Author Topic: Is this their way to spread disinformation ? (Read 2472 times)

cosmas · « **on:** July 03, 2019, 05:03:50 PM »

‘I Tried to Investigate Lefebvre & Was Banned’

Characteristic of a Cover-Up

Today, for the benefit of TIA’s readers, I want to explain how a major traditionalist Catholic Internet forum changed overnight. The forum is called CathInfo. What initially attracted me to CathInfo was the vibrant discussion and the intriguing ensemble of personalities. Although officially an SSPX Resistance forum that follows the orientation set by Bishop Richard Williamson, it is also home to “Ecclesia Dei” traditionalists (ICKSP, FSSP, etc), Sede-vacantists, conclavists... even dogmatic flat-earthers..!

I found the “hands-off” moderation style of the forum owner, Matthew, very refreshing; and such a contrast to the repressive ambiences of other Catholic forums: FishEaters (“toxic trads forbidden here”), Suscipe Domine (where bannings are akin to public executions) and Catholic Answers Forum (where getting banned is a traditionalist’s rite of passage), just to name a few.

Leading to my ban from CathInfo, a few months ago, the forum was spammed with propaganda, primarily against Dr. Plinio and TIA. Most readers know the attacks by now: “slavery to Plinio!” “a sect!” “a personality cult!” etc. All of this was refuted decades ago and I won’t say much more about it here. Suffice it to say, though, I was one of several who came to TIA’s defense on the forums.

The attacks began after TIA published revelations of SSPX’s coup in Quito, in which the followers of Dr. Plinio were more or less expelled by the Society’s acolytes there, and certain unscrupulous persons tried to co-opt the devotion to Our Lady of Good Success to fit the ‘Saint Marcel Lefebvre’ meta-narrative (here, here, here, here and here).

With his characteristic neutrality, Matthew made some cordial, balanced comments on the issue. He also asked a few questions. Still, he never took a side against Dr. Plinio and TIA, at least not publicly. When a few persons tried to suppress the polemic, alleging it was clogging the forums with irrelevant information, Matthew appropriately refused to bow to their pressure.

That was the situation on the forums in April. In spite of two or three annoying women who cut-and-pasted lengthy diatribes against Dr. Plinio and TIA ad nauseam, the defenders of Dr. Plinio were free to debate and refute these attacks with complete liberty. It was a kind of stalemate.

Unfortunately, this situation eroded into a state where the attackers of Dr. Plinio and TIA gained the upper-hand. They did so in this way: After TIA commented on the question “Was Msgr. Lefèbvre a Freemason?”, the two women, SSPX lackeys who always maniacally derailed every discussion imaginable (no matter how far removed from the topic of TIA/TFP) into an attack on Dr. Plinio, entered the picture. Like little paranoid persons, they also derailed the burgeoning discussion that was beginning on CathInfo about Lefebvre’s alleged Masonry. This is a great shame because I sensed it was promising to be a vigorous debate unlike any before. It was the most blatant instance of orchestrated distraction I had ever seen on CathInfo.

Of course, I tried to correct the bad course. I made a thread on the forum trying to re-start the debate. ‘The attacks on Dr. Plinio and TIA’ – which had already been discussed time and time again in many other threads (even threads un-related to the issue of Dr. Plinio) – ‘are a distraction from the real issue,’ I said, in so many words. ‘The question of Lefebvre, whether he was in fact a saintly man as he is presented by the Society, is of far greater importance here.’ Then, I listed the pieces of circuмstantial evidence presented by former SSPX seminarian Mr. Christopher Shannon, urging that they be refuted as soon as possible. They were creating a scandal, I reasoned, the longer they were publicly known without so much as an attempt at a refutation.

In conjunction with our efforts to get the discussion “back on track,” I expected the forum owner Matthew to come to our assistance, since one of CathInfo’s few rules is that it is not permitted to derail discussions, and that separate topics should be discussed in new threads. Normally, then, when these two women (or anyone) pertinaciously spouts their irrelevant nonsense, the forum owner intervenes and decisively orders the offenders to stop.

In this case, Matthew didn’t intervene, a real surprise. Even more surprising, he broke his neutrality and took sides. He posted a favorite cut-and-paste attack of the two obsessed women (verbatim, I might add). This “is completely and utterly damning for Plinio,” he said quite unconvincingly. I replied with the hyperlink to the refutation. Within an hour, I discovered my account had been unceremoniously banned; several weeks of posts deleted – “memory holed”, to use Matthew’s choice phrase – as though they never existed. An ironic and hypocritical course of action coming from a man who frequently speaks against the contemporary problem of totalitarian censorship...

What would explain such a sudden ‘about-face’ from Matthew? I think there are two possibilities: 1), either he received a menace from the controlled opposition forces in Menzingen (SSPX) or Broadstairs (Williamson); 2), he accepted a recompense to ban the Lefebvre discussion – or perhaps a mixture of both. In any event, I don’t believe he banned me purely on the basis of principle, because I had used the same arguments before and they did not produce that reaction. His change of attitude was literally overnight, most likely caused by an interference from someone above him.

While preparing this report, I learned that Matthew had done similar actions in the past: banning users and memory-holing their posts. This led to popular revolts in the forums, because users were indignant that years of posts could be deleted at whim. For a time, Matthew stopped doing this, but evidently this is beginning anew. In any circuмstance, this change – “back to his old tricks” as someone aptly put it – demonstrated that “free speech for traditionalists” is merely a façade.

