Wednesday, December 1, 2010

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

A close acquaintance of mine received an email recently addressed to "Mr. Q." Obviously, "Mr. Q." is a pseudonym, selected by +W himself. The true identity of this person can not be revealed at the present time.
Before reading +W's email reprinted verbatim below, you might want to quickly review the two reports, which Bp. Williamson's email addresses. These reports had been emailed to His Excellency earlier for his perusal and comment:

1) The short update from Prof. Arthur Butz: Monday, (Scroll down a bit)
2)The article entitled Maximilian Krah and Menzingen: A Cause for Serious Concern?

Following is a copy of that email, word for word,untouched and unexpurgated from His Excellency. I warrant, as a traditional Catholic and SSPX chapel member, that it is not a forgery:

Dear Mr. Q,
The reports, (i.e. referenced above) you send are essentially accurate, give or take a few details. (ed. note: So from Bp. Williamson's perspective, these two reports can be taken to the bank)
As for the confusing events, here is my version:--

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

On Saturday at a time I do not know, BpF has the SSPX Secretary make the Press Declaration that unless I renounce the "neo-Nazi", I shall be expelled. But also that afternoon, I learn that I could for instance make a Declaration in front of the Regensburg court, hardly needing any lawyer except to be there physically present (German law requires somebody to be there to stand for the accused). The dilemma above mentioned is solved. I decide to continue with the appeal, because Lawyer Nahrath is not after all the only pebble on the beach, but I do not go back on the decision to renounce Nahrath himself. He perfectly understands the whole shemozzle.

BpF does recognize my right to defend myself. He only does not want the SSPX in any way to be associated with "neo-Nazis". That is why I acted the willow on Lawyer Nahrath, but the oak on the appeal.

I hope that makes things more clear. By all means share these details with anyone else who may be confused.

All good wishes, +Richard Williamson.


  1. What does "neo-Nazi" mean ? In Germany you would be called a "neo-Nazi",if you love your Fatherland and your family and stand for traditional values.
    Is it not worse for SSPX to be associated with a lawyer who,comeing from the "Green Party", would be advocating murder of the unborn and sins against nature and the whole liberal agenda ?
    Sending Bishop W to the "Volksgerichtshof" in Regensburg without being represented by a lawyer smells like a nasty trap : He could there be arrested and put in jail.
    The whole case should be brought to the attention of the "Verfassungsschutz" as the case taken against Bishop W is unlawful as it is in contempt of the German Constitution (Grundgesetz),which guarantees the freedom of speech and to voice one's opinion (article 5,1).
    I am appalled by the term "Volksverhetzung",in english "incitement" they are still using (abusing),a term introduced into law by the nazis in the thirties,a wishy-washy term, by which they could deal with their opponents.
    Well,isn't it all the same, National Socialism and International Socialism ? As the famous philosopher Karl Jaspers remarked :"Der Wahn ist auch dort, wo Hitler und der Nationalsozialismus mit den entschiedensten Worten abgelehnt werden, dann aber sogleich die analoge, ja identische Denkungsart sich zeigt. In der Tat, Nationalsozialismus kehrt nicht wieder. Dasselbe Unheil nimmt andere Gestalten an."

  2. As a Catholic, I owe nothing to the Jews since I cannot also be a Nazie. As a Catholic, I owe no apologies for the prudgrum that is named "Holocaust", and I certainly do not owe to the Jews to destroy the Church; the Most Holy Sacrament at the Altar; the Most Holy Rosarie given to St. Dominic by Our Blessed Mother;etc.
    A Holocaust was the highiest form of sacrifice since the Priest Aaron until the Night of the Passion. A Holocaust can no longer be performed by the Jews since 70ad, because the Jews have lost the priestly succession during that time. A Rabbie is no more than a protestant minister,or a cathechist teacher. Therefore naming the prodgrum against the Jews (of WWII) a "holocaust" is an misnomer.
    A holocaust, because Abraham's hand was stopped by God's angel, as he was about to imolate Isaac, was never to be a human sacrifice when it was incepted centuries later by Moses. Therefore the naming "holocaust", as a human sacrifice of the Jews for mankind, is an affront to God.
    The number Six of six millions of Jews who alledgedly perished in the gas chambers has a symbolic value, because Six is the number attributed to Man (Apocalypse), which means that the alledged number of six millions whould represent Man as a "sacrifice" of mankind toward God. If the number six millions of Jews is false, then the Jewshish race is guilty of a imposture towards God and mankind.
    The number six millions has never been challenged but by a few, but according to the Jewish tradition, a Jewish defunct is to be named once. For example a Jewish woman named Rachel cannot be named again as Rachelle, and then as Rachela, etc. If such a case of naming several times the victims of the prodgrum of WWII occured in order to obtain an inflated and inacurate number, then the Jewish race is guilty of bearing false witness.
    Lastly, as a Catholics, I only owe to the "perfidious Jews" to pray for their soul whose only savation is through conversion to Christ, and whoever prelate deviates from this dogma is a wolf in sheeps' clothing.

  3. Have you seen this update?
    Update in regard article on Maximilian Krah