Archive for the ‘Bishop Fellay’ Category

SSPX Superior General Bishop Bernard Fellay’s False Prophetess

June 24, 2012
Fellay-expelled SSPX priest Fr. Basilio Meramo and Archbishop Lefebvre’s friend Max Barret report an episode, largely unknown in the English-speaking world, of SSPX Superior Bp. Fellay’s devotion to a false visionary introduced to him by Fr. Philippe Lovey,  the son of the Sion lawyer and SSPX benefactor Roger Lovey who reportedly persuaded the Archbishop to consecrate Fr. Bernard Fellay a bishop in 1988 which Lefebvre had not originally planned to do.

Reportedly, Bp. Fellay unreservedly endorsed this false mystic and based decisions and policy on her ‘prophesies’ which reportedly appealed to vanity, telling of a heroic role for him in Church history (coincidentally, the same technique employed by the Vatican on Fellay supporters).

The expose of Fellay’s false visionary was covered up by the Fellay administration.

From Fr. Meramo:

http://www.meramo.net/AmigosdeMeramo/Francais_files/AproposReponseFellay3Eveques.pdf

From Max Barret:

http://www.tychique.net/pdf/Courrier_N_417.pdf

also see:

SSPX Superior Bp. Fellay’s Lawyer/Business Partner’s Visit to Israeli Military Special Forces Base Documented

Maximilian Krah’s Handler, Oren Heiman Co-Chairs Zionist Organization with Former Head of Mossad, Meir Dagan

A Recap of Rome-SSPX ‘Dialogue’

Advertisements

Maximilian Krah’s Handler, Oren Heiman Co-Chairs Zionist Organization with Former Head of Mossad, Meir Dagan

June 15, 2012

This is a followup to yesterday’s posting, SSPX Superior Bp. Fellay’s Lawyer/Business Partner’s Visit to Israeli Military Special Forces Base Documented.

In that posting documentation shows that Bishop Fellay’s lawyer and business partner Maximilian Krah accepted the invitation of his friend Oren Heiman to visit a base of the “Maglan” special forces unit of the Israeli Military.

Oren Heiman is the U.S. Chairman of a Zionist organization, “Yesh Sikuy” (“Israel’s” Hope) of which the Executive Chairman is the former head of Mossad, Meir Dagan.

See the screenshots below. Bishop Fellay’s lawyer and business partner Maximilian Krah directly associated himself with this “Yesh Sikuy” organization by ‘liking’ it on ‘Facebook.’

http://sikuy.org.il/en/?page_id=7

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:snNTg8F3YVcJ:www.facebook.com/SikuyUSA%3Ffilter%3D3+&cd=4&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&client=firefox-a

This Week in Novus Ordo ‘Holocaust Denial’ Anathemas

May 18, 2012

“… 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 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

May 12, 2012

“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"

November 30, 2011
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

November 4, 2011
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

October 20, 2011

Bishop Williamson Contra Mundum

ANCESTRAL PRIDE, Eleison Comments • CCXXII (222)

October 15, 2011

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

October 13, 2011
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?

March 29, 2011

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