Author Topic: Bent JPII Crucifix on US District Website Rosary Crusade Page (Read 11054 times)

Skunkwurxsspx · « **on:** February 01, 2014, 06:22:52 PM »

There is a reference to this on the Non Possumus website. So I went on the US District website, and what do you know? The bent JPII crucifix displayed on the Rosary Crusade tally page.

Check out this link:

http://sspx.org/en/news-events/news/how-do-i-turn-my-rosary-crusade-tally-3204

I'm sure there's a proper name for that ugly bent JPII crucifix, which I don't recall.

Maybe I'm just over-reacting, but the implicit acceptance of such an abominable, insulting, unmanly, vulgar image of Our Lord on the SSPX website (as if no one were to notice or say anything) is very troubling to me.

The words of the Resistance Fathers that "the rot starts at the head of the fish" is starting to sink in a little deeper with more of these troubling modernist advances "imperceptibly" creeping in little by little, here and there in the SSPX.

Am I making too big a deal of this? . . . Have at it, folks!!!

Columba · « **Reply #1 on:** February 01, 2014, 06:43:50 PM »

Quote from: Piers Compton

[Paul VI] also made use of a sinister symbol, used by Satanists in the sixth century, that had been revived at the time of Vatican Two. This was a bent or broken cross on which was displayed a repulsive and distorted figure of Christ, which the black magicians and sorcerers of the Middle Ages had made use of to represent the Biblical term, ‘Mark of the Beast’.

Yet not only Paul VI but his successors, the two John-Pauls, carried that object and held it up to be revered by crowds who had not the slightest idea that it stood for anti-Christ. Furthermore, this exhibition of a desiccated figure on a twisted stick was forbidden by Canon 1279, which condemned the usage of any sacred image that is not in keeping with the approved usage of the Church. That it was used for occult purposes may be seen in woodcuts shown in the Museum of Witchcraft in Bayonne, France. [...]

http://www.catholicvoice.co.uk/brokencross/PartFour.htm
http://www.catholicvoice.co.uk/brokencross/

Matto · « **Reply #2 on:** February 01, 2014, 06:48:16 PM »

It looks like another sign that the smoke of Satan has entered into the SSPX.

MaterDominici · « **Reply #3 on:** February 01, 2014, 06:58:02 PM »

I think the problem in this instance might just be a website which relies on stock photos for it's "image". Was there a more traditional option available? Who knows? I'd have been going for my own camera even if the results weren't quite as professional.

fast777 · « **Reply #4 on:** February 01, 2014, 07:20:04 PM »

This cross is a sɛҳuąƖ perversion......I pray for the day when a Pope breaks this staff over his knee in St Peters.

Skunkwurxsspx · « **Reply #5 on:** February 01, 2014, 08:36:25 PM »

Quote from: fast777

This cross is a sɛҳuąƖ perversion......I pray for the day when a Pope breaks this staff over his knee in St Peters.

Now he would have to be a very physically strong pope indeed to be able to do that.

BTW, love the Boeing 777. I assume that's what your screen-name is fashioned after. Boeing really did this one right!

God bless, my friend. Totally agree with the sentiment regarding doing away with that abominable mockery of Our Lord!

Frances · « **Reply #6 on:** February 01, 2014, 08:56:44 PM »

:dancing-banana:
It's hard to believe someone from District Headquarters doesn't proof-read the website, even if it is done by an outside commercial business. It's also unbelievable that those at DH are ignorant of the connotations of JPII's warped cross.

Skunkwurxsspx · « **Reply #7 on:** February 01, 2014, 09:44:08 PM »

Quote from: Frances

:dancing-banana:
It's hard to believe someone from District Headquarters doesn't proof-read the website, even if it is done by an outside commercial business. It's also unbelievable that those at DH are ignorant of the connotations of JPII's warped cross.

It's just too much of a "coincidence," the way I see it. At the risk of "reading too much into it," it's almost like a suggestive symbolism of the desire to have an accord with the Conciliar Church, which is most certainly not the Catholic Church.

Now, if they wish to simply show a filial devotion to the papacy itself, why not just simply display the white and yellow Vatican flag? But, no. They just had to go down the road of displaying that vulgar degradation of Our Lord and King!

That particular crucifix is an affront. It's simply disgusting! How can they so casually put it up on display in the SSPX website?

Maybe the corruption within the SSPX is really deeper than I thought it to be. Indeed, the fish rots from the head down.

Honestly, I would have been less scandalized if they had posted a picture of a Hollyweird celeb.

Mithrandylan · « **Reply #8 on:** February 01, 2014, 09:49:29 PM »

Quote from: Skunkwurxsspx

Quote from: Frances
:dancing-banana:
It's hard to believe someone from District Headquarters doesn't proof-read the website, even if it is done by an outside commercial business. It's also unbelievable that those at DH are ignorant of the connotations of JPII's warped cross.

It's just too much of a "coincidence," the way I see it. At the risk of "reading too much into it," it's almost like a suggestive symbolism of the desire to have an accord with the Conciliar Church, which is most certainly not the Catholic Church.

