Showing posts with label SSPX. Show all posts
Showing posts with label SSPX. Show all posts

Friday, May 18, 2012

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

Friday, May 11, 2012

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  

Friday, May 4, 2012

Vatican 'Jew' Enforces Vatican II

This should be read in tandem with: Opus Pharisaei
"One must take this occasion to express the deep hope that leniency will be denied" to anyone who does not accept the [Second Vatican] council's teaching and "that there will be no being content with fake, quasi-adhesions accompanied by evident verbal and mental reservations to the teaching of the Second Vatican Council in general and to 'Nostra Aetate' in particular."

Last year we noted that the Israeli tribalist Fr. David Jaeger was installed as a prelate auditor of the Roman Rota, the highest court of the Catholic Church. We noted Jaeger's candid admission that at the Vatican court he would be as loyal to the people of Counterfeit Israel and the nation of Counterfeit Israel as any other Israeli working for a supranational body, mentioning the interesting example of Israelis working at the International Monetary Fund as a reference as to how his tribal loyalty would manifest itself as he works at the Vatican's highest court. We appreciate the candor because it reveals the farce of the court historian portrayal of the court 'Jew' as a turncoat and lays bare the previously well hidden reality.

Jaeger was a key figure in the Vatican's official recognition of Counterfeit Israel of 1993, a typically raw deal where the gangster state was afforded undeserved credibility by the venerable 2000 year-old Church institution and Catholics got nothing except spat upon. This can only last so long, however. Whatever residual credibility the Vatican may be coasting on presently that was not lost in the pedophilia scandal is being squandered entirely in the massive Zionist vortex of consumption.

Jaeger's suggestion that without Vatican II and Nostra Aetate 'The Jews' are in danger of annihilation by violent mobs of 'non-Jews' fueled by Christian theological hatred of 'Jews' is itself a form of hatred of the historical Church and the Christian people; a blood libel--always the double standard. And Jaeger's appeals to victimhood as he sits at the head of the Vatican's highest court inciting an inquisition against Catholics pushes chutzpah far beyond most previous wild examples.

Jeager's work, like that of the misnamed 'Opus Dei,' is the relativisation away of the the Church's past authoritative teachings and making an absolute out of a  document lobbied for by haters of the Church and the Gospel--Jules Isaac, B'nai B'rith, AJC, WJC, etc., etc,--and co-written by a rabbi who admitted that he wanted to attack Christians' souls.


Church should not accept members who deny Vatican II, official says

ROME (CNS) -- The Second Vatican Council's teaching, particularly on Judaism and other religions, is rooted in traditional Christian theology and the Bible, and the Catholic Church should not offer concessions to those who do not accept its teaching, said an Israeli-born Franciscan who serves as a judge on a top Vatican court.

Msgr. David Jaeger, a judge at the Roman Rota, defined as worrying a tendency, "here and there in Catholicism, to look leniently upon stray groups that are marginal but well-publicized who denounce the doctrine of the council, including the declaration 'Nostra Aetate'" on the relationship of the church to non-Christian religions.


Msgr. Jaeger, who grew up in a Jewish family, spoke about "Nostra Aetate" during a conference on the Second Vatican Council at Rome's Opus Dei-run Holy Cross University May 3-4.


"While often presented as if it were absolutely new," he said, the teaching of "Nostra Aetate" "perfectly corresponds to the most ancient intuitions of Christian theology" when it affirms "there can be, and in particular cases, are elements of truth and holiness" in other religions, he said. In addition, the document emphasized that Judaism [the religion which teaches Jesus got what he deserved at Calvary] has a special status, which "already was extensively explained by St. Paul, particularly in the Epistle to the Romans" [a ridiculous falsehood. St. Paul addresses a remnant of Israelites, not the Pharisaic religion of Judaism that revels in responsibility for Jesus' execution].


The council's document explained the church's "doctrine on Judaism, the only religion which, while not knowing Christ, has its origins in biblical revelation, which is why the church does not regard it simply as a 'non-Christian religion,' but ascribes to it a unique status," Msgr. Jaeger said [falsely. Judaism has its origins in the Pharisees and the Mishnah and their making the Bible of no effect].


While recognizing the unique and special relationship between God and the Jewish people, he said, the council did not say say that Judaism was a "parallel path to salvation" and it did not deny that somehow, in the end, all salvation would be accomplished through Christ.


