; a reaction which has all of the proportion and justice of the December 2008 Gaza massacre. I disagree with the suggestion that a few words spoken by the Bishop are the cause of all this. Let's not validate the absurd notion that lynch-mob behavior is a normal or acceptable, inevitable response to controversy and that Catholics must tailor their words, nay, their thoughts, to forestall it.

What is most disconcerting about Bp. Williamson's apology, however, is the closing line: "As the Holy Father has said, every act of unjust violence against one man hurts all mankind." HERE

This is a clear reference to Benedict's shameful Holocaust sermon of January 28th, 2008 where he proclaimed, "May the Shoah be for all a warning against forgetfulness, against denial or reductionism, because the violence against a single human being is violence against all." HERE

I don't care to speculate on the motivations behind Bp. Williamson's adoption of Bendict's foreign language from his recent "Holocaust" sermon [see footnote]. I am also bewildered by Bishop Fellay's reported adoption of the "elder brothers" language on the lips of every crypto-rabbi in Rome today. This is not consistent with the SSPX message which has it that the society intends to bring Rome to Tradition. These statements, if taken at face value, indicate a new synthesis produced by this recent "Holocaust" debacle sending the SSPX off its stated course considerably.

If the price of admission into dialog with Rome on the errors of the Vatican II Council is adopting Rome's strange language and ideas concerning the "elder brothers" it would seem to be a case of straining out a gnat while swallowing a camel in my estimation--not worth it; a deal the Archbishop would have scoffed at.

I warn that the rabbis would not be satisfied, nor do I believe that Rome would grant "full communion," until "Rabbi Larry" and his cronies are preaching Holocaustolatry in SSPX schools and seminaries as they already do in Novus Ordo schools and seminaries HERE. Apologies from "Holocaust deniers" (who the rabbis, madmen that they are, place on par with the perpetrators of "The Holocaust") are inconsequential. There is no forgiveness for them. The only acceptable reparation is that they be imprisoned, cast out, or otherwise silenced, but more importantly, that their followers subsequently be mindbombed with Holocaust dogma. Benedict's elder brother, Rabbi Arthur Schneier proclaimed as much at the Vatican last week:

"... how can we but revolt at Holocaust-denial? Victims of the Holocaust have not given us the right to forgive the perpetrators nor the Holocaust deniers ... we must transmit "never again" through Holocaust education to future generations ..."

Pope and Pharisees Preach More Holocaustolatry

A spokesperson for Yad Vashem has stated the same in response to Bishop Williamson's apology:

"The millions of Jews that were murdered in the Holocaust and the survivors who were persecuted are not waiting for [Bp. Williamson's] apology," said Iris Rosenberg, spokeswoman of the Yad Vashem Holocaust museum in Jerusalem. "If he is looking to repent, he needs to admit that he was wrong in denying the truth. This is much more important to the people he claims to lead."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090226/ap_on_re_eu/eu_italy_holocaust_denial

What is important to Yad Vashem is not an apology from Bishop Williamson, but conforming the minds of his followers to "Holocaust" dogma, and Yad Vashem has many accomplices in Rome who have already made "Holocaust" dogma standard curriculum in Novus Ordo Catholic schools and seminaries. A true traditional Catholic alternative to their kosher schools and seminaries is not acceptable to them.

Have no doubt, as the Vatican currently stands, this is what "full communion" entails.

My prayers are with the SSPX leadership. I cannot imagine the pressure that's upon them.

Footnote: Benedict stated, "violence committed against any one single human being is violence against all humanity. No man is an island, a well known poet once wrote." That poet is Anglican priest, John Donne who was steeped in the Pantheism, Hermeticism, and Kabbalism of the Renaissance, but the concept Benedict draws on is actually founded in Babylonian Talmud, tractate Sanhedrin 37a and applies only to "Jews:" "Whosoever destroys a single soul of Israel, scripture imputes [guilt] to him as if he had destroyed a complete world." Contrary to what Talmud suggests, this idea is not found in biblical Scripture.

Vatican, German Chancellor Win Temporary Pharisee Approval

"American" "Jewish" Committee operative and proud, self-proclaimed Pharisee, David Rosen, who was in 2005 knighted by Pope Benedict XVI, is very pleased with the measures taken by church and state in Europe in response to the heresy of "Holocaust" denial. Pharisaic praise is quickly withdrawn, however. This will last only until the next shameful act of treachery is demanded, which will, no doubt, happen soon enough.

AJC Welcomes Vatican Statement on Holocaust Denier Bishop

New York – February 4, 2009 – AJC has applauded today’s statement from the Vatican demanding that Bishop Richard Williamson “absolutely, unequivocally and publicly distance himself” from his advocacy of Holocaust denial.

Williamson, a conservative Bishop whose excommunication by the late Pope John Paul II was recently revoked by Pope Benedict XVI, has consistently denied the existence of the Nazi gas chambers. The Vatican’s statement demanding he recant these view follows a chorus of angry protest from both Jewish groups and non-Jewish groups.

"This is what we were asking for - an unequivocal repudiation of Williamson's odious opinions and all such forms of anti-Semitism," said Rabbi David Rosen, AJC's International Director of Interreligious Affairs. “This welcome statement, as well as the clear reiteration that the Society of Saint Pius X, to which Williamson belongs, will only be allowed back into the Church once it respects the historic reforms of the Second Vatican Council, demonstrates the Vatican’s continuing commitment to good relations with the Jewish community. Had all this been expressed at the outset, we could have avoided the unnecessary damage and distress.”

Rosen paid special tribute to the many religious and civic leaders who contributed to this satisfactory resolution, in particular German Chancellor Angela Merkel. Chancellor Merkel urged the Vatican to go further in its clear rejection of Holocaust denial and deniers. “We deeply appreciate Chancellor Merkel’s principled stance,” Rosen said. “Holocaust denial must never be tolerated or legitimized.”

Original

Coincidentally, Rabbi/Pharisee David Rosen was one of the signers of the joint Delegation of the Holy See's Commission for Religious Relations with the Jews /Chief Rabbinate of Israel document which falsely claims that the Talmudic "Noahide laws" have a biblical foundation.

I believe it's fair to ask whether this AJC rabbi emissary to the Vatican, David Rosen, has the same motivations as his predecessor, Rabbi Abraham Heschel. I have no doubt, but Rosen is far more slick than Heschel.

Another rabbi-Inquisitor of Holocaustolatry, Leon Klenicki was knighted by Benedict XVI in 2007. Rabbi Leon Klenicki, in addition to being an "Anti-Defamation" League operative, was a strong advocate of Rabbi Benamozegh's teachings on "Noahide" Churchianity.

Dear Reader, here are two Judaic power organization operatives, zealous rabbi/inquisitors against "Holocaust" denial, deceitful evangelists of the "Noahide laws," who also happen to have been knighted by Benedict XVI.

I ask people to consider whether "full communion" with Benedict XVI and his elder brother peddlers of the "Noahide" faith is something to be sought after by true followers of Jesus Christ and His Gospel teachings.