Now, if they wish to simply show a filial devotion to the papacy itself, why not just simply display the white and yellow Vatican flag? But, no. They just had to go down the road of displaying that vulgar degradation of Our Lord and King!

That particular crucifix is an affront. It's simply disgusting! How can they so casually put it up on display in the SSPX website?

Maybe the corruption within the SSPX is really deeper than I thought it to be. Indeed, the fish rots from the head down.

Honestly, I would have been less scandalized if they had posted a picture of a Hollyweird celeb.

Not at all unlike what they had done with the Advent (or Holy Week? I can't remember) booklets, with the Cross of San Damiano.

Cantarella · « **Reply #9 on:** February 01, 2014, 09:57:18 PM »

What a hideous cross!

Graham · « **Reply #10 on:** February 01, 2014, 10:14:33 PM »

Quote from: Frances

:dancing-banana:
It's hard to believe someone from District Headquarters doesn't proof-read the website, even if it is done by an outside commercial business. It's also unbelievable that those at DH are ignorant of the connotations of JPII's warped cross.

The site uses Drupal, a pretty user-friendly content management system. The district site is more complex than your average, but it's conceivable that the they have no need of an outside commercial business for 95% of their site updates. A day of training - two at most - is enough for a technical minded neophyte to learn the ins and outs of updating text and images, creating new pages and menu options, uploading files and managing modular features like a calendar or a donate button. Who really knows though.

dreamtomorrow · « **Reply #11 on:** February 01, 2014, 10:16:11 PM »

It's not apparent enough for me, it could be a normal cross. I pictured the whole thing.

Neil Obstat · « **Reply #12 on:** February 01, 2014, 10:36:01 PM »

Quote from: MaterDominici

I think the problem in this instance might just be a website which relies on stock photos for it's "image". Was there a more traditional option available? Who knows? I'd have been going for my own camera even if the results weren't quite as professional.

Somehow, I expect you could do a whole lot better with your own camera, M-D. All this has is a shallow depth of field, like with a macro lens. Nothing fancy.

Quote from: dreamtomorrow

It's not apparent enough for me, it could be a normal cross. I pictured the whole thing.

I have two JPII rosaries that HAD this dumpy "cross" on them, and I replaced them with real crucifixes 20 years ago, soon after I got them. This is not even a crucifix, as it has no INRI on the top. That's one of the necessary components of a crucifix, you know. And certainly JPII knew that too, unless he was STUPID. They say he was really intelligent, so how could he have been stupid, too?

Quote from: Skunkwurxsspx

Quote from: Frances
:dancing-banana:
It's hard to believe someone from District Headquarters doesn't proof-read the website, even if it is done by an outside commercial business. It's also unbelievable that those at DH are ignorant of the connotations of JPII's warped cross.

It's just too much of a "coincidence," the way I see it. At the risk of "reading too much into it," it's almost like a suggestive symbolism of the desire to have an accord with the Conciliar Church, which is most certainly not the Catholic Church.

Now, if they wish to simply show a filial devotion to the papacy itself, why not just simply display the white and yellow Vatican flag? But, no. They just had to go down the road of displaying that vulgar degradation of Our Lord and King!

That particular crucifix is an affront. It's simply disgusting! How can they so casually put it up on display in the SSPX website?

Maybe the corruption within the SSPX is really deeper than I thought it to be. Indeed, the fish rots from the head down.

Honestly, I would have been less scandalized if they had posted a picture of a Hollyweird celeb.

Maybe a Hollywood celeb with a tattoo of a real crucifix, even, instead of this fake one?

This 'cross' design has roots in middle ages devil worship.

Neil Obstat · « **Reply #13 on:** February 01, 2014, 10:51:00 PM »

.

While some COPIES of this 'thing' may have an INRI on top, accurate reproductions don't, and if you look closely, you'll see the original does not. It has a crumpled piece of junk on top but there is no legible inscription -- just as there is no accurate identifiable detail in anything about it, it's all smudged and distorted and aberrational:

The linked image is clearer:

http://i.huffpost.com/gen/1200143/thumbs/o-JOHN-PAUL-II-SAINT-MIRACLE-facebook.jpg

The downward-bent arms signify the DEFEAT of Our Lord's perfect sacrifice, the central event of all human history. It is a blasphemy.

.

Skunkwurxsspx · « **Reply #14 on:** February 01, 2014, 11:56:45 PM »

I sincerely hope this is an oversight on the part of those in charge of updating the website, but I seriously doubt it. My suspicion is that they gradually slip in these things ("compromises," if you will) pretty much as the proverbial scientist-chef gradually turns up the heat on the Jacuzzi frog.

What's next, I wonder. Rainbow fiddle-back chasubles? Folks, please forgive my possible oversensitivity to this particular matter. This "crucifix" is bad enough already--a real eyesore--but seeing it casually displayed in an approving manner on an SSPX website? What a wake-up call!