Neo-Nazi Holocaust deniers ‘plan takeover’ of SSPX, claim anti-Fascist campaigners

Source: The Telegraph

 

Neo-Nazi Holocaust deniers ‘plan takeover’ of SSPX, claim anti-Fascist campaigners

By 

 Last updated: May 25th, 2013

Far-Right supporters of the disgraced rebel Catholic bishop Richard Williamson are planning a takeover of the ultra-traditionalist Society of St Pius X (SSPX), according to the anti-fascist magazine Searchlight.

Williamson, a convicted Holocaust denier, had his excommunication lifted by Pope Benedict XVI along with that of the SSPX’s three other bishops as a prelude to possible reconciliation with Rome. But the unity plans fell apart after Williamson was exposed as a Holocaust denier – and after Bishop Bernard Fellay, the “moderate” leader of the SSPX, failed to grasp Pope Benedict’s olive branch.

Williamson was eventually expelled from the SPPX – but now, according to Searchlight, his supporters are trying to wrest control of the body, alienated from Rome since the 1970s, from Fellay. The following is from a Searchlight document which provides detailed claims of links between allies of the English-born Williamson and former supporters of the British National Front and the BNP:

A coup within Catholicism is imminent. The target is The Society of Pius X (SSPX), an ultra-traditionalist group founded in 1970 out of opposition to the Second Vatican Council (1962-65). The plotters intend to make a major step towards their takeover at a conference on the weekend of 1 and 2 June, which we can reveal will be held at Earlsfield Library Hall, 276 Magdalen Road, Earlsfield London SW18 from 9am to 5pm. The key players in this plot are a bunch of neo-Nazis, fascists and others with disreputable backgrounds. Their objective is to replace SSPX’s current Superior General, Bishop Bernard Fellay, with the convicted Holocaust-denier Bishop Richard Williamson. This plot is a very worrying turn of events.

SSPX is no stranger to controversy. Its members have supported the French Front National and given sanctuary to a Nazi collaborator and war criminal. A previous District Superior… removed Nazi sympathisers from the Society, but our sources inform us that they have re-infiltrated it … This has left many decent members shocked and fearful for its future. They do not want to see it fall into the hands of neo-Nazis.

The SSPX is, in my opinion, more trouble than it’s worth: mainstream Catholic bishops use its extreme stance as an excuse to persecute traditionalists within the official Church and deny them their canonical right to celebrate the traditional Latin liturgy. That said, far-Right views have hitherto been confined to a (fairly significant) anti-Semitic fringe within the SSPX. But now that hardliners in the Society have set their face against reunion with Rome, the dynamics of sectarianism are taking over and the fringe risks becoming the SSPX mainstream.

Facebook
Twitter
Google+
http://angelqueen.org/2013/05/25/neo-nazi-holocaust-deniers-plan-takeover-of-sspx-claim-anti-fascist-campaigners/
Get AQ Email Updates
AQ RSS Feed

7 comments on “Neo-Nazi Holocaust deniers ‘plan takeover’ of SSPX, claim anti-Fascist campaigners

  1. LOL!!!

    I’ve watched the “resistance movement within the SSPX” for the past year, as well as observing the “lunatic fringe” that portray themselves as Catholic traditionalists.

    Thus, while a few financial and “association” matters, as I’ve said in the past, do merit a public airing regarding Menzingen, for the sake of clearing said air of all political, financial and allegiance questions at the top of the Society, I would think it safe to say that the overwhelming number of Society clergy and lay followers are of one mind – personal salvation within the true Catholic Rite, period.

    The actual number of “dissidents” or “rebels”, from what I gather, is tiny, scattered and reliant on agitprop alone to spread its “message”. A few would likely qualify for some form of public assistance for psychiatric impairments. But not all. An even tinier number of these folks are circumspect, careful in how they make their remarks and sincerely interested in the betterment of the Society.

    Nevertheless, we are talking Europe, in the main. Which means, of course, that the usual lenses Americans use to get a clear image don’t always work very well. So far, however, I think Damian Thompson has only managed to pass along some hysteria from his pals in the Far Left and pass a lot of wind regarding so-called anti-Semitism.

    Typical Thompson.

  2. LOL is right. If only the SSPX would listen to Thompson, all would be better. The reform of the reform of the reform could move ahead, Jews would convert, the polar ice caps would stop melting, etc.

    Imagine there’s no SSPX, it’s easy if you’re Damian.

    (Whoops – Jews don’t need to convert. Never mind.)

  3. ROSTAND’S
    STAND

    On and on
    Through their jeers
    Fr. Rostand, stands.

    Though he fed them
    Through the years
    Fr. Rostand, stands.

    Febrile, feckless
    Foolish fears
    Fr. Rostand, stands.

    Fickle, faithless
    Futile tears
    Fr. Rostand, stands.

    Pretentious, prideful
    Sure they’re seers
    Fr. Rostand, stands.

    Cataracted-eyes
    And itching ears
    Fr. Rostand, stands.