Obviously motivated by the horrors of the Holocaust, but also by centuries of injustices and persecution of Jews "by those who called themselves Christians and believed they therefore could justify their brutality, the declaration took care to severely condemn such conduct and to highlight the complete illegitimacy of supporting it with any reference to Christianity," he said.


"The proof of Nostra Aetate's effectiveness is that it seems strange to have to say it today," the monsignor said.


However, he said, "One must take this occasion to express the deep hope that leniency will be denied" to anyone who does not accept the council's teaching and "that there will be no being content with fake, quasi-adhesions accompanied by evident verbal and mental reservations to the teaching of the Second Vatican Council in general and to 'Nostra Aetate' in particular."


"In fact," he said, "the extreme gravity of the counter-witness of those who have, for centuries, abused the name of Christ and the term Christian to persecute and oppress the Jews must never be forgotten or underestimated in any way."
http://www.catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/1201832.htm 
Also see:

Opus Pharisaei

Wednesday, April 18, 2012

The 'Christian' Nobleman/'Court-Jew' Relationship

These works linked to below offer invaluable documentation giving insight into the relationship between the 'Christian' nobility and their 'court Jews;' something quite different from what the term implies and what court historians would have us believe on the topic.

As we have documented elsewhere, Judaism is by its nature a ghetto religion, even in the best of times. And as these works document, the Judaic 'ghettos' of Catholic Europe were often centers of international trade and moneylending and the civil authorities were oftentimes at the Judaic moneylenders' service as enforcers for collection of debts from Christians. The temporally ambitious, knuckleheaded 'Christian' nobility tended to be fascinated by magic, Hermeticism, Kabbalah, gematria, astrology, etc., etc. which made them easy prey to the rabbis' confidence scams utilizing these vehicles; 'services' for which they were returned many favors contrary to the interests of the Christian population and the Gospel.


A Jew at the Medici Court


Jews and Magic in Medici Florence

These are invaluable resources generally, but may also come as an aid to those seeking to understand the direction of a certain contingent of traditionalists and the tradition they're attempting to resurrect.

Saturday, February 18, 2012

Fatima Rabbi Mayer Schiller's Skver Sect Teaches its Children to Hate 'Evil' Non-'Jews': "The entire essence of the gentile is evil and impure"

From Failed Messiah we have a translation of a text of the Skver [also spelled "Skvere"] Hasidic sect. Rabbi Mayer Schiller (who for decades has ingratiated himself with traditional Catholics and was even invited to speak at the SSPX seminary in Ridgefield Connecticut on numerous occasions) is a member and spokesperson for the Skver Hasidic sect. We have been warning against his cajolery for years to no notable effect. Mayer Schiller is featured in a Fatima video, "Heaven's Key to Peace" alongside traditional Catholicim's most respected pundits. Below are the master race teachings of hatred imparted to the youth of Rabbi Mayer Schiller's Skver Hasidic sect.

[Failed Messiah] Exclusive: Hate All Non-Jews, Skvere Rabbis Say


Yalkut Shaylos u'Teshuvot coverA recently published book written by a Skvere hasidic rabbi and endorsed by the Skvere Rebbe himself tells Skvere hasidim and other Jews to hate all gentiles. Gentiles are wholly evil, the book says. They spiritually pollute the world, and even looking at their faces is harmful.

The book is called Yalkut Shaiylos u'Teshuvos. As the title indicates, it is a collection of questions and answers on halakhic topics. The questions were asked by young Skvere yeshiva students in New Square, New York. The answers are rabbinic.

The section translated below is titled, "Goyyim" and it explains the Skvere hasidic view of non-Jews, citing among other sources, the Skvere Rebbe himself.

The anti-gentile hatred is based on rabbinic sources. Those sources are heavily influenced by kabbalah and by hasidic thought.

A similar attitude toward non-Jews can be found in the Tanya, the so-called bible of Chabad hasidic thought written by the first rebbe of Chabad, Schneur Zalman of Liadi, and reprinted thousands of times by Chabad worldwide.

The translation was made by the noted filmmaker Menachem Daum, who sent it to me along with the scans of the book posted below and requested that I post it.

All remarks in square brackets [ ] are Daum's. All remarks in these brackets { } are Failed Messiah's. All text within normal parenthesis ( ) are the book's author's.

Question:  Is it appropriate to not love, or to hate, a gentile?

