I - The Holocaustic/Modernist Neo-Religion
Abraham H. Foxman (director of the Anti Defamation League of B’naiB’rith) said: “The Holocaust is not only an example of genocide but an almost successful attack on the life of the elect children of God, and therefore on God Himself” .
For Talmudic Judaism the Shoah has a religious significance since Israel is the “god” of mankind and Jesus an impostor. Therefore the Christian should not fail to take an interest in this fake “dogma” (hiding behind the excuse that it’s just a matter of history that does not concern the Church…), which would destroy the Faith of the Gospel. Refusing to do so would implicitly deny the uniqueness of the sacrifice of Christ, the only Redeemer of all mankind.
Catholic theology teaches that Judaism is responsible for the death of the Incarnate Word, true God and true man. The Fathers of the Church (Tradition) by relying on the Holy Scriptures and the Magisterium, which is the official interpreter of the two sources (Tradition and Scripture) of divine revelation (cfr. Pius XI, Mitbrennender Sorge, 1937), say so .
Neo-modernism, since the declaration of Nostra Aetate (1965), has tried to deny the doctrine of deicide, as contained in Scripture and Tradition (divine revelation) and taught by the traditional Magisterium of the Church (the office with the proper interpretation of Revelation).
The Catholic who wishes to preserve his Faith whole and pure, without which it is impossible to please God (St. Paul, Rom., X, 9), cannot, according to the principle of non-contradiction, adhere to Nostra Aetate and at the same time to divine revelation, as contained in Holy Scripture and Tradition and as interpreted by the traditional Magisterium.
Either you accept all of revelation, all of the faith and all of Catholic doctrine, as is, and then you’re on the way to heaven if accompanied by good works or by supernatural charity, or if you deny even a single article or truth of the Faith, you reject it all, and then you’re on the road to Hell, because “without faith it is impossible to please God” (Heb., xi, 6).
In fact, either Jesus is true God and true man and then rabbinic Judaism is guilty of deicide, or else Israel is God and therefore any attack against it and its members is deicide and the new religion is that of the Shoah. There is no third option. It is impossible to have as a third option the combination of “Judeo-Christianity”, which is nothing but an attempt to “square the circle”, because, since Jesus said he was God, Israel and the Holocaust really are “absolute evil”, on account of the contradiction in terms and considering that evil is the privation of a due good.
When Benedict XVI in 2009 said that in order to exercise the priesthood and the episcopate in the Church one must believe in the Shoah (cfr. The “Williamson case”), he not only committed a serious abuse of power, but he embarked even more radically on the erroneous path of Talmudic Judaism, which deifies Israel and implicitly denies the divinity of Christ.
Traditionalist Catholics did not want to understand the scope of the antichristian “Williamson case” (regardless of the person of the bishop in question) by refusing to identify the underlying doctrine. We don’t need to look at it as a personal question, but as a question of doctrine : “He that is not with Me is against Me” (Matthew, XII, 30). Now without Jesus Christ we will not enter the Kingdom of Heaven .
Vatican II in the light of the Shoah, according to Ben Horim.
Also according to Nathan Ben Horim (New horizons between Jews and Christians, Padova, Messaggero, 2011), the former minister at the Embassy of Israel in Italy, who was in charge of relations with the Holy See from 1980 to 1986, the new relationship between Judaism and Christianity is thanks to “three events : the shoah , the birth of the State of Israel and the Second Vatican Council” (ibid, p. 11).
In fact, the Shoah would impose historical reflections, with an enormous political and moral reach, which no one - not even the Church - could escape. Out of the shoah (1942-45), via Nuremberg (1946), was born the State of Israel (1948), which above all has an ethnic and even normative-religious significance for Judaism. From these historical reflections, moral, political, ethnic and religious (since Judaism is a people or race that one recognizes in a certain ethical or religious way ) was born the Second Vatican Council (1962-65), which “marks a turning point in the history of the Catholic Church . […] One of the most significant changes in the Council concerned the relationship with the Jews, […] “which still remain very dear to God ‘” (ibid).
