Pharisees • “Conspiracy theory,” “internet back-biting,” or SSPX gaslighting?

The problem is not the many good SSPX priests, but the “fish rotting from the head.”


Judeo-Zionist influence!


Of course, Lucifer and his Chosen would not leave any practicing Catholics unmolested.


An avowed Zionist, Maximilian Krah, became influential in SSPX financial matters.



Who said anything about money?


The Rothschild-Gutmann Money Behind the SSPX Kosher Imperative https://web.archive.org/web/20220816081026/https://mauricepinay.blogspot.com/2012/11/the-rothschild-gutmann-money-behind.html


A just and succinct summary of some complex issues

The New Society of Saint Pius X

by Paul B Mann, July 29 2018



As We Are? 101 Compromises, Changes, and Contradictions of an SSPX: in Pursuit of a Practical Accord with Modernist Rome

by Sean Johnson

Price: $25.00



The official explanation of recent developments between Rome and the Society of St. Pius X (which has brought the SSPX for all intents and purposes to a practical recognition by the Vatican in every way except on paper), is that the ultra-liberal Pope Francis — precisely because he is so liberal, rather than being anti-traditional, so the story goes — has, of his great munificence and concern for those “on the periphery” of the Church, extended multiple concessions, rights, privileges, and jurisdiction to the SSPX unilaterally and without any demands for reciprocity or compromise on the part of the Society. For its part, the SSPX has sold that narrative to its own clergy and faithful, and argued that it has not deviated from the positions of Archbishop Lefebvre, or made one single compromise in pursuit of a canonical recognition from Rome.


This book by Sean Johnson, however, tells quite a different story: Relying primarily upon approved and extensively documented SSPX sources, the author makes a convincing argument for a unified, drastic and comprehensive change in SSPX policies and principles, which have won these concessions from Rome precisely because it has departed from the positions of Archbishop Lefebvre; that it is no longer a matter of (as Bishop Fellay once said) Rome accepting us “as we are,” but rather, “as the SSPX has become.” 398 pages. Paperback.



Many Catholic authors have pointed out that the myriad of changes in the Novus Ordo Missae have a cohesion which all tends in the same direction (being more acceptable to the modern world in general and Protestants in particular, downplaying the sacrificial nature of the Mass, centering the Mass on man rather than God, etc.) Likewise, these recent changes in the SSPX under Bishop Fellay (and his successor) all tend in the same direction: an acceptance of Vatican II and the Conciliar Church which embodies the ideals, errors, and the de facto new religion started by the infamous Council.


Change is a fact of life in this world, in which time flows without ceasing and leaves nothing untouched. However, the changes catalogued in this book are not benign, minor, or random. There is a consistent and distinct pattern to the changes, which the wise can draw out and form a clear “big picture” of what is going on.


With many truths in this world, the best one can hope for is to gather many clues (even hundreds or thousands of data points) and discover that they tell a clear story when taken together. Not everything is video taped, and men working together in secret for various ends can be very careful and clever in how they cover their tracks. Those who work evil tend to prefer darkness, not the light of day — much less the harsh glare of a video camera’s lighting as it records and documents their evil deeds. The SSPX Superior Generals (Bishop Fellay and Fr. Davide Pagliarani) and other SSPX leaders are shrewd politicians.


We must not be naive, waiting for video evidence of the SSPX Superior General with his hand in the cookie jar. Though the deed was done and the SSPX is guilty, nevertheless a concise, 1-minute soundbite-friendly proof (such as video evidence) probably doesn't exist. That doesn't mean we can’t arrive at the truth; it just means we're going to have to do some research and put together many pieces of evidence for ourselves. A multitude of known, proven facts — the contents of this book — tied together by reason, logic, and common sense, is just as good and extremely powerful.


Neither can we wait until a formal deal is signed. The SSPX and Rome may never intend to publicly sign any piece of parchment amid much fanfare and media frenzy. Instead, they seem to have adopted an incremental approach, with Rome approving pieces of the SSPX apostolate one at a time: confessions, marriages, Masses, etc., while the SSPX lays down its arms in a similar fashion. It’s a classic case of death by a thousand cuts as well as frog boiling.


Sean Johnson has done the hard work to gather and present all the changes in the SSPX. An impartial reader will discern the clear pattern, and reach the inevitable conclusion that the SSPX leadership (at least) intends to completely surrender to the Conciliar Church in exchange for official Roman recognition.





“The book which you have in your hands is a useful collection of documents and quotes to prove how the Society of St. Pius X has changed from what it once was under Archbishop Lefebvre to what it has become under the Archbishop's successors at the head of the Society.” - Bishop Richard Williamson


‘The parallels between Vatican II and the recent happenings within the Society of St Pius X are so striking that these happenings could be called Vatican IIB.” - Bishop Richard Williamson


“Mr. Johnson's book will help Catholics understand how Archbishop Lefebvre’s positions have been corrupted by his successors: ‘because they receive not the love of the truth, that they might be saved. Therefore, God shall send them the operation of error, to believe lying.’” - Bishop Gerardo Zendejas


“Sean Johnson's catalog puts the lie to those who say nothing is happening. The sell-out is documented here for all who want to know. All priests in the SSPX and all of the faithful assisting at Mass in SSPX chapels and all the religious affiliated with the SSPX should read this catalog.” - Fr. Edward MacDonald


“I urge anyone still attending the SSPX to take an afternoon to slowly make it through the book . Some posts are more important than others and some may be argued. However, when taken as a whole, any honest thinking person who has attended the SSPX for more than ten years will have to admit that there has been a drastic change in policy.” - Traditional Catholic Musings


more gaslighting


The SSPX opposes sedevacantism. In its opposition, the SSPX has spotlighted a fraudulent source,  A Little Catechism on Sedevacantism,  archived from the SSPX website here. The fraudulent evidence adduced by the SSPX against sedevacantism is meticulously deconstructed here:


A manifestly heretic pope and the deception of an adulterated sources: A little Catechism on Sedevacantism* https://web.archive.org/web/20171115180547/http://catholicsinireland.ie/catholic-teaching-1/sedevacantism/deception-in-sspx-s-anti-sedevacantism-catechism/






This testimony is true. Wherefore rebuke them sharply, that they may be sound in the faith;  Not giving heed to Jewish fables and commandments of men, who turn themselves away from the truth.

Titus 1:13-14


the indictment


In a 2008 interview for Jewish-owned Swedish National Television, His Excellency Bishop Richard Williamson stated incontrovertible historical truths about “the holocaust.” His Superior General Bishop Bernard Fellay did not defend him, but instead sacked Bp. Williamson, threw him to the ravening Jewish wolves, and sanitized SSPX publications and websites to the dictates and fables of the Synagogue.




  • June 30, 1988, Due to exigent circumstances, the Crisis in the post-Vatican 2 Church, Abp Marcel Lefevbre, SSPX and Bishop Antonio Castro de Mayer consecrated four bishops in Econe, Switzerland without a canonical papal mandate from Karol Wojtyla, “John Paul II”: Bernard Fellay, Bernard Tissier de Mallerais, Alfonso de Galaretta, and Richard Williamson.

  • July 1, 1988, One day after the illicit consecrations, Cardinal Bernardin Gantin, the then head of the Congregation of Bishops in Rome, announced that all six men had incurred excommunication latae sententiae, the penalty laid down in the revised Code of Canon Law, Canon 1382, for directly participating in an episcopal consecration in the absence of a papal mandate.

  • March 25, 1991, Abp. Lefevbre died.

  • November 1, 2008, Bp. Richard Williamson was interviewed by Ali Fegan and his staff for “Uppdrag granskning” (“Mission Examination”), a television show on Jewish-owned Swedish National TV. In the interview, Bp. Williamson stated measured and incontrovertible truth:

    “It is my understanding that according to the best scientific estimates, 200,000 to 300,000 Jews died in National Socialist concentration camps, but none of them in homicidal gas chambers.…I believe that the historical evidence is hugely against 6 million Jews having been deliberately gassed in gas chambers as a deliberate policy of Adolf Hitler. I believe there were no gas chambers.”

    That same month, Bishop Fellay led a pilgrimage to Lourdes, during which he asked the faithful to pray the Rosary to have the 1988 excommunications lifted.

  • January 21, 2009, Josef Ratzinger, “Benedict XVI,” signed a letter announcing that he intended to lift the excommunications imposed on the bishops.

  • January 22, 2009, Within minutes of the internet-leaked announcement that the excommunications of the four bishops were to be lifted, reports that Bishop Williamson was a “Holocaust denier” began circulating on the web as well. These reports referred to the November 1, 2008 interview that were broadcast the following day on Swedish TV, timing consistent with reports that Jewish-owned Swedish National Television had been lobbying to displace the SSPX from Sweden and disrupt the lifting of the excommunications.

  • January 23, 2009, One day before the announcement was officially promulgated, the ADL issued a press release whose intent, to thwart the lifting of the excommunications, was clear from their headline: “ADL to Vatican: Do Not Rehabilitate Holocaust Denier Bishop.” In the ensuing weeks, numerous other Jewish pressure groups piled on.

  • January 24, 2009,  The Vatican released the letter lifting the excommunications.
    When the first January 23 ADL press release failed to derail the lifting of the excommunications, the ADL followed up one day later with another press release:  “ADL disappointed in Pope’s Decision to Rehabilitate Holocaust Denier Bishop.” In the second ADL press release on the Williamson incident, Abe Foxman claimed that Benedict’s decision to lift the excommunications “undermines the strong relationship between Catholics and Jews that flourished under Pope John Paul II and which Benedict said he would continue when he came into his papacy.”  Foxman then mentioned Vatican 2 and “the centuries-long history of anti-Semitism in the Church,” which Vatican 2 was supposed to redress, claiming that Pope Benedict’s action was “a most troubling setback.”

  • January 27, 2009, Bishop Bernard Fellay, then Superior General of the Society of St. Pius X, joined the Vatican’s efforts to placate the Jews when he announced that Bishop Williamson had been silenced: “Our Society claims no authority over historical or other secular matters.” As noted by Dr. E. Michael Jones in the article referenced below, “If so, then it was not clear why the Society was silencing him, since what Williamson said could not be construed as heretical or contrary to faith or morals.”

  • January 28, 2009, Bishop Williamson issued an apology for “distress and problems” and the “tremendous media storm stirred up by imprudent remarks of mine on Swedish television.” Of course, Bp. Williamson did not recant his truthful recitation of World War 2 history.

  • February 4, 2009, The Vatican ordered Williamson to “distance himself” from his views “in an absolutely unequivocal and public manner.” Williamson however still refused to recant the truth. In an interview with Der Spiegel, Williamson said:

    “Throughout my life, I have always sought the truth. That is why I converted to Catholicism and became a priest. And now I can only say something, the truth of which I am convinced. Because I realize that there are many honest and intelligent people who think differently, I must now review the historical evidence once again. I said the same thing in my interview with Swedish television: Historical evidence is at issue, not emotions. And if I find this evidence, I will correct myself. But that will take time.”