Answer:  A Jew is intrinsically good.  A Jew is a part of God above.  Even if at times he strays it is not because he has become evil.  It is only that there is evil within him that he has to cleanse.

However, to separate with a million degrees of separation, a gentile is an impure thing.  The entire essence of the gentile is evil and impure.  Even if he occasionally does good deeds he does not thereby become good.  As the Holy Light of Life {i.e., the author of the book Ohr HaHayyim] says regarding gentiles, even such a one who is very careful in his actions does not obtain any degree of holiness thereby.

As is also well known, even educated gentiles who guarded themselves because of their clear understanding of what is right, nonetheless failed when they were tested, because a gentile has no power for goodness within him.

On the contrary, the evil thoughts of gentiles contaminate the world’s atmosphere and create ordeals for Jewish children. As the Remnant for Pinchos {i.e., the author of the book Sheairit L’Pinchas} says, the thoughts of gentiles, even when they are dead, still linger in and contaminate the atmosphere.

He says that to be protected from this there is only one solution; to completely despise the thoughts of gentiles and to realize that all their thoughts are only evil. (Hate doesn’t mean wanting to do something to a gentile, but it means not being able to tolerate him, not being able to stand him, because of his great impurity, especially when one realizes how harmful this {impurity} is {to Jews and to the world}.) Understandably, loving a gentile is the exact opposite of this.

The Holy Light of Life {i.e., the author of the book Ohr HaHayyim} says that for a person to be totally protected from evil he must hate the thing that has caused him to sin. This is why God commanded to uproot the trees of Midian. Since the Midianites caused the Jews to sin with the Peor idol, so therefore Jews must hate everything connected to Midian. Consequently, gentiles, whose thoughts bring upon us ordeals, may be hated.

So also the Holy Light of Life {i.e., the author of the book Ohr HaHayyim} writes, in the portion of Vayigash {in his book entitled Oh HaHayyim}, that the nature of the righteous ones is to hate gentiles.

Speaking of gentiles it is worth mentioning two points. First, with respect to conversing with a gentile: a gentile is impure, as we have mentioned, and he defiles one who speaks to him and this brings evil upon a person. (Except when one is forced to do so because then, as is explained by the Enlightener of the Eyes {i.e., the author of the book Me’or Eynayim}, we thereby extract the little bit of good which has fallen into the gentile, since everything in the world is a mixture of evil and good.)

Especially if one converses with friendship, because the texts tell us that when two people speak with affection then a portion of each one’s soul becomes connected to the other and no one wants to become connected to a gentile, God forbid.  (Understandably, when one must converse one must do so like a human being.  However, in his heart one should not love him.  And it is worth knowing that “it is a well-known law that Esau [the gentile] hates Jacob [the Jew].” The gentile hates you.  It is only because of his ulterior motives that he is talking in a friendly manner, because it is in his best interests to do so at this moment, because of his job or for tens of others reasons. Even the righteous gentiles among the nations are often so because they hate inhumanity and murder but not because they love Jews.)

The second point is; one is not to concentrate on the face of a gentile. As the Willows of the Valley {the author of the book Arvei Nahal} writes on the Talmudic passage, “it is forbidden to look upon the face of an evildoer”, because the other side [the devil] {the sitra achra} cloaks himself in the guise of an evildoer and it is a danger to look at him. This passage refers to a Jew who has, God forbid, become an evildoer. Certainly, beyond any doubt, a gentile whose whole nature is essentially evil, looking at his appearance is defiling.

In the Abbreviated Set Table {Kitzur Shulkhan Arukh} it states that if one sees beautiful creatures, even a gentile, one makes a blessing. The Abbreviated Set Table {Kitzur Shulkhan Arukh}adds this is only if one caught a casual glimpse, however concentrating on a gentile is forbidden.

Once, in middle of the night, The Perfumed Bed {the author of the book Arugot Haboshem} sent a messenger to his son, the Jacob Speaks {i.e., the author of the book Vayagid Yaakov}, requesting he should immediately come over. He quickly came running and the Perfumed Bed {the author of the book Arugot Haboshem} looked upon him and told him he can now leave. He only called upon him since a gentile doctor was there earlier and he didn’t want that the last thing he sees before he sleeps to be a gentile, so he called him only to take a look at him.