The Israeli diplomat admits that “such change, in the Christian vision of the Jews, would never have happened if it were not for the Holocaust, Nuremberg and the birth of the State of Israel” (ibid, p. 12). He defines Judaism with the triplet “Torah, People, Earth” (ibid., P. 107).
The problem of the Council is largely due to the Judaization of Christianity (Nostra Aetate, 28 October 1965) and is inextricably linked to that of the Shoah. Whoever does not want to admit this, or is incapable of seeing this reality, or will not admit it, [does so] because it is not convenient.
Talmudic Judaism wants the Capitulation of the SSPX
On September 16, 2011 - according to Rabbi Levi Brackman - Jewish groups especially in the US (ADL Director Abraham Foxman of B’naiB’rith and Rabbi David Rosen of the American Jewish Committee) “expressed their concern that the Vatican could call into question 40 years of progress in Jewish-Catholic relations” . They then warned that Nostra Aetate, 4 and Lumen Gentium, 16 (“the gifts of God [Old Covenant] are irrevocable”) “can not be questioned and are not open for discussion.” Or else, the Jewish-Christian dialogue would cease.
I hope that the Traditional world will not desire to capitulate based on the illusion that the progressive liberalism of Francis I will give them everything without asking anything. Above all, the pro-Shoah premise of 2009 is unsatisfactory, since the Shoah, Zionism and Nostra Aetate are inseparable. A small error in the beginning leads to a big error in the end.
It is for this reason that the “Williamson case” is of major importance (in itself and not because of the person in question) and his expulsion from the SSPX cannot but lead to the acceptance of the Second Vatican Council and a subordination to the “Jews, our elder brothers in the faith of Abraham” (John Paul II, April 13, 1986, Address to the Great Temple of Rome).
II – The Krah-Williamson-Nahrath case of 2010
Towards the middle of November 2010 Msgr. Richard Williamson, who was charged with “[holocaust] denial” decided to have Wolfram Nahrath as his defense lawyer. So he asked his first defence lawyer, Matthias Lossmann, if he wanted to defend him together with Nahrath. Lossman refused and Msgr. Williamson dismissed him of his case.
The General Treasurer of the SSPX, Maximilian Krah and Zionism
1) Lossmann the lawyer (who was challenged by Msgr. Williamson) was chosen in 2009 by Maximilian Krah (the General Treasurer of the SSPX) to defend Msgr. Williamson. But who really is this Krah? Objectively (the heart or his subjective intentions only God can scrutinize and so I leave that judgment to Him), he [Krah] participated in the press campaign against Msgr. Williamson, which erupted on January 20, 2009, through interviews with the radical socialist magazine “Der Spiegel”, whose political orientation is very similar to Carlo De Benedetti’s Italian weekly magazine “L’Espresso”.
2) In September 2010 in New York, together with former students of the University of Tel Aviv, Krah attended (“contra factum non valet argumenum”) a fundraiser to help Jewish students of the Diaspora to reach the State of Israel in order to be trained at the Zionist Tel Aviv University; there are photos of Krah and his companions, recognizable as Israelites .
3) Krah’s response to the above comments came at the end of December 2010, and were published on the Ignis Ardens website . They are quite enlightening and disconcerting. Disconcerting because objectively they were threatening: “Now I know those who have slandered me …”. Illuminating because a) if he had been really slandered, Krah could have simply responded by clarifying or he could have had recourse to the courts for justice, as was his right, and not just to intimidate by threats ( “I know you, you will see”); b) since Krah admits: “in September I received a spontaneous invitation from a lawyer friend to this very pleasant evening at the Witzenhausen Gallery, where I met some great people from Israel, the United States (both Jewish and non), and some Europeans who resided in New York. It was a regular annual meeting. And of course, there was a gala for charity. That was it.”; c) Lastly, since Krah doesn’t deny fundraising for the University of Tel Aviv, since that is no longer a simple “chat” with Jews, which is perfectly legal. It does’t matter whether this lawyer, Krah, is of Jewish origin, what matters is faith and not ethnicity. Krah professes to be a Traditional Catholic nevertheless, yet with pro-Zionist activities, and even though Krah’s choices are legitimate and legal actions in themselves, they are difficult to reconcile, morally and dogmatically, with the profession of the traditional and pre-conciliar Catholic Faith. This is the objectively relevant point of it all. In fact, St. Pius X (patron saint of “traditionalists”) in 1904 responded to Theodore Herzl (the founder of Zionism, 1896), who had asked him to recognize the Zionist movement and the possible future State of Israel: “To the same Israel that will not recognize Christ as the Messiah and God, the Church will not recognize Zionism and Israel.” So objectively between Catholicism and Zionism there is an incompatibility and “dual membership” is not licit.