    But at the end
    Christ will descend
    Fr. Rostand, stands.

    And Rostand’s stand
    It will ascend
    As all Catholic Truth demands!

    • Good poem, Long-Skirts. Fr. Rostand is a good man, and not the monster that his enemies make him out to be.

      It is very sad that these people have turned against the Society and now wish to destroy it, but the Archbishop’s legacy will live on and conquer.

      Deus Vult!

  4. I have been wondering when or if their departure might cause some changes. There is the fervent support of Flannery O’Connor among some quarters that needs to be examined. There is also teaching about women and modesty that in my opinion could bear some re-thinking. Last year we had a rosary in the park and invited surrounding parishes to join us, and a few did. It was ferocious weather and we ended up in our church and one of our youth was scandalized by two of the women from another parish who came back to church with us, because they wore pants. The pants were loose, thick, worn under long coats, and were perfectly modest. It made me think that we could perhaps do better to teach ‘modesty’ rather than ‘no pants no where no time’ and also wonder if the present interpretation didn’t originally come from a certain quarter of the community which has departed. And that as well for the idea that there should be no hint or possibility of competition between the sexes, because men ought to be too chivalrous to compete honestly with women. Perhaps Shakespeare was a modernist, but the relations between men and women in his plays, which we could take as normative for the period, seems to me to show no distinction in that area. Men and women are wonderfully competitive in that world. And other teachings which I have thought we might begin to examine. Girls and sports. Maybe our school curriculum, especially regarding O’Connor.

    I am still on topic, if you’ll permit me to think it out like this: ‘raiding us? Are they really gone, even?’ These particular men had a great influence on our community, but what was it ,and was it truly Catholic, even then? Because their position now is not. Bishop Fellay was right to engage in discussions. And he must again, and again, and again, until the resolution of the modernist poison doctrine somehow and somewhere. Each time it will be a kind of risk and definitely a punishment for him, or his successor. These men are really really wrong to say he shouldn’t. So what else were they wrong in?

  5. Thompson’s rant has two purposes:

    1. It is an attempt to further sow discord among Traditional Catholics, pitting so-called “anti-Semites” against those who… well, those who are more afraid of being called “anti-Semites” than of falling into various traps of the Modernists.

    2. It aims to provoke in Traditional Catholics an over-reaction against implied charges of “anti-Semitism”, to the point where they perhaps abandon actual Catholic teaching on the false religion of modern “Judaism”.

    Thomspon’s piece also demonstrates the superiority of print over electronic media, in that the print version of it is at least useful for lining a bird cage.

    Now, it is important to distinguish between actual hatred of those who call themselves “Jews” based on this identification, which is wrong, from the Catholic teaching that the anti-Christian religion which calls itself Judaism is a false religion whose adherents (as with followers of all false religions, even those which call themselves Christian) must convert to the One True Church founded by Jesus Christ. In a sense, Judas, Annas and Caiaphas were the first protestants.

    (*) I have put a few terms here in quotation marks, because their common usage is either incorrect or imprecise. I would add to these terms the word “Israel”. In an effort to avoid confusion, let me explain:

    First of all, the term “Jew” as commonly used today is both vague and incorrect; it refers to followers of modern “Judaism” (see next item), as well as to those of “Jewish heritage” even if they don’t practice this religion. So, it is not quite a religious designation, but also not a race or ethnicity, either, but some ephemeral mixture of all (or any) of these.

    The term “Judaism” as commonly used today does not have the same meaning as it did before Jesus. The Catholic Church is the true continuation of Old Testament Judaism (and therefore, Catholics are the only true Jews), but the term has been appropriated by those who rejected (and continue to reject) Christ, who is the fulfillment of the Old Covenant, and His Church.

    The name “Israel” is now generally meant to refer to the modern political state called Israel, and while many protestants are pro-“Israel” out of the belief that this modern, secular political state is the Israel of the Bible; their anti-Catholic prejudice prevents their seeing (or admitting) that the Catholic Church is the New Israel. This error has led many Western countries into becoming pawns of a political state that doesn’t even feel gratitude for the sacrifices made on its behalf, having an attitude that such sacrifice is owed to them. Of course, expressing this is generally met with charges of…

    “anti-Semitism”, which is a truly bastardized term. As some have said, an anti-Semite used to be someone who hates Jews; now it is someone who is hated by Jews (of course, using the common modern sense of the term “Jew” here). It is generally used as a weapon against anyone who dares criticize the modern political state of “Israel”, or anyone who questions details of “Jewish” dogma (“Holocaust denier” is another twisted term, used by Thompson to describe someone who doesn’t deny that Nazis did kill many “Jews”, or that this was evil, but only questions the number and manner of the killings). Thus, we have the oddity of “anti-Semitic Jews”, generally being any “Jew” who criticizes “Israel”. However, the term is even more inappropriate, as most modern “Jews” are not Semitic, and most modern Semites (e.g., Arabs) are not “Jews”.

  6. I think I’ve seen this movie…

    null

Leave a Reply