Our Honorable Holy Teacher, Our Master, Our Guide, Our Rebbe [of Skver], may he live a long and good life, repeated in the name of the Maharal that gentiles are referred to as “wicked waters” while Jews are akin to fire. Naturally, when fire and water mix the water extinguishes the fire. However, when there is an iron barrier between them, for example, water in a pot, then on the contrary, the fire cooks and evaporates the water.  Similarly, if one has connections to a gentile the gentile can, God forbid, extinguish the fire in the soul. However, if one is separated in all matters then the Jewish soul will triumph.Yalkut Shaylos u'Teshuvot cover
Yalkut Shaylos u'Teshuvos Skvere anti-gentile book from Menachem Daum 11-27-11 dedication
Yalkut Shaylos u'Teshuvos Skvere anti-gentile book from Menachem Daum 11-27-11 p1
Yalkut Shaylos u'Teshuvos Skvere anti-gentile book from Menachem Daum 11-27-11 p2
Yalkut Shaylos u'Teshuvos Skvere anti-gentile book from Menachem Daum 11-27-11 p3

Source:

http://failedmessiah.typepad.com/failed_messiahcom/2011/11/hate-non-jews-skvere-rabbis-say-234.html

Also see:

Rabbi Mayer Schiller and the Fatality of the American 'Right'

Russian Paper Prints Expose of Talmudic Basis of Israel


Bill Clinton's Curious New Square Four Pardon

[Longtime Friend of Rabbi Mayer Schiller] Chaim Berger, 79, a Founder Of Village of New Square [Dies]

Hasidim: [Burn Victim] Deserved What He Got

Monday, December 5, 2011

Opus Pharisaei

Msgr. Fernando Ocáriz, the Vicar General of Opus "Dei" (Opus Pharisaei, in truth) is one of Pope Benedict's representatives in the theological discussions that took place between the SSPX and Rome from 2009-2011. The day after we commented on Bp. Fellay's recent 'interview' and pointed to the discrepancy in Rome's allowance for discussion of Vatican II teachings while anathematizing discussion of 'The Holocaust,' a work of artifice from Msgr. Fernando Ocáriz was published in the Pope's journal, L'Osservatore Romano HERE.

This document contains a formula which amounts to relativistic tyranny:

The [Second Vatican] Council’s [innovative] doctrinal teachings require of the faithful a degree of assent called “religious submission of will and intellect”. Precisely because it is “religious” assent, such assent is not based purely on rational motives. This kind of adherence does not take the form of an act of faith. Rather, it is an act of obedience that is not merely disciplinary, but is well-rooted in our confidence in the divine assistance given to the Magisterium, and therefore “within the logic of faith and under the impulse of obedience to the faith" ...
... A number of innovations of a doctrinal nature are to be found in the documents of the Second Vatican Council ... These innovations in matters concerning faith or morals, not proposed with a definitive act, still require religious submission of intellect and will ...
I take this as an answer to Proud Pharisee David Rosen's self-interested insistence that Nostra Aetate and Lumen Gentium be considered "fundamental doctrines of the Church," and that it be impossible to question them "without challenging the authority of the church."

Those who know the religion of Judaism know what's going on here. The rabbis "don't listen to heavenly voices." They say, "the Torah is not in heaven." Their god says, "my sons have defeated me." Their god is mutable; nothing more than a totem the possession of which gives them absolute, tyrannical authority which they use to innovate and enforce doctrines as needed, or to destroy and blot out problematic doctrines.

Expect much more of this kind of relativisation of perennial Church teaching enforced by absolute authority (at the service of the rabbis) as long as religious relations with the rabbis continue. And play close attention to how that authority is selectively enforced.

Also see:

Benedict's "Hermeneutic of Continuity" and the Rabbinic "Genius"


Tuesday, November 29, 2011

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.

Thursday, November 3, 2011

DELINQUENT FINANCE I

SSPX Bishop Williamson

Eleison Comments - Number CCXXIV (224)

29 October 2011

DELINQUENT FINANCE I

The imminent collapse of global finance, and/or the advent of global finance on the way to global government which that collapse has been designed to bring on, should be making souls think : how did we get into this mess, and how do we get out of it ? If Almighty God has had no part to play in such a serious crisis, then obviously he is not serious but just a feel-good Sunday pastime. On the other hand if he is as important as once the builders of medieval cathedrals obviously thought, then neglecting him will have had a central part to play in today’s triumph of finance over reality.