Relevance of the ‘Krah/Williamson case’
After Msgr. Williamson’ trial in Germany on 4 July 2011, Maximilian Krah gave an interview which was objectively defamatory and insulting towards the British bishop. “Monsignor Richard Williamson has a deep problem of disconnection from reality, every two years, with beautiful regularity, he believes in the end of the world. […]. I guess you could call him an unstable type [bizarre, eccentric]. “ 
Unfortunately, no one intervened, not to defend Msgr. Williamson, then bishop of the SSPX, from slander by the General Treasurer of the same SSPX, and not even to temper the storm and encourage greater education in the use of the words used against him, which would have been the duty of the Superior General of the SSPX.
III – The Expulsion of Bishop Williamson
In 2012 Bishop Richard Williamson was expelled from the Society of St. Pius X, because “for many years he had distanced himself from the management and the government of the Society” (Communiqué of the General House, Menzingen October 24, 2012).
In reality, it is the Society’s direction that for several years - and especially since 2009 - has taken a dangerous position of reckless dialogue (which has become more and more explicit since the Pontificate of Pope Bergoglio) and excessive openness to the newness of the Second Vatican Council II as well as acceptance of the Holocaust as a condition requested by Benedict XVI to be considered in full ecclesiastical communion. It is above all the opposition to these failures which were being blamed on Bishop Williamson, disguised under a disciplinary aspect.
The expulsion of Monsignor Williamson cannot but cause concern that it is seriously probable that the ongoing negotiations with Benedict XVI (and then continued with Francis I) - accepting, quietly or practically, his hermeneutic of continuity between apostolic Tradition and Vatican Council II – will result in a practical agreement with ultra-modernism.
IV – Two Levels of Meeting Before an Accord : a “Diplomatic” and a “Doctrinal” Dialogue
In December 2011, Father Michel Lelong wrote a book entitled “Pour la nécessaire réconciliation” [For a Necessary Reconciliation]. The Groupe de Réflexion Entre Catholiques (GREC), Nouvelles Editions Latines, Parigi .
Fr. Lelong tells the story of the dialogues of the “Groupe de Réflexion Entre Catholiques”(‘GREC’); dialogues that are “discreet, but not secret” (p. 29) with some members of the leadership of the SSPX in view of a full agreement between the same Society of St. Pius X and the Vatican, after accepting the interpretation of Vatican Council II in the light of Tradition, or the ‘“hermeneutic of continuity”, and after having received the freeing of the traditional Mass, and the lifting of the excommunication and a full canonical accommodation.
Father Lelong calls himself a lover of the traditional liturgy (p. 25), but at the same time also of Vatican II, especially inter-religious relations promoted by Nostra Aetate, the “Declaration on the relations between the Catholic Church and non-Christian religions” (p. 17 ), and even of Gaudium et Spes, of Unitatis Redintegratio, of Dignitatis Humanae Sacrosanctum Concilium (pp. 75-82), all - according to him - perfectly legible in the light of Tradition. He, together with the traditionalist chiefs gathered in the ‘GREC’, tried to carry out a charitable and diplomatic dialogue rather than a doctrinal one (pp. 21-22) in order to reach an agreement on the compatibility between Vatican II and Tradition.