  • February 9, 2009, Jewish leaders advised the Pope that “denying the Shoah was not an opinion but a crime” as indeed any questioning of the received Jewish narraive, no matter how absurd the Jewish claim, has been criminalized in over a dozen “developed” nations.

  • 2010, Bp. Williamson was convicted of “Holocaust denial” by the Regensburg Regional Court and fined €10,000. His Excellency appealed the conviction.

  • 2011, Bp. Williamson was convicted on appeal to the original court, his fine reduced to €6,500, and his conviction appealed to a higher court, the Provincial Court in Nuremberg. Three judges dismissed the case on procedural grounds, obliging the Bavarian State to pay Bp. Williamson’s legal expenses, but also left the lower court free to correct its procedural errors and re-prosecute.

  • January 16, 2012, Bp. Williamson was prosecuted a third time, re-convicted, fined €1,600, and his conviction re-appealed.
  • April 7, 2012 Letter of Bps. Tissier de Mallerais, Williamson, and de Galerreta to SSPX Superior General Bp. Fellay, wherein Their Excellencies objected to an accord with Modernist Rome: original (French), English translation

  • April 14, 2012, Letter of Bp. Fellay responding to the Bishops wherein His Excellency rejcted the bishops concerns and accused them of “lacking both in supernatural spirit and in realism”: original (French). English translation https://www.riposte-catholique.fr/archives/.T62R3J_SpEy

  • October 2012, Bp. Fellay expelled Bp. Williamson from the SSPX.


extracted from:


L’affaire Williamson: The Church and Holocaust Denial

by Dr. E. Michael Jones, Culrture Wars, March 07, 2009



The Case of Bishop Williamson

By Richard A. Widmann, CODOH(Committee for Open Debate on the Holocaust), February 14, 2009



Leaked SSPX letters reveal internal discord over Vatican negotiations

Catholic News Agency,



The fourth German showtrial against Bishop Richard Williamson

By H.E. Bp. Richard Williamson



Pope Pius XII and Bishop Williamson vs. Elie Wiesel and the Holocaust Fundamentalists: Whom Do You Believe?

An Open Letter to the Editors of the "Georgia Bulletin", the "Weekly Newspaper of the Catholic Archdiocese of Atlanta" and to the Most Reverend Wilton D. Gregory, Archbishop of Atlanta

By David O'Connell***


***Professor O'Connell has had his own problems fighting Jewish fables (Titus 1:13-14). Prof. O’Connell published a well-documented study of Elie Wiesel's lies: Elie Wiesel and the Catholics by Prof. David O’Connell, Culture Wars, November 2004,

For his effort, the Holocaust Fundamentalists attempted to have him fired from his professorship.



Crisis in the SSPX






Judaizing • a Zionist wolf in the flock • The SSPX's “Saint of the Sanhedrin”


The SSPX was orthodox in its theology on talmudic Judaism and sensible in conveying the history of Jewish-Catholic relations until then-SSPX Superior General Bp. Bernard Fellay’s fratricidal expulsion of Bp. Richard Williamson for factually indicting the malign influence of Jews and Jewish falsehoods regarding “the Holocaust.” Subsequent to Bp. Williamson’s expulsion, SSPX websites and bookstores were expunged of such orthodox teaching (for example, the article preserved here) and Bp. Fellay adopted the modernist Judaizing jargon “our elder brothers.”


An avowed Zionist, Maximilian Krah, became influential in SSPX financial matters.



Who said anything about money?



In its December 2009 issue of its house organ, Angelus,  the SSPX published “Saint of the Sanhedrin” (pp. 29-34), a Judaized essay by Scott Montgomery. The SSPX still touts the article: http://www.angelusonline.org/index.php?section=articles&subsection=show_article&article_id=2881


The criticism of the article and the editor’s snarky non-response are revealing of the smug clericalism and abject Judaizing that have poisoned the once-great and holy SSPX.



Text of Michael Hoffman’s first rebuttal to “Saint of the Sanhedrin”:




Fr. Markus Heggenberger

Editor, The Angelus

2915 Forest Avenue

Kansas City, MO 64109


January 26, 2010


Dear Fr. Heggenberger


In the December, 2009, Angelus you published an article by Mr. Scott Montgomery, “Saint of the Sanhedrin” (pp. 29-34). Do you have a policy in place for fact-checking assertions made in the Angelus by authors you publish? I did not see any evidence of fact-checking by Mr. Montgomery’s editor in the article in question.


This article contains very serious errors and its tenor is one with the judaizing absurdities of Pope John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI. On the strength of one erroneous and insupportable statement in the 1912 Catholic Encyclopedia (“It was the method of the school of Shammai rather than that of Hillel which Christ condemned”), Mr. Montgomery spins a tale remarkably consonant with the teaching of Orthodox Judaism concerning Hillel the Pharisee.


Mr. Montgomery goes so far as to impart the following fabulous enormity concerning Hillel: “...he served as an instrument of Heaven.”


Judaism in projecting its public image, like The Angelus, projects the face of Hillel the merciful, though he was by no means as kind, just, sweet, compassionate, decent and virtuous as the legends portray him. In its actual practice and beliefs, Judaism combines characteristics of both Hillel and Shammai who form one of the exegetical early zugot or "pairs," and as a pair they reflect a central unity on those key dogmas which will brook no dissent. Here is an instructive indication of the rabbinic mentality as symbolized by the figure of Hillel: "Hillel is described as a man of great humility who in his pursuit of peace was even prepared to depart from the truth (Bezah 20a)."


Hillel is a symbol of the deceit which Judaism regards as necessary to advancing its power: for the sake of an ulterior motive the preeminent Pharisee departs from the truth. With this in mind, how should we regard the statement that Hillel reduced the entire Oral Law to the clean and simple crystalline lines of one requirement? "To a heathen who came to him to be converted on condition that he teach him the entire Torah 'while standing on one foot,' Hillel replied, 'What is hateful to you, do not unto your neighbor, this is the entire Torah, all the rest is commentary."


But this is a Big Lie. Judaism's thousands of laws and rules binding on Judaics are not "commentary," they are halacha and the failure to keep them can result in calamities ranging from birth defects and death in childbirth, to the delaying of the coming of the Moshiach (Messiah) and the imposition of the "iron fist of gentile oppression." If the golden rule, as embodied by Hillel was the chief law of Judaism from which all other rabbinic laws flowed, and all the rest of Judaism's positive and negative laws "constituted mere commentary," the min and the apikorsim would not be beaten and killed, and their books would not be banned, hanged and burned. Since "our neighbor" does not want these things done unto him, if this were Judaism's rule of law, the rabbis would not visit these things upon doubters and dissidents. The tale of Hillel's "wise and benevolent" distillation of the essence of Judaism is tailor-made to appeal to western ideals and is often retailed to the goyim as part of Judaism's introductory mythology. Hillel serves his purpose within the rabbinic semiotic by acting as poster boy for the Kabbalistic pillar of chesed. But the rule of Shammai, the pillar of gevurah, also forms a significant part of the reality of Orthodox Judaism, even though Hillel is put forth as the more prominent (and dominant) of the two. In truth, they are complimentary, as the mystical Kabbalah compliments the bureaucratic Talmud, thesis/antithesis — "pairs" produce the synthesis that is Judaism in all of its indissolubly connected, subterranean minutiae.


Judaism's commitment to the Torah SheBeal Peh (oral law) as the guarantor of authentic understanding of the written Torah (SheBichtav) was institutionalized, contemporary with the repudiation and crucifixion of the Messiah of Israel, by Hillel, the much touted, supposed good Pharisee. In the Tannaitic period that led to the writing of the Mishnah (first two centuries A.D.), the earliest halachic midrashim (legal exegesis) were formed on the basis of a solution Hillel devised to a problem in the cognitive psychology of Judaism: how to persuade a Jewish audience of the correctness of one's Scriptural interpretation. Hillel was unable to convince his fellow Jews on the basis of the Scriptures alone. Prefacing one's remarks, as Jesus did, with "It is written" was insufficient for the followers of the religion of the Pharisees. In the fateful step of institutionalizing the heretofore oral tradition by writing it down as the proto-Mishnah, Hillel established his credentials and established his school of interpretation by invoking the oral tradition which he had received from his Pharisaic mentors — Shemayah and Avtalyon — from which formed Judaism's early labyrinthine hermeneutical system of methodology (which would grow ever longer and more complex over time), the middot of sevenfold classification, based on ultra-meticulous syntactical and phraseological lawyer's minutiae. These seven rules soon morphed into thirteen (as devised by Rabbi Ishmael) and then thirty-two (as devised by Rabbi Eliezer ben Jose ha-Galili, a disciple of Rabbi Akiba) and like a cancer, have never ceased exploding in number and complexity since then. Yet, this is supposed to be the Pharisaic method that Jesus did not condemn, what The Angelus terms, “the holy and balanced system of observing the Old Law established by Hillel...” (p. 30)


Shmuel Safrai points out (in The Literature of the Sages, Part One, p. 164) that in the Talmud's Gittin Tractate, the Talmud nullifies the Biblical teaching concerning usury and money-lending: "Hillel decreed the prozbul for the betterment of the world. The prozbul is a legal fiction which allows debts to be collected after the Sabbatical year and it was Hillel's intention thereby to overcome the fear that money-lenders had of losing their money."


In terms of permissible sex with a male child, the age of nine is a determining factor in Judaism, no matter what the gender of the pederast, whether an adult woman, or an adult man. In Babylonian Talmud (BT) tractate Sanhedrin 69b, it is argued that a woman having sex with a boy less than nine is an act that is exempt from punishment (and therefore permissible), and does not render her a zonah (prostitute) or disqualify her from a marrying a Judaic priest, because sex with male children less than age nine is not considered sex. The actual reference in BT Sanhedrin 69b is to sex between a mother and her own son. If her son is less than nine years-of-age, then it's rabbinically permissible for her to engage in it with him. While the school of Shammai objected to her being eligible to marry a priest, they were overruled by Maimonides and the other penultimate halachic decisor, Rabbi Karo, in the Shulchan Aruch; but the original ruling exempting the incestuous molesting mother from punishment and disqualification, which came to be accepted as halakha by the majority, was made by Hillel, the "good Pharisee" who allegedly has "so much in common with Jesus." Yet here's that "good Pharisee" establishing the utterly depraved and barbaric principle that sex between a mother and her son does not actually qualify as sex, if the son is less than nine years-old (cf. Judaism Discovered, pp. 424-425).