Indeed one must go back to the Middle Ages to understand where today’s disaster has come from. As the Faith began to droop after the high Middle Ages, so men became more and more interested in Mammon, the other great motivator of their lives (Mt.VI, 24). Thus money, natured to be the servant of the exchange of real goods and services, was unhooked from nature to become modern finance, master of the global economy. A key step in this process, leading directly to today’s mountains of unpayable debt in all directions, enslaving the world to the visible bankers, or rather to their invisible controllers, was the post-medieval spread of fractional reserve banking.

When money serves the economy, a wise State will ensure that its total quantity in circulation goes up and down with the total quantity of real goods to be exchanged in that economy, so that its value will remain steady. Too much money chasing too few goods will mean its value drops by inflation. Too little money pursued by too many goods will mean its value rising, by deflation. Either way its changing value destabilizes all exchanging of goods. Now if banks, in which depositors deposit real money, need keep only a fraction of that real money in reserve to back a much larger quantity of paper money which they can put into circulation, then by putting too much or too little into circulation, they can play with the value of money and make fortunes by lending out cheap money and demanding back expensive money. Thus financiers can take over control from the State.

Worse, if fractional reserve banking enables banks to disconnect money from reality and fabricate it at will, and if they can charge even slight compound interest on their funny money, then logically they can – and do ! – suck all real value out of an economy, reducing most depositors to borrowers and most borrowers to hopeless debt-slaves, or mortgage-slaves., taking care only not to kill off completely the goose laying the golden eggs for their benefit. The divinely inspired wisdom of the law-giver Moses was to put brakes on all lenders’ power by cancelling all debts every seven years (Deut.XV,1-2), and by restoring all property to its original owners every 50 years (Levit.XV, 10)!

And why did Moses, great man of God and therefore man of deep “spirituality”, concern himself with such materialistic questions ? Because as bad economics can turn men to despair, towards Hell, away from God – look around you, today and above all tomorrow – so good economics make possible a wise prosperity which in no way worships Mammon, but makes it rather easier to trust in the goodness of God and to worship and love him. Man is soul and body.

Moses would surely have smashed fractional reserve banking, like he smashed the Golden Calf !

Kyrie eleison.

http://www.dinoscopus.org

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

Thursday, October 20, 2011

Bishop Williamson Contra Mundum

Bishop Williamson Contra Mundum

Wednesday, October 19, 2011

Rabbis Demand Papal Condemnation of Bishop Richard Williamson's Preaching of the Gospel

[The Pope] must clearly show that there is no room in the Catholic Church for purveyors of hate.

Translation: "We rabbis hate Jesus Christ and bishops who uphold the plain teaching of his Gospel. We will not bloody our hands in destroying these figures we hate. We demand that some third party do our dirty work. This is the tradition of our Pharisaic ancestors which we uphold. The Gospel warns the Goyim of this method of ours so we must destroy it, or at least make it impossible for its plain teaching to be understood. But among ourselves we revel in our vengeance against Jesus and all those we hate. We will continue to use this method, and others until our hate is completely unopposed."

Enough from these hypocritical commissars of hate! We also ask, when will the Pope condemn their Talmudic hatred and lies? The Pope should support Bp. Williamson's preaching of the Gospel.
Pope called on to condemn bishop’s new anti-Semitic slur

October 19, 2011

BERLIN (JTA) -- A group of European rabbis has called on the pope to condemn the latest anti-Semitic remarks by a Holocaust-denying Catholic bishop.

The Brussels-based Conference of European Rabbis slammed comments by Catholic Bishop Richard Williamson in which he allegedly blamed Jews for deicide. Williamson, a member of the radical Catholic Pius Brotherhood sect, reportedly made the comments in the latest issue of his newsletter, “The Eleison Comments." He has been living in London ...

[Conference of European Rabbis President, Chief Rabbi Pinchas] Goldschmidt called for the Church to "suspend negotiations with extremist Catholic tendencies until it is clear that these groups show a clear commitment to tackling anti-Semitism within their ranks."

In his newsletter, Williamson wrote that “only the Jews were the primary agents of the deicide because Pontius Pilate would never have condemned Jesus if the Jews had not asked for blood.”

Williamson was found guilty of Holocaust denial in Germany in 2010 and fined about $14,000. He has previously denied the existence of gas chambers and the murder of 6 million Jews during the Holocaust.