One of the instigators of the ‘GREC’ was former French ambassador to Italy, Dr. Gilbert Pérol († 1995), who from 1963 to 1967 had already exercised important functions in the Elysee with President Charles de Gaulle, and was named ‘General Secretary’ of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and finally ambassador in Tunis, in Tokyo and then in Rome from 1988 to 1991 (p. 17:24).
The French ambassador thought, like Fr. Lelong, that some texts of Vatican II were good in themselves, but that they were, however, been misinterpreted, controversially and uncorrected, by the progressives (p. 18). So to arrive at “a necessary reconciliation” with traditionalists, it was necessary to interpret them in the light of tradition or along “the hermeneutics of continuity”, being faithful, at the same time, to the traditional liturgy (p. 18).
The French ambassador, starting from the firm and essential premise that the Council can not be totally rejected (p. 22), that it’s application was not correct, especially with regard to the liturgy (p. 22), since 1988 (the year of the consecration of four bishops by Mgr. Lefebvre and his own arrival in Rome as new ambassador) did his utmost to repair the breach, first discreetly by visiting the Priory of Albano Laziale and finally in 1995, shortly before his death, by writing a text that influenced the birth of the ‘GREC’ and then the “discreet” meetings with a charitable and diplomatic instead of doctrinal dialogue (pp. 21-22) with the leadership of the SSPX (p. 29), from which ten years later, thanks to Benedict XVI and his “workhorse” the “hermeneutic of continuity and not rupture” with respect to the Council, has resulted - according to Fr. Lelong - the granting of the Motu proprio of 2007 (p. 49), then the lifting of the excommunication of the four bishops consecrated by His Excellency Msgr. Marcel Lefebvre in 1988 and then the “public” doctrinal discussions between the Vatican and the SSPX (pp. 50-52).
After his death, the work of Dr. Gilbert Pérol was carried on by his wife, Mrs. Huguette Pérol, author of two books on the current discussions.
Father Lelong says he has made the acquaintance of some chiefs of the SSPX since 1996. First of all, Fr. Emmanuel du Chalard in the Priory of Albano Laziale (p. 24), which “has never ceased to give it’s discreet but precious support of the ‘GREC’ “(p. 24) and in 1997 with Fr. Alain Lorans, former Rector of the Seminary of Econe, then of the University of St. Pius X in Paris and then Director of the official press of the SSPX’s DICI “( p. 24). Only then was the ‘GREC’ formally born. The meetings took place in the home of Mrs. Huguette Pérol in Rue de Rome in Paris; among the participants were mainly Mrs. Pérol, Fr. Lelong, Fr. Lorans on behalf of the Superior General of the SSPX (p. 29), and Fr. Olivier de La Brosse, a Dominican who later became the official spokesman of the French Episcopal Conference (p. 24 and 25).
The book is interesting because it distinguishes between two types of meetings or discussions between traditionalists and the Vatican: 1) on the “discreet, not totally secret but diplomatic” level, open to accept the hermeneutic of continuity between the apostolic Tradition and Vatican Council II, a level that seems to be considered of real value to the Vatican and the leadership of the SSPX (1997-2001); 2) on the public, theological and doctrinal level (2000-2010), which proves itself reluctant to accept the hermeneutic of continuity, insisting rather on doctrinal points of rupture between the Council and Tradition, but which appears to be considered of little value, almost as “eye candy” for the faithful and traditionalists priests.
The book helps us to understand how we have been able to reach, in 2001, the declaration of the Superior General of the SSPX that “the Second Vatican Council is 95% acceptable” (cfr. ‘DICI’, n. ° 8 , May 18, 2001) . That statement met with immediate opposition from Msgr. Richard Williamson from the US in an issue of the American Bulletin of the SSPX, “Letter to friends and benefactors,” which called “contacts with Roma” “a betrayal”, and which during the meeting of the “Italian District of the SSPX” of 26 April 2002 burried - for the moment – Albano Laziale.