Your author has accepted Judaism’s highly deceptive cover story about Hillel and disseminated it to the readers of The Angelus, who are led to believe that Hillel was “an instrument of Heaven.” I am reasonably familiar with rabbinic propaganda but I am not accustomed to encountering such brazen propaganda in the pages of a traditional Catholic magazine where it will mislead thousands.


To this is added highly speculative conjecture which The Angelus puts forth concerning the patrimony of Simeon and the fundamental benevolence of Phariseeism as conveyed by Gamaliel to Saul of Tarsus, which leaves Mr. Montgomery in the predicament of having to explain how it was that Saul mercilessly persecuted Christians and may have had a hand in the murder of St. Stephen when he had been taught such exemplary Pharisee ethics as a youth. The origin of the legend about Simeon being the son of Hillel, though ascribed to various Church Fathers, is actually derived from a rabbinic source, the Pirke Avoth, which is completely unreliable.


Finally, Mr. Montgomery imagines that St. Paul was taught the Gemara (the second section of the Talmud) when he was fifteen years of age. The Gemara, however, would not be written for at least another two centuries after Paul.


In “Saint of the Sanhedrin,” The Angelus presents rabbinic delusions as fact and promotes the wicked Pharisee Hillel as a virtual holy man of God. The great confusion among traditional Catholics concerning Judaism will only be exacerbated by the farrago you have published, to the detriment of the Gospel of Jesus Christ and the understanding of the faithful. It is my prayer that you will somehow undo the damage that has been wrought.


Sincerely, Michael Hoffman

Author of Judaism Discovered: A Study of the Anti-Biblical Religion of Racism, Self-Worship, Superstition and Deceit



Angelus Editor’s snarky non-response:





Text of Michael Hoffman’s second rebuttal to “Saint of the Sanhedrin”:




Fr. Markus Heggenberger

Editor, The Angelus

2915 Forest Avenue

Kansas City, MO 64109


February 25, 2010


Dear Fr. Heggenberger


I am in receipt of your reply to the concerns I raised in my letter of Jan. 17 with regard to the December, 2009, Angelus essay by Scott Montgomery, "Saint of the Sanhedrin" (pp. 29-34). With all due respect, it must be said that your reply is inadequate and constitutes an evasion. Never once in your letter can you bring yourself to mention Hillel, when it was Hillel, not Gamaliel, who was the main focus of my concern that the Angelus has published perverse adulation of this vile Pharisee, repeating rabbinic propaganda about Hillel and lauding him as a figure worthy of the admiration of Catholics.


Part of the evidence I presented has been contemptuously dismissed as “all sorts of questions related to Judaism...With all these questions, which are apparently of interest to you, neither ‘The Angelus’ in general nor the incriminated article has anything to do.”


In order to maintain this notion that facts are irrelevant to the substance of the article you published, you quote me as writing, “The Talmud nullifies the Biblical teaching concerning usury and money-lending.” But you omit my next sentence: "Hillel decreed the prozbul ...a legal fiction which allows debts to be collected after the Sabbatical year and it was Hillel's intention thereby to overcome the fear that money-lenders had of losing their money."


Hillel, who the Angelus believes was a good Pharisee, nullified the Biblical law against usury in support of money-lenders. How is it that this damning fact is supposedly of concern only to this writer? It is your magazine that exalts Hillel. I demonstrated Hillel’s grave transgression and the folly of upholding Hillel as a paradigm of an alleged good Pharisee. How then can his record of transgressions be of no interest?


You allege that another irrelevancy is my reference to “permissible sex.” Once again, you omit the context — I mentioned “permissible sex” in connection with a specific charge against Hillel: his establishment of the depraved and disgusting halachot (legal principle) that sex between a mother and her son does not actually qualify as sex, if the son is less than nine years-old — yet you dare to assert that these matters have nothing to do with The Angelus or the article in question, when it is The Angelus that honors this evil man.


You claim that “Mr. Montgomery simply states that there were tendencies in Judaism that were open to the Gospel.” Au contraire, Mr. Montgomery went far beyond any such simplicity when he asserted that Hillel “served as an instrument of heaven.” You are unwilling to take any responsibility for this outrageous mendacity; you evade it, and you appear to have no intention of correcting it in any future issue of The Angelus. Apparently you do not even intend to correct easily demonstrable errors, such as Mr. Montgomery’s assertion that St. Paul learned the Gemara from Gamaliel, when in fact the Gemara did not even exist at the time of St. Paul.


Even in your focus on Gamaliel to the exclusion of Hillel, you blunder. You should know that Wikipedia is not a reliable scholarly source for establishing the verity of much of anything. Wikipedia refers to the “Clementine Literature” as the basis for its spurious claims about Gamaliel. Are you aware that this “Literature” comprises one of the pseudepigraphic legends? This particular legend fantasized that Gamaliel became a Christian, but there is absolutely no proof for this claim.


The sole primary source for this fantasy is the spurious Recognitions of Clement, a book which contains a mix of pagan philosophy and a curious theology attributed to St. Peter.


The notion that Gamaliel was benevolent in part because he was the teacher of Paul (Acts 22:3) is also a fallacy. Gamaliel was the teacher of Saul, the wicked persecutor of Christians who went on to convert to Christ and become the saintly Apostle Paul. When he was Saul, the pupil of Gamaliel, he may even have had a hand in the murder of St. Stephen. Can we absolve Gamaliel and the Mishnaic teachings which he imparted to Saul by imagining they had no role in Saul's iniquity?


Moreover, there has been a surfeit of wishful thinking concerning Gamaliel's statement of neutrality toward Christians (Acts 5:35-39), which may have been nothing more than a display of sly Pharisee caution. How can anyone assume that Gamaliel’s neutrality was pleasing to God, or that it marked Gamaliel as a future Christian? Jesus said, "I would you were hot or cold" (Rev. 3:16). Gamaliel was neither.


You state that, “The Angelus’ does not try to replace the Bible with the Talmud....” You then cast a strange aspersion on my good name and reputation by adding, “you would be much better qualified for that by the way.” Do you mean to say that it is this writer who favors the Talmud over the Bible? If so, where in my entire oeuvre is there one line I have written that you can adduce for your charge? Your statement is as reckless as the “Saint of the Sanhedrin” essay you published without fact-checking; a blunder you compound by referencing Wikipedia, a notoriously unreliable Internet “encyclopedia” often consulted by persons too lethargic to engage in authentic research.


You write, “Your accusations are wrong...I say: what is good enough for the Church Fathers and for the Catholic Encyclopedia, is good enough for me.” But Reverend Father, there is nothing in the Church Fathers that supports the claims The Angelus makes for Gamaliel, and as for the Catholic Encyclopedia, you have only troubled to consult the 1913 version. The 1967 Catholic Encyclopedia, which is not online, does not validate anything Mr. Montgomery has written about Gamaliel or Hillel. In fact, the latter work correctly indicts Hillel as the source for the Pharisaic teaching that permitted divorce on trivial grounds, and which was the basis for the attempted entrapment by which the Pharisees hoped to ensnare Jesus (Matthew 19: 3-9). Hillel taught against restricting divorce to sexual immorality: "The school of Hillel says: [He may divorce her] even if she cooked his food poorly” (Mishnah, Gittin 9:10). It was with Hillel’s doctrine on divorce that Jesus was confronted. You and your writer must be surprised that Jesus rebuked rather than embraced the Pharisees for this doctrine, since it emanated from the very Pharisee whom The Angelus exults as “an instrument of heaven.”


You dismiss the need for scholarship in these exegetical matters, yet you and Mr. Montgomery are sadly confused and decidedly ignorant of the subject matter. I repeat what I wrote to you on January 26: “The Angelus presents rabbinic delusions as fact and promotes the wicked Pharisee Hillel as a virtual holy man of God. The great confusion among traditional Catholics concerning Judaism will only be exacerbated by the farrago you have published, to the detriment of the Gospel of Jesus Christ and the understanding of the faithful. It is my prayer that you will somehow undo the damage that has been wrought.” I am still waiting.


Jesus Christ was not a party to the modern Vatican mania for finding something — anything — allegedly positive in the Pharisees. In our time this fad is intended to curry ecumenical favor with the rabbis. Whether intentional or not, the Angelus article “Saint of the Sanhedrin” is of this tenor. It is an expression of the modernist zeitgeist. “Servility to the Sanhedrin” would have been a more apt title. I beseech you to make amends and correct this most unfortunate disservice to your readers, without further delay.


Sincerely in Christ,


Michael Hoffman



To this date the SSPX has never retracted its adulation of the evil Pharisee Hillel.





Maximilian Krah • a case study of Judaizing infiltration


The File on Maximilian Krah


Since this blog was pulled down, each embedded link must be searched individually on https://archive.ph/ or https://archive.org/


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


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 [archived copies of http://angelqueen.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=34918 also disappeared!]). 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



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  [the archived version is a dead link]


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  [the archived version is a dead link]


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.




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  [the archived version is a dead link]



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



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




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.



Krahgate Re-visited


See also: https://web.archive.org/web/20110317112004/http://z10.invisionfree.com/Ignis_Ardens/index.php?showtopic=6517


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



In 2010 it was revealed that Bishop Fellay's lawyer and business partner, Maximilian Krah attended a fundraising event for Tel Aviv University. Another attendee at that event was a man named Oren Heiman. Oren Heiman is a classmate of Maximilian Krah at EMBA-Global which was analyzed HERE.


From Friends of the 'Israel' 'Defense' Forces we find that Zionist fanatic, Maximilian Krah accepted the invitation of Zionist fanatic Oren Heiman [archived dead link https://dorchadashusa.org/page.aspx?id=148012] to visit a base of the "Maglan*" special forces unit 212 of the Israeli military:

When Oren Heiman decided to get married in the desert in ... Israel, he wanted to celebrate with all of his friends. Oren, a lawyer at Shibboleth [boutique law firm] who spends much of his free time involved with Jewish philanthropies, is also studying in an executive MBA program at Columbia and he invited his classmates, many of whom had never been to Israel ...


His friends gathered from all across the world, and Oren invited them to join him on a base visit with the Maglan unit, a special forces unit of the IDF. The group met the Master Sargeant and several combat soldiers from the unit, and they had the opportunity to try on uniforms, practice climbing ropes, visit the firing range and the tanks and observe soldiers in training.


Oren’s guests ... came away with a clear understanding of the important work of [Friends of the 'Israel' 'Defense' Forces] and the need to support the soldiers.




*Maglan is Hebrew for Ibis, the bird of much occult significance, particularly for it's association with the Egyptian god Thoth who was depicted as having an Ibis head.


In the images below, dated Apr 14, 2011, we see Maximilian Krah, among other things, happily wearing the uniform and beret of the "Maglan" special forces unit of the 'Israel' 'Defense' Force and waving a 'victory' sign.