In 2009, Pope Benedict XVI lifted the excommunication against Williamson, but the Vatican also reportedly declared that "in order to be admitted to episcopal functions within the Church, (he) will have to take his distance, in an absolutely unequivocal and public fashion, from his position on the Shoah, which the Holy Father was not aware of when the excommunication was lifted."

During meetings with Pope Benedict in Berlin last month, German Jewish leader Dieter Graumann said that one of the issues that troubled Jewish-Catholic relations was the Church's refusal to condemn Williamson.

In his statement Wednesday, Goldschmidt said the pope "has shown a commitment to fostering a spirit of positive dialogue with Jews both before and during his papacy. But he must clearly show that there is no room in the Catholic Church for purveyors of hate."

Full article:

http://www.jta.org/news/article/2011/10/19/3089896/controversial-catholic-bishop-makes-new-anti-semitic-remarks

Saturday, October 15, 2011

ANCESTRAL PRIDE, Eleison Comments • CCXXII (222)

Please see:

ANCESTRAL PRIDE

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

Thursday, October 13, 2011

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.

Monday, March 28, 2011

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








Wednesday, January 26, 2011

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.

Tuesday, December 21, 2010

A Christmas meditation by Bishop Richard Williamson

Bp. Williamson's message and its timing calls to mind the practical wisdom in Frank Capra's film, It's a Wonderful Life. It seems a fitting time to juxtapose the celebration of the Incarnation of the benevolent, self-sacrificing God of all creation against the god of this world who destroys men's souls through temptations of temporal gain.

From the time that Jesus cleared the money changers from the Temple of Jerusalem until not too long ago, suspicion of money men was characteristic of Christian culture. But 17 years before the Hollywood(!) release of It's a Wonderful Life, the Vatican had brought in Bernardino Nogara to manage its finances in 1929 on his condition that he would not be restricted in any way by Church teaching. This was only an echo of the Renaissance Vatican's use of Judaic bankers unrestricted by Church teaching and permitted by Orthodox Judaism to employ predatory economics. And it seems this tradition from the supposedly utopian pre-Vatican II era is upheld by traditionalist Bishop, Bernard Fellay of the SSPX, all much to the detriment of the Gospel of the Lord who execrated mammonism.

There's a scene in It's a Wonderful Life which imparts a lesson of great value. With the Bailey Building and Loan Association near collapse, George Bailey visits the town moneylender and slumlord, Henry Potter who makes a proposition. Potter offers George Bailey an 'opportunity' to work for him in exchange for a large salary, the biggest house in town, business trips to New York and Europe with a three year contract. The Bailey Building and Loan Association--the only obstacle to Potter controlling the entire town--would, of course, be allowed to collapse and its shareholders would become victims to Potter. At this realization George Bailey, a man of responsibility and self-sacrifice only momentarily cajoled by Potter's temptation, rejects the offer in disgust.

It's not said explicitly what would happen at the end of the three year contract proposed to George Bailey, if the contract was even honored, but the rest of the story makes clear that if the Bailey Building and Loan was broken, and Potter's control of the town was consolidated, the best George Bailey might hope for would be to assist Potter in the predation on the people he once defended from it--for a pittance.

One can't help but see how this once commonplace wisdom was lost to the Irish who recently squandered their birthright for a few years of illusionary prosperity. But this is only a stark example of the same story being played out throughout Europe and the world. When the house of prayer becomes a den of thieves it can only follow by necessity that the rest of society will be taken by the same thieves.

See:

A Christmas meditation by Bishop Richard Williamson

Thursday, December 2, 2010

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

Monday, November 29, 2010

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

Sunday, November 28, 2010

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.

Thursday, November 18, 2010

Rabbi Mayer Schiller and the Fatality of the American 'Right'

Hasidim take great pride in the ability to trick and cajole "the goyim." However, I suspect that some of the names listed below are somewhat aware of this fact and go along with the charade anyway bargaining that rabbinic association might afford them cover from the "anti-semite" bludgeon. Whatever little benefit they may receive is far outweighed by the confusion and misdirection suffered by their followers and undeserved prestige accrued to Talmud, Kabbalah and Khazar "Jews" among people who should know better.

Rabbi Mayer Schiller belongs to the Skver Hasidic sect in Rockland County, NY which was convicted in 1999 of defrauding federal government programs out of $30 million dollars that were then used to run Skver institutions. The Hasidic community of Rockland County, NY is legendary for fraud and sex abuse. Rabbi Schiller teaches advanced Talmud studies at Marsha Stern Talmudical Academy at Yeshiva University.