The infamous formula “Vatican II is 95% acceptable” passed for a decade in embarrassed silence and was relaunched in September-October of 2012 in connection with the expulsion from the SSPX of Msgr. Williamson, who had become too big a hurdle for “diplomatic” agreements, as Cardinal Castrillon Hoyos on 11 May 2001 in Germany had said to the priests of the Fraternity of St. Peter.
The “discrete, but not secret talks”, held on a charitable and diplomatic rather than doctrinal level (pp. 21-22), nearly developed into a total failure.
We can be surprised and enlightened by the “discrete”, charitable and diplomatic rather than doctrinal meetings (pp. 21-22), conducted in the light of the “hermeneutic of continuity”, which - according to Fr. Lelong - led between 2001 and 2012 to an almost complete reconciliation between the SSPX and the Vatican and to a full communion with Francis I, all of which was delayed by the “Williamson case” of 2008 (see. Fr. Lelong, cit., P.120).
V – An Agreement Reached
On 17 January 2017 (the day dedicated to the “Jewish / Christian dialogue”) Mgr. Bernard Fellay met Francis I in Santa Marta. On 29 January (two days after the liberation of Auschwitz by the Red Army, 27-1-1945) “Tradinews” on “TV Liberté” released an interview of Msgr. Fellay in which he talks about his last conversation with Pope Bergoglio and says that the completion of the agreement is “only missing a stamp” and “a respecting of the commitments made”. It seems to take us back to 8 September 1943 with Badoglio, to Victor Emanuel III and the “Allies” who bombed him there into a signed armistice…
The date of the ultimate agreement between the SSPX and Francis I is not accidental. In fact, the Jewish world does not pay up for the expulsion of Bishop Williamson and for the acceptance of the Shoah by the SSPX and has requested further evidence of submission by the latter to the new Holocaust religion on the previous 17 and 27 January.
The acceptance of the Shoah (2009) has led to the practical (2017) and not only theoretical (2001) acceptance of the Second Vatican Council.
Having arrived at this point, it can be concluded that objectively, as Alessandro Gnocchi on “Christian Rescue” rightly wrote on 16 January 2017, the SSPX has played an important role in the defense of the traditional faith and in the fight against the apostasy in the Church and the modernistic infiltration at the top, but that its Superior General Mgr. Bernard Fellay threw it all in the jaws of Bergoglio, who works for the destruction of traditional Catholic doctrine.
This failure is quite sad, but we should not turn it into a tragedy: the SSPX is not the Church of Christ, which is infallibly and unfailingly assisted by God and will continue to exist until the end of the world, despite the vicissitudes of the struggle it fights against Satan and his minions, with inevitable injuries, retreats, partial defeats and lost battles, but the war will be won by the Church since it was established by God and is protected by Him, and which from John XXIII is experiencing its “Passion”, but [after that] will rise again.
The salvation of souls depending on the Church, the SSPX has done well for forty years, albeit with human imperfections, to maintain the faith and tradition in the Church occupied by modernism. However now it has objectively ceased to continue in this direction and has become the number one enemy of Christianity: Talmudic Judaism and its principal accomplice of the XXI century: the modernist “secret society” (St. Pius X, Motu proprio Sacrorum Antistitum, September 10, 1910).
We can still save our soul and the Church will last even if the SSPX surrenders to modernism. The important thing is to continue to believe what the Church has always taught and to do what the Church has always done, without going along with modernism.
Priests who do not want to be recycled by neo-modernism and Talmudic Judaism should follow the example set by a Bishop Williamson (not the physical person).
Now the priests who are not inclined to doctrinal compromises have at their disposal three bishops, a Benedictine monastery in Brazil and the Dominicans in France and, if they are numerous, they can have many houses in which to carry on their mission and a seminary, which is already born near the Dominicans of Avrillé, which is forming in full fidelity to Tradition candidates for the priesthood.
The main things is not to lose heart (“he can bark, but he cannot bite, unless he’s allowed to”), just as when we were faced with the Novus Ordo Mass we chose the traditional Mass. So now we must choose Tradition and not compromise, abandoning ourselves to Divine Providence and to cooperating freely with Her.
Footnotes can be found here
Don Curzio Nitoglia