Maximilian Krah (left) at base of "Maglan" special forces unit of the 'Israel' 'Defense' Force





SSPX Superior Bp. Fellay's lawyer and business partner, Maximilian Krah (rear, waving a 'victory' sign) wearing the uniform and beret of the "Maglan" special forces unit of the 'Israel' 'Defense' Force






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




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.'




https://web.archive.org/web/20220620023205/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 [archivedlink is dead, only the screen shot survives]



The Rothschild-Gutmann Money Behind the SSPX Kosher Imperative


Traducción parcial al Español aquí: MAS DE LA FUNDACION JAIDHOF


(All images below may be enlarged by clicking on them) < disabled


'The Remnant' has published an 'interview' with SSPX lawyer and asset manager Maximillian Krah in which he makes a statement regarding his involvement with a Jaidhofer Foundation:


Siscoe:  Another company name that is mentioned is Jaidhofer Foundation. Can you discuss this company?

Krah:  Yes, this is linked with the SSPX ... There is a family in Austria which wanted to donate to the SSPX, but did not want to donate directly. They wanted to establish a foundation that would support the SSPX.  And in every foundation you need some trustees.  It’s a kind of trust, and I am one of the trustees.  I was chosen by the family who established the foundation ...  This foundation is supporting the SSPX and using the money which was donated by this family. As an example, it is supporting the new Seminary project in Virginia ...

Below is a picture of Maximillian Krah at Jaidhof with members of the Austrian Gutmann family he describes above as benefactors of the SSPX:





From the Rothschild family archive we find some background on the Gutmann family and how its wealth was amassed:


The steel heart of Czechoslovakia, as Frankova names it, was once owned by the Austrian Rothschilds, in partnership with the Gutmann brothers [Wilhelm and David] ... It is Salomon von Rothschild who, in 1844, bought the iron works, and founded the United Coal Mines of Vítkovice and Austro-Hungarian Blast Furnace Company ... Salomon’s English cousins helped fund the creation of De Beers in 1887.




The Jewish Encyclopedia gives us the proper name of the Gutmanns who partnered with Salomon Rothschild:


GUTMANN, WILHELM, RITTER VON: ...In 1853 he and his brother David established the firm which, during the war of 1859-60, despite the difficulties then surrounding business ventures, supplied coal for all the railroads, for all the great factories throughout the empire, and for the cities of Vienna, Budapest, and Brünn. Gutmann Bros. leased some coal-mines from the Rothschilds in 1865, and purchased outright other valuable carboniferous properties in Silesia, Galicia, and Hungary. The close connection between coal and the production of iron easily led the Gutmanns to combine their interests with the Witkowitz iron-works, which they afterward owned conjointly with the Rothschilds and the counts Larisch and Andrassy. With Kuffner they built (1871) the first sugar-factory in Austria ...





From the Jewish Encyclopedia we find that Wilhelm von Gutmann partnered with the Rothschilds in financing a rabbinical seminary in Vienna:


ISRAELITISCH-THEOLOGISCHE LEHRANSTALT: Rabbinical and teachers' seminary in Vienna, founded 1893 at the suggestion of Wilhelm and David von Guttmann and with the assistance of Albert von Rothschild and Freiherr von Königswarter, and opened Oct. 15 of that year. It is subventioned by the Austrian government, by the "Cultusgemeinden" of Vienna, Prague, and Lemberg, and by the "Landesjudenschaft" of Bohemia, and is governed by fifteen curators. The first president was Baron von Königswarter, who, at his death, was succeeded by Moritz Karpeles; the latter was followed by Moritz Edler von Kuffner.




From an obituary for one of Wilhelm von Gutmann's sons, Moritz, we find that he was a relative of the Rothschilds of Vienna:




Below is a historical overview of the Gutmann family and its ownership of the Jaidhof property, which the Austrian branch of the SSPX is based from, beginning with the Rothschild partner Wilhelm Ritter von Gutmann bringing us to the present heir Guntard Gutmann who is pictured above with Maximillian Krah at an SSPX chapel on the Jaidhof grounds:




Below is a brief history of the Jaidhof property and its ownership including how the Jaidhof castle was given to the SSPX by the Gutmann family:





Below is a webpage from a "Europa Institute" which Guntard Gutmann seems to serve as an advisor on matters including think tanks and economics. He's credited as working for many years as an international banker. This Europa Institute seems to be associated with the Acton Institute which serves to acclimate Catholics to predatory economics and 'neo-con' politics. It's figurehead, Fr. Sirico officiated at the first homosexual 'marriage' in the U.S:






Maximilian Krah's Zionist, Philo-Judaic, 'Neocon' bona fides




An Interview with Maximilian Krah

By Robert J. Siscoe [CAUTION!] POSTED: 10/27/12



Maximilian Krah


(www.RemnantNewspaper.com) Several years ago, internet rumors began to circulate about a scandal brewing inside the Society of St. Pius X (SSPX).  According to these rumors, in early 2009, a Jewish Freemason named Maximilian Krah was appointed to the board of a newly founded corporation.  This corporation was to serve as the financial vehicle for the investments of the SSPX.  The board included the Superior General of the SSPX, Bishop Fellay, his first assistant, Fr. Nicholas Pfluger, the SSPX Bursar General, Fr. Emeric Baudot, and the purported Jewish Freemason, Maximilian Krah, who had a general power of attorney and hence access to the funds.




As coincidence would have it, the founding of this corporation coincided with the airing of the now famous interview with Bishop Williamson, in which he provided his personal opinion regarding certain aspects of the Holocaust.  The interview was subsequently aired on television in Germany, a country that requires an absolute unthinking adherence to the purported facts associated with the Holocaust, the questioning or denial of which constitutes “holocaust denial” – a crime punishable by fines and up to five years in prison.  When Bishop Williamson dared to question several of the purported facts, during a television interview, quite literally all hell broke loose.  Dr. Krah, himself a lawyer, was entrusted with the task of locating a criminal attorney to defend Bishop Williamson.  Additional rumors began to circulate over Dr. Krah’s choice of an attorney to represent Bishop Williamson, and increased when Bishop Williamson decided to hire a different lawyer to defend himself.




More rumors concerning Dr. Krah have continued to spread across the internet ever since.  Message forums are filled with speculation, and websites and blogs have been set up in multiple languages to cover the latest events in what has come to be known as “Krahgate”.  But interestingly, as I performed an internet search of the rumors in order to prepare this opening commentary, I realized that the rumors, while heavy on speculation and insinuation, are light on specifics, and even lighter on evidence.  There is a lot of name-calling, but very little in the way of substantive accusations.  One recent rumor, which seems to be based on a picture that has surfaced, is that Dr. Krah is a Zionist and might even be a secret Mossad agent.  Although I did not follow the events of “Krahgate” very closely myself, I am aware that Dr. Krah’s reputation is less than revered among many SSPX faithful, and within certain circles ranks somewhere between that of Lucifer and Beelzebub.




With this brief background in mind, let us fast forward to The Angelus Press Conference, which was held at the Marriot Hotel in Kansas City, Missouri, during the weekend of October 19th through the 21st – a  conference that I happened to attend.




On the first evening of the event, while on my way to cocktail hour, I struck up a conversation with a man in the elevator.  We continued our conversation as we made our way to the Pavilion, which was set up on the water behind the hotel, for the Conference attendees.  The gentleman and I continued our discussion as we proceeded to the bar for a glass of wine.  At some point, we realized that we had not formally introduced ourselves.  It was then that I learned the identity of the man I was speaking with, and it was none other than Maximilian Krah himself!  As he stated his now famous, or should we say infamous name, one could almost hear the screeching noise from the Psycho shower scene sounding in the background.




I spent the remainder of the evening, and indeed the entire weekend, getting to know Dr. Krah.  We discussed the Faith, the situation in the Church, the current events within the Society, and even our personal opinions on the best way of dealing with the present crisis of Faith that we are living through.  Of course, we also discussed the many rumors circulating on the internet about him.  Needless to say, he was well aware of them.  He was more than happy to discuss them, and even seemed somewhat relieved to be able to finally give his side of the story.




Dr Krah, was baptized Catholic as a baby and raised in the Faith, and his parents were married by his uncle, who was a Catholic Priest.  Dr. Krah, who is now 35 years old, found his way to Tradition in his early to mid- 20’s; and, after a brief pass through the Indult, has been a regular attendee of a Society chapel ever since.




Over the weekend I got to know Dr. Krah fairly well.  We ate together, spent the evenings socializing, and he rode with me to the Pontifical High Mass at St. Vincent’s Church, which was celebrated by Bishop Fellay.  During the course of the weekend, as he would meet new people, I would observe their reaction as he told them his name, and then the conversation would usually turn to the rumors.




Seeing how interested people were to hear his side of the story, which, I must say, differs dramatically from the internet rumors, I asked if he would allow me to interview him.  I then asked Michael Matt (also at the conference) if he would be interested in running the interview of Dr. Krah in The Remnant, and he said yes.  I purchased a tape recorder from the local Wal-Mart, did a quick internet search to familiarize myself with the rumors and get the latest news, and we made our way to the hotel’s “Nebraska Room” for the interview. The following is a transcript of the interview.




The Interview




Siscoe:  First off Dr. Krah, I would like to thank you for agreeing to this interview.  There is a lot of internet controversy surrounding you and your affiliation with the SSPX.  Since some of the controversy deals with your faith and ethnicity, would you begin by telling us about your personal background?


Krah:  Yes, of course, thank you for the opportunity to answer these questions.  I am German by nationality.  I was born and raised Catholic in the then-East Germany.  My parents were married by my uncle who was a priest.  East Germany had a Communist government until 1989, so we had the experience of living our Faith under an atheist regime.  This may explain the reason for my positions on some points we will talk about later, because I know what it means to have an atheist government, an atheist state.  I would not say that the East German government in the late 1980’s made a strong persecution of Christians but it was officially atheist.  Sometimes I smile a little bit when I hear from other faithful that they feel persecuted by the government, because they have never experienced it. I think we should always see things in a very rational way, and we should not exaggerate our own feelings.  This is why I am always an advocate of being moderate and very focused and detailed, even if we think things are worse.  We should just be balanced.  Later on in 1990, Germany was re-unificated, and it was the Catholics who came into charge because they were completely trustworthy since they were not linked to the Communist government.  So my father, who was an engineer by training, became a senior servant of the state government and then my mother, who is a teacher by training, became a vice-principal of her school.  I have 2 siblings.  The oldest is my sister who is a dentist.  My brother is a doctor.  I later studied law in Germany and made my MBA in London and New York.  I did some research and received a doctorate in law.  My wife and I married with the Latin Mass on the High Altar, in Dresden Cathedral, shortly before we went to the SSPX. We have four children who we are raising Catholic, and we attend the chapel of the SSPX.  There is absolutely nothing that should be considered suspicious to other people.  We try to live a clean and successful life.