Rabbi Mayer Schiller On The Future Of The American Right

By Eugene Girin - November 18, 2010

On Columbus Day (not yet totally banned by the Thought Police as "oppressive" and "Eurocentric") I had the privilege of attending a talk by my friend and mentor Rabbi Mayer Schiller. The Rabbi is one of the leading Jewish racial realists and a leading traditionalist luminary—especially striking given that his formal secular education ended after eighth grade He spoke to a small conservative group in Manhattan about his intellectual journey through the post-war American Right. (Interested readers are welcome to email me for more detailed information about this group).

Rabbi Schiller grew up in a Brooklyn-Queens liberal Jewish family. He remembered attending international soccer games with his grandfather who refused to stand for the anthems of Franco’s Spain and Salazar’s Portugal, but sang along to "The Internationale"—the communist hymn that was then Yugoslavia’s anthem. Like many other American Jews at that time, the Rabbi’s grandfather did not see a contradiction between his pro-communist views and the fact that he was a successful businessman who would be either imprisoned or executed under the Reds.

Rabbi Schiller says he became a conservative at the age of ten after watching a documentary about Sen. Robert Taft. His views were further developed by Goldwater’s The Conscience of a Conservative); (Rabbi Schiller later wrote The (Guilty) Conscience of a Conservative) National Review (which at that time was race-realist and opposed integration); and the John Birch Society’s American Opinion. The young Craig Schiller, as the Rabbi was known during his secular days, greeted Goldwater’s 1964 campaign with jubilant euphoria.

He was crushed when Goldwater lost—and later when, as he puts it, William F. Buckley "decided to sell out and dropped all his principles".

At this time, Rabbi Schiller became a part of the Skver Hassidic movement in Rockland County, after he and his middle school classmates had decided to try living as observant Jews for a month.

Another major transformation occurred in the Rabbi’s life at around the same time: he discovered L. Brent Bozell Jr.’s traditionalist Catholic magazine Triumph, which featured authors like Thomas Molnar and Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn. He realized that traditional religious beliefs are an integral part of real conservatism. The Rabbi was so taken by Bozell and Triumph that he approached Patricia Buckley Bozell and offered to write a biography of her late husband.

Triumph writer Thomas Molnar (who passed away this July), a prolific author and a professor at Brooklyn College, Yale, and University of Budapest, was both a friend and a mentor ("a rebbe") to Rabbi Schiller. The Rabbi was a young rabbinical student when he read Molnar’s seminal The Counter-Revolution and came down to Manhattan to meet him. When the Rabbi started talking about the Constitution, Molnar cut him off with the first of many witty remarks in his charming Hungarian accent: "The Constitution? Look around you, what do these Puerto Ricans care about the Constitution?"

The Rabbi remembers Molnar as a brilliant, yet realistic Catholic reactionary who considered the words "democracy" and "capitalism" to be obscenities and ridiculed Pope John Paul II for sounding like "a southern California health store owner: it’s all about love and peace! What about Heaven and Hell?"

Molnar derided The National Review as an "empty, soulless, and faceless publication" and had no respect for the neocons.

Like other traditionalist thinkers, Molnar did not have much hope for the West. To Molnar, non-Western mass immigration was a symptom, not a cause of the West’s decline. The real problem was that the West lost its will to live. When Rabbi Schiller visited South Africa in the last months of white rule to encourage Afrikaner nationalists and demonstrate his support for them, Molnar replied: "You must encourage them to do only one thing—run away!"

Interestingly, the neocons and the ADL/$PLC thought police never bothered Molnar. Rabbi Schiller says he was too far above their level of discussion—chickens do not fly high enough to attack an eagle.

Rabbi Schiller’s affinity for traditionalist Catholicism led him to establish a warm relationship with the anti-Vatican II Society of St. Pius X (SSPX). The SSPX seminary in Ridgefield, CT invited Rabbi Schiller to speak to their seminarians on numerous occasions. And every time, the Rabbi reports, he was received with the utmost courtesy and respect. Once, a seminarian even addressed Rabbi Schiller as "Father". The seminarians held the Rabbi in such high regard that, before Archbishop Lefebvre was to consecrate several SSPX priests as bishops in defiance of Rome, they sought out the Rabbi to ask his opinion on the matter.