Siscoe:  So you’re not Jewish?  No Jewish background?  You were baptized a Catholic as a child?


Krah:  Of course, I am a Catholic.  That’s it.  About these accusations of being Jewish, I´d like to tell a story about when Charles Chaplin came to Germany in the early 1930’s.  A lot of people from Berlin came to see him, and Hitler was jealous.  The Nazi newspapers wrote an article criticizing and shaming so many Germans for applauding a Jew.  When Chaplin came back to Hollywood, he was asked why he had not declared that he is not Jewish.   His answer was: if I would have denied it officially, I would have felt as if I was agreeing that there was something bad about being Jewish.  Given the mentality of the people at the time, he said it would have only contributed to the work of the Nazi’s, and this is why he didn’t say “I am not Jewish”. I had a quite similar reaction when I first read these accusations about myself.  I sent an email to a US priest of the SSPX and asked him what I should do, and he advised me to keep silent because there is definitely nothing bad about being of the same people as Jesus and Mary.  Moreover, in the early times of Christianity, the front rows in churches were reserved to the Christians with Jewish roots. That said, I do not think there is anything bad about people having Jewish roots.  I simply do not have it.




Siscoe:  Are you a Freemason?


Krah: No I am not a Freemason, and never have been.




Siscoe:  How did you find tradition?


Krah:  I think part of it has to do with my personal background.  Remember, I came from a country that was only 5% Catholic.  We were a minority.  It was considered brave to go to Mass every Sunday, and it was clear that Catholics had to stick together in opposition to the Communist government.  When the re-unification came, I very quickly joined the Young Christian Democrats, and the first action I took part in was in printing posters against a Communist radio channel.  And I was very proud of being a part of this; I was fourteen at the time.  We took part in this action, and then I came to Mass one Sunday, I noticed the chairman of the parish youth organization, who was the son of the pastoral assistant, and he was wearing a button in favor of this Communist channel.  And he wore it on his Yasser Arafat scarf.  This was at Mass.  [Chuckle]  When I saw this, I realized we live on different planets.  And for me I always asked myself, “is it possible, that with the things they teach and they do in the local parish, we could have built up Christendom, with its major impressive cathedrals?”  The answer was definitely “NO”!


During my military time I began to think about and to read more about my own faith.  I eventually came across the website of the SSPX and I found the Catechism of Fr. Gaudron. I then sought out a traditional Mass in my area, and found there was one 120 kilometers away.  It was an Indult but all the ministers were trained by the SSPX.




Siscoe:  What year was this?


Krah:   It was about 2003….




Siscoe:  Okay, so after a brief pass through the Indult, you came to be affiliated with the Society.  Can you tell us how that came about?


Krah:  Even when I attended the Indult, I considered myself an SSPX man.  I had found the SSPX homepage.  I knew about Archbishop Lefebvre.  It was a very short next step to contact the SSPX directly, and I met the then District Superior Fr. Heggenberger.  At this time I was becoming more zealous in my faith, and because of my political activities and the status of my family, who was quite well linked to the diocese, I had considered trying to arrange a new Motu Proprio Chapel.   Or, I could go the harder way and try to organize an SSPX Chapel.   After a talk I had with Fr. Heggenberger, I decided doing it the hard way was the right way.  It was clear that if you are interested in traditional Catholicism, the Latin Mass, etc. then there is one big player and it is the SSPX.


I have realized that not everyone who agrees with the SSPX attends the SSPX chapels.  I attended the Indult primarily because it was closer to where I live.  It wasn’t until later than I found out about the disagreements within the Traditional movement; between the different camps.  I think the agreement between the various camps is very great; and the disagreements are… I think … there is a Latin phrase “viribus unitis”, we are all Catholics and we have to try to fight together, as far as possible.  Of course, the SSPX is the anchor of the whole Traditional movement.  And the intellectual influence goes far, even into the Novus Ordo… even within the Novus Ordo people look at what the SSPX is doing.  They have them in their periphery.   So for me it was clear, if I go this step out of the diocese, there is only one place.




Siscoe:  Do you have a favorite saint or a patron saint?


Krah:  Yes, I have…  Maybe it is because I am thought of as quite an intellectual that I like the saints who are gifted intellectually; those who combine Faith and reason.  I very much like St. Robert Bellarmine who is quite close to the ideal of a balanced intellectual, combined with a strong faith.  What I am fascinated by is the historical meeting of St. Ambrose and St. Augustine.  I guess there are some such handshakes in history which change the world.  I consider this meeting of St. Ambrose and St. Augustine to be such an encounter.  It might be a little too simplistic to say but they met and they opened a new perspective for religion, for the whole world.  For me, this is a very impressive moment in history.  I guess you get an idea of what types of Saints impress me.  My 2nd son is named Pius because of Pius XII.  I consider Pius XII in some ways comparable to St. Robert Bellarmine … there is a balance.  I am very attracted to the intellectual side of the Faith.  This is something I very much appreciate about my Catholic Faith.




Siscoe:  Let’s discuss some of the internet rumors.  Can you tell us about the company, Dello Sarto AG?  What was your affiliation with that company, and the status of that company today?


Krah:  Yes, the first thing to realize is that a corporation prevents liability.  This is something that is widely known and is a common practice for the SSPX, especially in the US.  Dello Sarto was established to receive a large inheritance, which was expected to come but never did.  So now we have a completely empty corporation that we will shut down. The rumors were complete nonsense.  But maybe what are important to address are the rumors concerning my power of attorney.  They say I have too much power but lawyers always have a very wide power of attorney.  He can only use it if the client accepts it, but formally there is always a wide power of attorney.  This is absolutely business as usual, so all the rumors concerning Dello Sarto show that those who are spreading this campaign on the internet have absolutely no idea what they are talking about.




Siscoe:  And what was your affiliation with the company. You were on the board? …


Krah:  With Dello Sarto, I handled the incorporation, and I was the representative… you could say my position would be similar to a COO [Chief Operations Officer].




Siscoe:  So the company was set up in anticipation of receiving a large inheritance?...


Krah:  Exactly, which didn’t come.  The heritage didn’t come.




Siscoe:  There is another company that is mentioned as well, Laetitia AG.  Can you tell us about…


Krah:  This company has nothing to do with the SSPX or Dello Sarto.  It is just part of my own… it is part of my attorney work, my judicial work.  I have more clients than the SSPX. This is a completely unrelated client.




Siscoe:  Another company name that is mentioned is Jaidhofer Foundation. Can you discuss this company?


Krah:  Yes, this is linked with the SSPX, and it is absolutely no secret.  There is a family in Austria which wanted to donate to the SSPX, but did not want to donate directly.  They wanted to establish a foundation that would support the SSPX.  And in every foundation you need some trustees.  It’s a kind of trust, and I am one of the trustees.  I was chosen by the family who established the foundation, firstly because I am a Traditional Catholic attorney with links to the SSPX, and secondly because of my professional record.  This foundation is supporting the SSPX and using the money which was donated by this family. As an example, it is supporting the new Seminary project in Virginia.  It has nothing to do with individual donations people give to the SSPX.  Everything we do is completely transparent.  We are supervised both by the General House of the SSPX, and by the Austrian tax authority, because we are philanthropic, and that means we are tax free.  We must always open our books to the public authorities.  So we have two supervisors, so to say, and everything we do is completely transparent and clean.




Siscoe:  So, the inheritance was received into the trust, to be distributed, and no other funds go into it…


Krah:  Nothing.




Siscoe:  Okay…


Krah: …Except, if someone would like to do it.  For example, if they were to request that money be placed into the foundation.  And if someone did request that, the SSPX would have to agree.   That means, the donor would have to agree, and the SSPX would have to agree.  But we have had no case yet in which this has happened.




Siscoe:  So Sunday donations don’t go into it…


Krah:  Nothing.




Siscoe:  Okay…


Krah: …The Sunday donations are not our business, and I don’t want to make it our business.  It is completely foreign to anything we are interested in.




Siscoe:  Alright, moving on to another rumor, are you connected in any way with the Society’s School St. Theresa…


Krah:  The German district started a foundation to support this boarding school in Germany, and I am on the board of the supporting foundation.  But the only task we have is to collect money for the school, and that’s about it.  It is important to mention that the school is now constructing a new building.




Siscoe:  You say collecting funds…


Krah: …Only from the outside.  Not the Sunday donations.




Siscoe:  It is said that you are ‘a prominent political activist and officer in Dresden, Germany, and member of the ‘liberal, pro-abortion, pro-homosexual, Christian Democratic Union, led by Angela Merkel’.  How would you respond to this accusation?


Krah:  [chuckle] Yes, of course.  I even ran for office this past summer.  I ran in the primary for the national parliament.  And I was quite successful too, although I lost at the end, 45 to 55 [chuckle], but this was quite okay for a newcomer challenging an incumbent.  But I disagree with the characterization.  Like in every country, in Germany you have two big parties.  In the US, you have the Democrats and the Republicans.  In Germany, you have the Social Democrats and the Christian Democrats.  The CDU [Christian Democrats], you could say is the party of the Republicans, which is center right.




Siscoe:  So, the party you ran under, they would be considered the right in Germany?


Krah:  Yes, they would be considered the right.  And indeed, during my law studies I was employed by the then-member of parliament, Christa Reichard, who, for instance, is very strongly pro-life.  And she would be very angry if she heard a rumor that she is a member of a leftist party.  To make it understandable, when the unification came, the Catholics, and even the conservative Protestants, and anti-communists, joined the Christian Democrats.  And even now, all positions in the State of Saxony and in the City are held by Christian Democrats, so that the mayor of the city, and the governor and all local congressman on the State and national level, are from the Christian Democrats.  It is just the ruling party, and it is the party of the center right people.  And as a citizen of my city, since I am not a left-winger and have never been, it is clear that the Christian Democrat is my political home.




Siscoe:  So, the Christian Democrats would be comparable to the Republicans in America?


Krah:  Yes generally, but in Europe the political scene is a little more left wing than in America.  The left-wing Democrats in America are comparable to the Social Democrats in Germany, while the right wing Democrats and the moderate Republicans in America are comparable to the Christian Democrats in Germany.




Siscoe:  So everything is a little farther to the left.  The left is farther to the left, and the right is closer to the center?


Krah:  Yes, exactly.  And it is especially where I live and in my group, in my suburb.  It is comparable to, I would say, East Coast Republicans.




Siscoe:  It is said that you were charged with the responsibility of finding an attorney for Bishop Williamson in his holocaust trial, and you chose Matthias Lossmann, a member of the extreme left wing Die Grünen party [Green Party], a radical leftist party that favors everything from abortion to homosexuality.   Can you comment on this?


Krah: First, regarding the Williamson case.  It is obvious to me that the statement he made concerning the Holocaust is historically wrong, and he is not open to arguments of historical facts. But, as a lawyer, it was clear to me that he did not violate the German law because, in the moment he made his statement, his wrong statement, he had no idea that the interview would be broadcasted in Germany.  This is the whole reason why I believe he is not guilty of having violated the German law.  I am not a criminal lawyer, so I had to find one for him.  And in such a case I would always highly recommend to take a criminal lawyer, who was under no circumstances linked with, in any way, pro-Nazi movements.  To explain, the neo-Nazi movement in Germany is extremely small.  It is maybe 1% of the population.  It is absolutely small, and you usually don’t want to be linked with those persons, because they are exactly the persons you don’t want your kids to play with.  And so, to make his defense as successful as possible, I highly recommended him to choose an attorney which was more to the left side so that he can focus on the legal aspects, and was completely free of any political implications in his case.   I explained it to him and I introduced Lossmann to him.  Lossmann is a widely accepted criminal lawyer, who publishes in research journals on criminal law.  He is not as left as the rumors have presented him, because even the Greens [the Green Party], has two wings.  And he is definitely not from the left wing of the party.  He is, I would say, comparable to an East Coast Liberal.  That means he is definitely not a Communist or anything like that.  He is just a liberal citizen, interested in the fine arts, and maybe in the fine wine.  I introduced both to each other.  I explained the reason why I think we needed a more liberal person, than I am myself, and most of my colleagues, with whom I usually cooperate.  The Bishop absolutely was fine.  Lossmann was doing a great job, and then Bishop Williamson decided, without any explanation, to choose a different attorney…




Siscoe: …So when you initially presented Bishop Williamson with your recommendation, and the reasoning for your recommendation, he agreed?


Krah:  I explained everything and made it transparent.   And he understood and agreed.




Siscoe:  And then he at some point changed attorneys?


Krah:  Yes, and he changed to a completely unacceptable person, and he got a warning from the General House [of the SSPX] and changed lawyers once again.  Now he has chosen, once again, a completely un-political lawyer, who by the way is the president of the Association for Pop Music.  He is doing a brilliant job, just as Lossmann did.  They argue exactly the same way.  They don’t argue in any way politically or historically.  They say “look this is the law.  This is what he has done.  He had no idea at the time he gave the interview that it could be broadcasted in Germany, so the case will not have a successful prosecution”.  And it is the same argumentation, and the same style of defending.  It is a deduction to the legal problems, and does not involve bringing the historical and political matters into the court room.  And this is the only chance he has.  This is what Lossmann did, and this is what Edgar Weiler is now doing.  And in the middle, he had, for I guess one week, another approach, and I’m sure this other approach would have led to a catastrophe.




Siscoe: Can you explain your involvement with the Society when “the Williamson affair” first broke?  What was the Society facing in Germany, and what did you do to assist the SSPX in this matter?


Krah:  The interview was broadcast at the same time that the Pope lifted the so-called excommunications against the Bishops of the SSPX, including Bishop Williamson. So the headlines in Germany were “Pope rehabilitates holocaust-denier”, and the SSPX became seen as a neo-Nazi-group in the masquerade of religion. The Chancellor herself expressed her misunderstanding about the Papal decision in favor of Bishop Williamson. The German District made plenty of public declarations, expressing that Bishop Williamson is in no way speaking for the SSPX and pointing out that the SSPX has absolutely no acceptance for anti-Semitism and such wrong ideas on history.  But no one believed it, because no one trusted them.  Many of the Faithful, and even some priests, began to get nervous, and demanded clear action against Bishop Williamson.  Some even began attending the Fraternity of Saint Peter or Motu Proprio masses.


In this serious situation, I was asked if I could help quiet things down by using my network of associates, and especially my connection into the media. Like in all countries, only a few media outlets have national impact. The Church’s correspondent scene is very small, about 10 journalists for the whole of Germany. Most of them are aligned with the Novus Ordo, which means they are incurably hostile against the SSPX. One of the rare exceptions is Peter Wensierski of Der Spiegel – The Mirror – who is really independent, which also means he is equally distant, some say equally hostile, to everybody. But as he is equal toward everyone, he was honest enough to state that the SSPX might be ultra-conservative, old-fashioned, etc., but they are certainly not Nazis.  He is tough, but he is fair.  Whatever one thinks of the SSPX, they are not even close to fascism or the Nazis. And since Der Spiegel is the “must-read” of the whole German elite, within two weeks the other media accepted the distinction of: the position of the SSPX, and the opinion of the one bishop. It could be seen in the wording of the headlines: Whilst before there was written about “these holocaust-deniers”, then it was distinguished between the “conservative group SSPX” and “the Holocaust-denying Bishop Williamson”. We had just one shot, and it hit. Clearly a sign of grace. I sometimes wonder myself how we succeeded.




Siscoe: But this wasn´t the end of it.


Krah: No, it was just a step. But it brought us back on track. It gave us credibility. We then communicated that the Superior General has given Bishop Williamson one year to study the facts and ordered him to read a book on the issue, written by Jean-Claude Pressac, who himself had doubts about the existence of gas chambers in Auschwitz and later changed his mind after he started to look into the facts. This gave us a one year respite, and the media stopped it´s attacks, waiting for the year to pass by.  Bishop Williamson did not read the book. So when the year was over, we had to explain it. We just chose to be honest and transparent. We showed the efforts taken by the SSPX, but we also conceded that there was no influence on the Bishop, who has started to go his own way, unfortunately. In the end, we were able to successfully communicate that the SSPX in no way shared these views of Bishop Williamson.




Siscoe: How were you able to influence the media?


Krah: By plenty of behind-the-scene talks. I went to many distinguished journalists and explained to them the SSPX, its mission, its history.  Most of them were completely unaware.  Look, for us all of these issues are very present; we live them, and are familiar with them.  But for outsiders, the SSPX is something unknown; at least it was so in 2009. For a liberal journalist, who is not practicing religion at all, the idea of saying Mass in an ancient language like Latin is somehow curious. You have to explain it to him in a way he can understand.  You have to convince, instead of judge. This is what I did and what I still do. And as I am far away from every kind of political extremism, and always have been, they considered me to be trustworthy, which allowed me to influence them in favor of the SSPX. This is something I would like to point out in general; we should always take in consideration the background and the thinking of our counterparts. Most people are not hostile. They are just uninformed.  Instead of judging them, we should explain our views. In most cases we will see an acceptance, and in some cases, even support.




Siscoe:  If you don’t mind my asking, what impact did “the Williamson affair” have on the current developments concerning Bishop Williamson?


Krah:  I am not involved in these current events. As far as I know, the 2009 affair is unrelated to the current threat of expulsion. Look, the affair of 2009 was settled with the final article in “Der Spiegel” early in 2010. Since that time, the public has distinguished between the official position of the SSPX and the private opinion of Bishop Williamson. What has happened since then is that Bishop Williamson has openly undermined authority and hierarchy, which has caused division within the SSPX. This is an internal affair, for which my advice is neither required nor requested. This is the core business of the superiors. I am used to mediate between the SSPX and different sorts of secular players: judges, journalists, politicians, state officials, bankers. But I have no share in internal affairs. Here I am an ordinary faithful like all others. And I´m happy with that.




Siscoe:  There is another rumor claiming that you were fundraising for Tel Aviv University. Can you fill us in on that?


Krah:  Yes, of course.  I have a lot of friends, including many who are not Catholic.  And I have Jewish friends, which I appreciate very much.  They are wonderful people, and there is absolutely no reason for me to hide them, or to take their friendship into question.  So, with that said, I have no understanding for these accusations or insinuations.   They are my friends, and they can trust me as I trust them.  I was in New York one evening when I received a phone call asking if I had plans for the night, which I hadn’t.  But my friend had one, and we went to a reception in a gallery in Chelsea, and there were plenty of people, both Jewish and non-Jewish, from different countries, and it was hosted by the American Friends of Tel Aviv University, and of course they took pictures [chuckle], and they posted them on the internet, and this gave those people reason enough to attack me without asking me what happened.  It was just a nice evening, a gathering, in New York City. I´d attend it again, even if I knew about the rumors it caused.




Siscoe: To clarify, you are not a member of The American Friends of Tel Aviv University, and you did not organize this event?


Krah: No, to both questions.




Siscoe: There is another picture online as well that has caused some controversy.  It shows you attending an IDF military camp recruitment event.  Can you explain?


Krah: Yes, it was not a recruitment event.  One of my friends got married in the Negev Desert, and he invited friends from all over the world, including my wife and me.  He generously arranged a tour, which included both the Via Dolorosa in Jerusalem and a visit into a military camp, so we could have a personal impression of what the Israeli army is doing.  It was, you could say, a tourist tour, on the way from Jerusalem to the Negev Desert, and included a luncheon.  We were able to visit them and talk to them, in order to get a personal impression of the military.  And as far as I know, it is widely common for groups that visit the State of Israel to arrange these kinds of tours.  I received an e-mail from a member of the city council in Dresden, who told me that he himself had taken part in similar events.  So, for me it was an interesting invitation.  And as I was a German soldier for one year after High School, I enjoyed the opportunity to see how things are done in the IDF.




Maybe a word about… it is common to read things on the internet about the State of Israel.  Let’s bring it back to history.  In the middle ages, Christianity made several Crusades to the Holy Land for one reason: to get the holy places open so we would have access to them for Pilgrimages.  We have, currently, more Pilgrimages to the Holy Land than ever in the past.  We had more in 2012 than in 2011, and more in 2011 than in 2010, and in 2010 we had more than ever since.  That means, the holy places are open; they get protected.  They are safe, and there is money invested.  And the Catholic Church gets tax benefits by the Israeli government in that country.  I don’t know anybody who believes that, if this country was under Islamic rule, we would have nearly as many Pilgrims there, and free access. And even the Pilgrim groups from the SSPX Germany, that go from Jerusalem and Nazareth to Bethlehem, always stay in a hotel on the other side of the wall – the Israeli side.   If you just see facts and reality, than we have to say it is hard to attack those authorities that provide open access to those holy places.  This is what I say:  just calm down and judge by facts.  We have to see the facts as they are, and we have to see that there are plenty of people living there.  They have police, everything is organized, and they do not harm the Christians there.  And there is also a rising group of so-called Hebrew Catholics, who are converted Israeli Citizens.  We have none of those in the Islamic countries.  I only can warn all those Christians who are so opposite, or hostile against the Israeli State, what would happen if that State would disappear.  We would have a lot of problems with our holy places.  And what would happen to the Christians in that country if we had a change on the political landscape?  And so I have absolutely no problem to say that I have a positive attitude towards the state of Israel. The world is not perfect. It never has been.  There are wars always.  There is a state of imperfection.  And if we see this, if we see the reality, we can say it could be much worse.  And this should lead us to a more distinguished position towards the political situation in the Holy Land.