The late Joe Sobran was another pious Catholic friend of Rabbi Schiller. The Rabbi remembers Joe as a kind, sweet, and humble man who was a brilliant analyst yet managed to be very funny in his prose. Unlike Molnar and Rabbi Schiller, Sobran still believed in political activism. But Rabbi Schiller recognized, like others, that Joe Sobran’s heart and mind were engaged by questions of immigration and race.

With regards to Sobran’s views on the Jews and Israel, the Rabbi believes that Sobran’s criticism of the former only arose as a result of Buckley’s and the neocons’ hysterical reaction to his criticism of the latter. Sobran was shocked and hurt by the neocons’ attack on him when he dared to question the special relationship between America and Israel. This attack led to his progressively more outspoken criticism of Israel and the Jewish role in America.

In contrast to more critical obituaries, Rabbi Schiller says he will always remember his recently departed friend as a "disheveled intellectual who had a heart overflowing with love." Rabbi Schiller’s glowing endorsement is displayed prominently on Sobran’s publisher’s website.

Jean Raspail’s novel The Camp of the Saints was another major influence on Rabbi Schiller. At the Manhattan meeting, the Rabbi talked about how Raspail’s book underlined the fact that we have a common European identity, which includes such things as "the sense of critical thought, romance, heroism, individual integrity, and the spirituality of life". All of these were shaped by Greece, Rome, Judaism, Christianity, and the Norse lands.

Nowadays, the Rabbi commented, any sort of defense or even "public concern with the fate of European civilization is open to attacks from the thought police".

Like Thomas Molnar, Rabbi Mayer Schiller believes that there is no hope for Western man because he "had his soul torn out" and "internalized the terror" to such a degree that he is not only afraid to speak in defense of his civilization, but is even afraid to think pro-Western, politically incorrect thoughts.

As for the nationalist parties in Europe, the Rabbi does not have much hope for two reasons.

* First, as soon as a nationalist party will get above 10-15 % of the vote, the repressive apparatus of the EU will kick in and shut it down. (Indeed, this has already happened with Belgium’s Vlaams Blok and appears about to happen to the British National Party).
* Second, nationalist movements are very susceptible to fragmentation and internal squabbles. This tragic fragmentation is due to the fact that "movements that are out of power and have little hope of achieving it are forever substituting internal feuds for the reality of real power".

The Rabbi says witnessed this firsthand during the split of the National Front in Britain in the 1980s. He is still friends with former National Front leaders Patrick Harrington and David Kerr, whom he says have demonstrated a sense of sympathy towards the Jewish people.

On several occasions, the Rabbi visited Ulster where he attended the Twelfth Of July Unionist parade ("the last legitimate folk festival in the West and the only one without corporate sponsorship") and met with Reverend Ian Paisley. The Rabbi jokes that his affinity for both traditionalist Catholicism and Ulster unionism presents a big dilemma during Celtic-Rangers soccer games.

But all is not lost for the West. The Rabbi said that "the doctrine of multiculturalism and political correctness is so insane and against reality that it has to be enforced by terror". Therefore, the Rabbi asserted that, even when Western societies collapse after a long period of cultural and economic decline, there will still be remnants of religious Jews and Christians, as well as social traditionalists who will preserve Western civilization and values.

Rabbi Schiller urged the meeting to create "islands of sanity" similar to those envisioned by the French New Right, an important on influence on Rabbi Schiller’s thought, and carry the Western realm forth in our communities, homes, and hearts.

The last part of Rabbi Schiller’s speech dealt with the Jews and their relationship with the West. The Rabbi blames large-scale secular Jewish participation in the Left on the fact that when European Jews entered political life in the late 1800s, it was the Left that argued for emancipation. Therefore, secular Jews were trained for over a hundred years, to view those who had an "organic understanding and attachment to the Western realm" as a threat.

On the other hand, Orthodox Jews largely abide by a tribal morality. For most modern Orthodox Jews, this means that "it is all about Israel and support for Israel" and for most traditional Orthodox Jews, engagement with the outside world is only done to obtain benefits (government and otherwise) for their communities.

full article:

http://vdare.com/girin/101118_schiller.htm

Also see:

Ferrara's Rabbi Sponsor

Traditional Catholics and Traditional Rabbis mix White with Black

Rabbis Available for Traditional Catholic Lectures, Videos, etc.

Popular Posts