Siscoe: Another rumor is that the Society paid for your MBA program.  Is there any truth to that?


Krah: Absolutely not!  I paid on my own.




Siscoe: Okay…


Krah: …I paid the fees on my own, the flights on my own and the hotel on my own.  The problem that lawyers usually have is that they are too nationally trained.  And especially in Europe, we see the world changing and a changing economic landscape, and only national training brings us very quickly to limits, and that is why I invested into further education, and spent my savings including some help from my parents for this MBA, and enjoyed it and benefited from it very much.




Siscoe: So the Society didn’t pay for any of your education.


Krah:  No.




Siscoe: Has it been difficult to deal with the rumors and accusations made against you?


Krah: It is never a pleasure to be the victim of a stalking campaign. But these attacks on me were used as an indirect attack against the Superior General and other Superiors like Fr. Rostand.   In 2010, when the attacks against me began, the stalkers were still too scrupulous to attack Bishop Fellay directly. Since then, they have lost all inhibitions.  And the more open they attacked the hierarchy itself, the less they focused on me – which reveals their true intention. When I see all the hate and malice against such a noble and decent prelate as Bishop Fellay, I can hardly think that those attacks against me are very serious. I try not to take myself as being too important, and so I don´t care too much about these attacks. Most people don´t take this nonsense seriously, and once people meet me and hear my side of the story they realize that the rumors are nonsense.   This gives me an inner peace. And, not to forget: Faith helps, especially in such situations of unjust attacks. We shall not fear the evil, as we can be sure to win at the end.




Siscoe: Is there something you have learned thru these attacks?


Krah: I learned a lot about how people act, but also about myself. What seems to me worth mentioning is that the most serious attacks against the SSPX are coming from inside. The self-declared “truest Catholics” slander, slur, and defame in a way which is intolerable and beyond everything we see even in the secular world. Without any respect for dignity and sacrality… even the Superior General is the victim of odious attacks. The forces of darkness are no longer restricted to external weapons, but have found their instruments in some weak and unbalanced persons within. It seems to me that we are not yet fully aware of this new danger.




Siscoe: Is there anything else you would like to add before we conclude?


Krah: Yes, I´d like very much to advocate a more optimistic world view. If you read those internet sites that attack me, usually they expect the Armageddon within the next two years, if not sooner.  Even if I expected the Armageddon tomorrow, I´d still plant my apple tree today.  If we look at how things are happening, we can see that the Conciliar epoch will come to an end.  The Conciliarists don’t have young people.  Young priests today tend to classical Traditional Catholicism, and those young people who still go to Mass, are usually not the left wingers.  It is just a matter of time before the Traditional liturgy and theology will get back its place.  And the same for society; of course we have a lot of developments in the wrong direction, but we also have developments in the right direction.  We have both at the same time, but 10 years ago, 20 years ago, things were only moving in the wrong direction.  We did not have these newly conservative and Traditional movements.  Today we have a new fresh conservative spirit and conservative thinking which is growing, which is becoming strong and stronger.  And I just recommend to be optimistic, and to look for allies under those newly conservative movements; because together we are strong, and we can stop this left-wing chaos, and against it we might set a positive attitude and a positive development towards a rebirth of Western civilization and Christianity.  So stay optimistic!  What can happen to a movement that knows the Almighty is on its side? Doesn´t it shows a lack of trust in God to be always that pessimistic and depressed? And don’t believe in such rumors and stalking campaigns. There is no reason for it, and you can be sure that the Society would not trust me if just one of those accusations were even half true.  Sure, I sometime err. But I am completely supervised.




Siscoe: Thank you very much for your time, and for answering these questions.


Krah: Thank you… and maybe… We both know what is likely to happen next. The Maximilian Krah stalking community will take every word I said in this interview and try to turn it in it´s opposite. Just to remember: I am not an English native speaker.  English is a second language for me.  But I think everyone who has a sense of fairness will be able to understand what I have tried to express.  I am simply a Catholic husband and father who is trying live his Faith and to do the best he can.


The SSPX Money Manager and "The Power of 72"


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


A Catholic Working for Hasbara?



Max Krah invites you to hear Ulrich Sahm talk



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. [YouTube video link disappeared]


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



Bonetus [and New Catholic]




The SSPX Money Manager and "The Power of 72"


Maximilian Krah recently graduated from an international usurers program run jointly by the Columbia Business School and London School of Business. A video of the graduation ceremony was posted on youtube. It shows the Mossad-connected Oren Heiman speaking before the graduating class. Maximilian Krah is shown sitting in the first row, third from the right on the screen as the camera pans the audience.


As the speech reaches its peak (@7:28), Mr. Heiman implores his classmates never to forget "the power of 72:"


"Before I step down from this glorious podium I ask you--scratch that--I implore you not to forget the one tool we have been instilled with, the mother of all tools, the power grip of global business, of influence, and of the ability to do good[sic] in the world. We have constantly referred to this tool as the power of 72."



What is the point that Mr. Heiman wishes to emphasize so strongly to his fellow 'future world leaders.' When we cut through the sanctimony and mysticism we see quite simply he's talking about the power of compound interest. The power, law, or rule of 72 as it is alternately called is a formula for calculating the time it takes to double money at a given rate of interest.


But perhaps we shouldn't dismiss the mysticism entirely because it's evident that this is more than a mere mathematical equation to these people. The class is composed of a symbolic 72 persons, the ceremony is held in a chapel and Mr. Heiman refers to the 'power of 72' as "the mother of all tools." This is worth a closer look.


Infiltrator of Merchant of Venice philosophy into Christendom, Franciscan Friar, Luca Pacioli


One of the earliest written records of 'the power of 72' is found in the Summa de Arithmetica of the Renaissance Franciscan Friar, occultist, and mathematician, Luca Pacioli whose writings on double-entry bookkeeping remain influential today and, for good reason, are viewed by many as the genesis of modern capitalism. Fellow friars protested against Luca Pacioli "according to what we understand and see daily as a man who ought to be corrected." In response to the friars' concerns regarding this pioneer of our present death culture, he was appointed as head of his monastery by the Franciscan Superior General.


Luca Pacioli is yet another of many Renassaince figures in which avarice, mathematics and occultism, intersect in an ideology which is the progenitor of our rotten age.


Luca Pacioli believed, "all that is manifest throughout the inferior and superior universe, all of it must be by necessity subject to number, weight and measure," which is barely distinguishable from Queen Elizabeth's court occultist John Dee's belief that, "by numbers, a way is had, to the searching out, and understanding of every thing, able to be known. But the Catholic occultist, Luca Pacioli infiltrated this autistic principle into Christendom 60 years before John Dee.


Dear reader, underneath lavish usury-funded Renaissance edifices and artwork is veiled the coldest, inhuman, ungodly, materialist philosophy imaginable which cannot but yeild the most rotten of fruits.


This conceit that God and His creation can be entirely understood and replicated by mathematics is leading us towards destruction and usurious wealth 'creation' is at the root of this evil.


There is a certain contingent of traditionalists attempting to resurrect the most rotten aspects of occult, usurious renaissance Catholicism. Beware.



Max Krah [ptui!] congratulates China on 72 years of being a “People’s Republic”



Krah, “…China is back. It is once more what it had always been, the great country in Asia, the greatest national economy, and the most people, and no one needs to be afraid of it. We’ve become friends over the years. We should become partners….”


Krah is the ZIONIST who JUDAIZED the SSPX from his perch as their Financial Officer who brought millions of Guttman-Rothschild dollars into the SSPX coffers.


Recall that Chinese Communism is as Jewish as was Soviet Communism.






Enabling pederasts and other perverts?


Ordinarily we would not put much credence in the investigations and judgments of the Noahide Pimp, HoloHoaxer, and former homosexual Michael Voris and his “Church Militant,” however we believe we have here instances of “a stopped watch is right twice a day.”


Spotlight—SSPX: ‘Sympathetic to Perverts’

by Christine Niles, M.St. (Oxon.), J.D.,  ChurchMilitant.com,  April 22, 2020






The SSPX response? Quibbling about US-Austrian extradition treaties, describing first-person testimony of victims as “hearsay,” and vague protestations of innocence: https://sspx.org/en/publications/newsletters/us-district-responds-church-militant-57641


See also: SSPX Defends Sexual Predator



Looking for Answers: SSPX Priest Accused

by  Michael J. Matt, Editor, The Remnant Newspaper, November 16, 2020



Fr. Matthew Stafki accused of [and admitted!!!] abusing 9-year-old girl







Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, SSPX, on the papacy




Archbishop Lefebvre speaks frankly about the Pope


“They ask me, what do you think of the Pope? Not much, it's a mystery, an improbable mystery. It's a great tragedy for the Church, because ultimately, who's with the Pope is with the Church, is with the unity of the Church... But there is also a question mark. When we say "How is it possible that the Pope, if he's truly Pope, successor of St. Peter, he must in consequence have the inspiration of the Holy Ghost, he must be protected by the Holy Spirit in what he does, because he's the Pope we have the promise of Our Lord that he will be protected in upholding the faith... Therefore someone who does these kinds of things is not Pope...This Pope is doing things that are so contrary to the faith, against the Church, so destructive to the faith of the Church, and the Church itself


“It's not possible that the Pope who is protected by the Holy Ghost, by the words of Our Lord Jesus Christ, could do things like this. There we agree, it's not possible, it doesn't fit, this destruction of the Church, this destruction of the Social Reign of Christ the King, this destruction of the Catholic faith in every aspect, every catechism, every university, every religious order, the seminaries, everywhere you look it is the systematic destruction of the Church, which was aimed at by all of these reforms that the Vatican implemented…”


“This reasoning is worth, this reasoning, I don't know, I don't say that's what's going on and there are several scenarios, maybe this one has some merit, we'll know the truth later maybe, I don't know, I don't know. The way I see it, it's not clear yet, you understand, but one day if it came to light that it was true, and this is something that is far from impossible, here also, there are apparitions that say the same thing and these apparitions have been recognized by the See of Peter, Fatima, La Salette, that say that the devil will climb to the highest places in the Church, I don't know if by the "highest place in the Church" that means Secretary of State, and then stops there, or if it goes even farther, if it goes all the way to the Pope. I don't know maybe even to someone who says he's the Pope, I don't know, but you know this is something that isn't impossible and theologians have studied this problem, the theologians have studied this problem to see if it's something that can happen, if a Pope can perhaps be a heretic and as a result excommunicated from the Church and therefore all his acts become illegitimate and invalid. And if, just as a hypothesis, once again I just don't know, don't put words in my mouth, I don't know, but if at last it comes out that quietly that there are certain connections to Masonry, imagine that the Pope was registered in a Masonic lodge before his election, he would be excommunicated. Excommunicated... His election is invalid, he can't be Pope and we would have had for all this time... A Pope who wasn't Pope. This is possible. Once again I don't say this is what is really happening but what do you want in a situation like this, we're looking for a solution. We find ourselves with a problem that has almost no theological solution, theologically, I say theologically almost impossible to solve, so we search for a solution, fine!”




“The See of Peter and the posts of authority in Rome being occupied by antichrists, the destruction of the Kingdom of Our Lord is being rapidly carried out even within His Mystical Body here below (…) This is what has brought down upon our heads persecution by the Rome of the antichrists.” (Letter to the future bishops, 29 August 1987)


“Rome has lost the Faith, my dear friends. Rome is in apostasy. These are not words in the air. It is the truth. Rome is in apostasy… They have left the Church… This is sure, sure, sure.” (Retreat Conference, September 4, 1987, Ecône)


“So we are [to be] excommunicated by Modernists, by people who have been condemned by previous popes. So what can that really do? We are condemned by men who are themselves condemned…” (Press conference, Ecône, June 15 1988)


“…these recent acts of the Pope and bishops, with protestants, Animists and Jews, are they not an active participation in non-catholic worship as explained by Canon Naz on Canon 1258§1? In which case I cannot see how it is possible to say that the pope is not suspect of heresy, and if he continues, he is a heretic, a public heretic. That is the teaching of the Church.” (Talk, March 30 and April 18, 1986, text published in The Angelus, July 1986)


“The Church which affirms such errors is both schismatic and heretical. This Conciliar Church is therefore not Catholic.” (July 29, 1976, Reflections on the Suspension a divinis)


“To whatever extent pope, bishops, priests or faithful adhere to this new Church, they separate themselves from the Catholic Church.” (July 29, 1976, Reflections on the Suspension a divinis)


“To be publicly associated with this sanction which is inflicted upon the six Catholic Bishops, Defenders of the Faith in its integrity and wholeness, would be for us a mark of honor and a sign of orthodoxy before the faithful. They have indeed a strict right to know that the priests who serve them are not in communion with a counterfeit church, promoting evolution, pentecostalism and syncretism. In union with these faithful, we make ours the words of the Prophet: “Præparate corda vestra Domino et servite Illi soli: et liberabit vos de manibus inimicorum vestrorum. Convertimini ad Eum in toto corde vestro, et auferte deos alienos de medio vestri—Open your hearts to the Lord and serve Him only: and He will free you from the hands of your enemies. With all your heart return to Him, and take away from your midst any strange gods” (I Kings 7:3) (SSPX District Superiors, July 6, 1988)


“Now some priests (even some priests in the Society) say that we Catholics need not worry about what is happening in the Vatican; we have the true sacraments, the true Mass, the true doctrine, so why worry about whether the pope is heretic or an impostor or whatever; it is of no importance to us. But I think that is not true. If any man is important in the Church it is the pope.” (Talk, March 30 and April 18, 1986, text published in The Angelus, July 1986)


“If we think that this reformed liturgy is heretical and invalid, whether because of modifications made in the matter and form or because of the reformers’ intention inscribed in the new rite in opposition to the intention of the Catholic Church, evidently we cannot participate in these reformed rites because we should be taking part in a sacrilegious act. This opinion is founded on serious reasons…” (Ecône, February 24, 1977, Answers to Various Burning Questions)


“Heresy, schism, ipso facto excommunication, invalidity of election are so many reasons why a pope might in fact never have been pope or might no longer be one. In this, obviously very exceptional case, the Church would be in a situation similar to that which prevails after the death of a Pontiff.” (Le Figaro, August 4, 1976)


 “It seems inconceivable that a successor of Peter could fail in some way to transmit the Truth which he must transmit, for he cannot – without as it were disappearing from the papal line – not transmit what the popes have always transmitted.” (Homily, Ecône, September 18, 1977)


“If it happened that the pope was no longer the servant of the truth, he would no longer be pope.” (Homily preached at Lille, August 29, 1976, before a crowd of some 12,000)


“While we are certain that the faith the Church has taught for 20 centuries cannot contain error, we are much further from absolute certitude that the pope is truly pope.” (Le Figaro, August 4, 1976)


“It is impossible for Rome to remain indefinitely outside Tradition. It’s impossible… For the moment they are in rupture with their predecessors. This is impossible. They are no longer in the Catholic Church.” (Retreat Conference, September 4, 1987, Ecône)


 “…a grave problem confronts the conscience and the faith of all Catholics since the beginning of Paul VI’s pontificate: how can a pope who is truly successor of Peter, to whom the assistance of the Holy Ghost has been promised, preside over the most radical and far-reaching destruction of the Church ever known, in so short a time, beyond what any heresiarch has ever achieved? This question must one day be answered…” (Le Figaro, August 4, 1976)


“We believe we can affirm, purely by internal and external criticism of Vatican II, i.e. by analysing the texts and studying the Council’s ins and outs, that by turning its back on tradition and breaking with the Church of the past, it is a schismatic council.” (Le Figaro, August 4, 1976)


“We consider as null…all the post-conciliar reforms, and all the acts of Rome accomplished in this impiety.” (Joint Declaration with Bishop de Castro Mayer following Assisi, December 2, 1986)


“John Paul II now continually diffuses the principles of a false religion, which has for its result a general apostasy.” (Preface to Giulio Tam’s Osservatore Romano 1990, contributed by the Archbishop just three weeks before his death)


“This Council represents, in our view and in the view of the Roman authorities, a new Church which they call the Conciliar Church.” (Le Figaro, August 4, 1976)


“To be publicly associated with the sanction [of excommunication] would be a mark of honour and a sign of orthodoxy before the faithful, who have a strict right to know that the priests they approach are not in communion with a counterfeit Church…” (Open Letter to Cardinal Gantin, July 6, 1988, signed by 24 SSPX superiors, doubtless with Archbishop Lefebvre’s approval)


“This union which liberal Catholics want between the Church and the Revolution is an adulterous union – adulterous. This adulterous union can only beget bastards. Where are these bastards? They are [the new] rites. The [new] rite of Mass is a bastard rite. The sacraments are bastard sacraments. We no longer know whether they are sacraments that give grace. We no longer know if this Mass gives us the Body and the Blood of Our Lord Jesus Christ. (…) The priests emerging from the seminaries are bastard priests.” (Homily preached at Lille, August 29, 1976, before a crowd of some 12,000.)


“The radical and extensive changes made in the Roman Rite of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass and their resemblance to the modifications made by Luther oblige Catholics who remain loyal to their faith to question the validity of this new rite. Who better than the Reverend Father Guérard des Lauriers to make an informed contribution to resolving this problem…?” (Foreword contributed to a book in favour of the thesis of invalidity by Fr Guérard des Lauriers. Écône, February 2, 1977)


“…these recent acts of the Pope and bishops, with protestants, Animists and Jews, are they not an active participation in non-catholic worship as explained by Canon Naz on Canon 1258§1? In which case I cannot see how it is possible to say that the pope is not suspect of heresy, and if he continues, he is a heretic, a public heretic. That is the teaching of the Church.” (Talk, March 30 and April 18, 1986, text published in The Angelus, July 1986)



Marcel Lefebvre: Sedevacantist

by Rev. Anthony Cekada

Abp. Lefebvre made many statements favoring sedevacantism, but SSPX and Salza/Siscoe cover this up in their anti-sede screed, True or False Pope. Fr. Cekada provides a selection of the archbishop's own words on the topic, and sets them in their historical context.






disappearing evidence


Since the SSPX began disappearing their web pages on the Jews, it has become a bad habit for them.


When they were caught shilling for vaccines using aborted baby cells, they disappeared the original article, but—oh, the embarrassment—the article had been archived.

Now you see it: https://web.archive.org/web/20201119204609/https://sspx.org/en/news-events/news/can-catholic-good-conscience-receive-coronavirus-vaccine-62007

Now you don't: https://sspx.org/en/news-events/news/can-catholic-good-conscience-receive-coronavirus-vaccine-62007




The following video has nothing to do with the SSPX. It is presented here for its historical interest.



Was Pope St. Pius X Murdered?





navigating this page




“The See of Peter and the posts of authority in Rome being occupied by antichrists, the destruction of the Kingdom of Our Lord is being rapidly carried out even within His Mystical Body here below (…) This is what has brought down upon our heads persecution by the Rome of the antichrists.” Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, Letter to the future bishops, August 29, 1987


“Rome has lost the Faith, my dear friends. Rome is in apostasy. These are not words in the air. It is the truth. Rome is in apostasy… They have left the Church… This is sure, sure, sure.” Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, Retreat Conference, September 4, 1987, Ecône


“If it happened that the pope was no longer the servant of the truth, he would no longer be pope.” Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, Homily preached at Lille, August 29, 1976, before a crowd of some 12,000


“While we are certain that the faith the Church has taught for 20 centuries cannot contain error, we are much further from absolute certitude that the pope is truly pope.” Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, Le Figaro, August 4, 1976


“For as long as the Vatican continues their apostate ecumenism we can affirm that they remain in open, official rupture with the Church's entire past and with its official Magisterium.  It is therefore, a strict duty for every priest wanting to remain Catholic to separate himself from this Conciliar Church for as long as it does not rediscover the tradition of the Church and of the Catholic Faith.” Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre's last book, Spiritual Journey


“We must not be afraid to affirm that the current Roman authorities, since John XXIII and Paul VI, have made themselves active collaborators of international Jewish Freemasonry and of world socialism. John Paul II is above all a communist-loving politician at the service of a world communism retaining a hint of religion.” Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre's last book, Spiritual Journey


“It seems inconceivable that a successor of Peter could fail in some way to transmit the Truth which he must transmit, for he cannot – without as it were disappearing from the papal line – not transmit what the popes have always transmitted.” Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, Homily, Ecône, September 18, 1977


“Now some priests (even some priests in the Society) say that we Catholics need not worry about what is happening in the Vatican; we have the true sacraments, the true Mass, the true doctrine, so why worry about whether the pope is heretic or an impostor or whatever; it is of no importance to us. But I think that is not true. If any man is important in the Church it is the pope.” Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre,  March 30, 1986, text published in The Angelus, July 1986


“I sincerely hold that the doctrine of faith was handed down to us from the apostles through the orthodox Fathers in exactly the same meaning and always in the same purport. Therefore, I entirely reject the heretical misrepresentation that dogmas evolve and change from one meaning to another different from the one which the Church held previously.” The Oath Against Modernism, Pope St. Pius X,  September 1, 1910 A.D.


“The purpose of this is, then, not that dogma may be tailored according to what seems better and more suited to the culture of each age; rather, that the absolute and immutable truth preached by the apostles from the beginning may never be believed to be different, may never be understood in any other way.” The Oath Against Modernism, Pope St. Pius X,  September 1, 1910 A.D.