But, don’t fault me for thinking too naïvely about Matthew at first. If he did to others what he did to me, and is no doubt preparing to do to other defenders of Dr. Plinio on the forums, that means no one would know about it, since all evidence that exists is destroyed, deleted at the push of a button. In other words, the appearance of ‘free speech for traditionalists’ will remain a very convincing illusion on CathInfo.

To conclude. This unfortunate turn of events causes my suspicion to rise that there really is something worth investigating in the case of Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre and the allegations of Masonry. Of course I don’t say he was a mason. But, the fact that his followers do not have the conditions to present effective proof and resort to acts of violence, as well as the visceral reactions of his supporters, lead me to suspect with moral certainty that there is something more to the person of Lefebvre that meets the eye.

The severity of the reaction on CathInfo: one of censorship and deception, instead of allowing an open discussion, seems to me very characteristic of a cover-up.

Mark J. Williams (Markus)

28 June 2019

forlorn · « **Reply #1 on:** July 03, 2019, 08:34:51 PM »

The topic of TIA and Dr. Whoever and whatnot, is one of the few areas I can say I'm glad to be completely ignorant of. Normally I'm a very inquisitive type, almost bordering on nosy sometimes, and I hate to find myself ignorant on topic. But this whole topic sounds like the biggest cluster****(excuse my French, but it's the most apt word) and waste of time.

What's more worrying and important to me are the claims of Lefebvre being a freemason. Anyone have a link to a post explaining(and hopefully also debunking) these claims?

Your Friend Colin · « **Reply #2 on:** July 03, 2019, 10:06:41 PM »

This TIA/TFP versus SSPX debacle is so tiring. Give it a rest, please!

Matthew · « **Reply #3 on:** July 03, 2019, 11:22:55 PM »

Any attacks against Archbishop Lefebvre are evil, it is that simple. The fruits of +ABL's life are evident for all to see; his tree bore abundant good fruit. The assertion that +ABL was a Mason is even more ludicrous than the tired old attack which certain quarters keep dredging up (which was dumb when it first came out, and has aged like milk) that all his priests were invalid because Cardinal Lienart (one of the consecrators of +Lefebvre) was a Freemason. I guess they got more gutsy and took it a step further. Kind of like the enemies of God, in recent years, have gotten so far downhill into insanity as to assert that Jesus Christ didn't exist. Such a charge would have been laughed at just 100 years ago.

For that matter, did anyone in the whole world call Trump a nαzι before 2016? I doubt it. Today, the "powers that be" teach that you can't say anything too crazy against Trump. The rhetoric is always pushed forward more and more towards insanity when you hate someone. According to the Mainstream Media today, anyone who criticizes or stands apart from the radical Left is considered a racist, nαzι, and other less-than-human names. Since when has half the population of the United States been anything of the sort?

Free Speech, or the license to utter truth or falsehood, work good or evil with your tongue, is a Freemasonic ideal, ironically enough. I never claimed that CathInfo was was a place for "Freedom of Speech".

What I do have for my rules instead:

In necessary matters Unity
In doubtful matters Liberty
In all things Charity

Matters of Faith are not up for debate, nor are any KNOWN errors going to be allowed on here. Many matters are debated, and I try to allow both sides to have a say in all these disputed points. But Traditional Catholics have a limit to how much "variety" they will tolerate. Often I have to choose between this member, or that member. One of which will be all upset and leave in a huff, because I didn't ban his enemy. Having all Traditional Catholics in one place, speaking their mind, living in peace together -- you might as well add "and holding hands, singing Kumbaya" for how realistic it is!

But CathInfo doesn't hold an agnostic position towards the Truth, as if it cannot be known. On the contrary, huge swaths of the truth aren't open for debate.

Matthew · « **Reply #4 on:** July 03, 2019, 11:39:00 PM »

Quote from: forlorn on July 03, 2019, 08:34:51 PM

What's more worrying and important to me are the claims of Lefebvre being a freemason. Anyone have a link to a post explaining(and hopefully also debunking) these claims?

Don't worry. It's a bunch of nonsense. It's never come up before. The Cardinal Lienart issue has come up a million times and been debunked a million times. Apparently they're getting more crazy with the passage of years.

It's not as though literally anyone, regardless of good works and sanctity, could be a secret Mason. Our Lord said to judge a tree by its fruits. A Mason would, eventually, bring forth fruits worthy of Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ. He would EVENTUALLY start working for his true team and making things more Freemasonic. Keep in mind that the Conciliar Church is Freemasonic to the core. Who opposed it more than +Lefebvre? Read your Vatican II history. +Lefebvre took a central role in the "International Group of Fathers" opposing all the novelties and attempted heresies in Vatican II. That's why the docuмents are so schizophrenic. They say something questionable, then something Catholic. But after Vatican II, when he saw the big picture, he made his whole life's work to be the preserving of Tradition and inoculating hundreds of priests and thousands of Faithful against Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ, Communism, ʝʊdɛօ-Masonry, etc.

Freemasons are the lowest category of sinner: those with a diabolical hatred of God. It is morally impossible for someone to do good works and be irreproachable in their doctrine and morality, and yet actually be in this lowest class of sinner. There is a Thomistic axiom that states, in so many words, that a holy nun with years of virtue under her belt doesn't wake up one day and act like Miley Cyrus or the Italian Great Whore who blasphemously uses Our Lady's name for her stage name. A fall happens more slowly than this, and there will be PLENTY of clues before they hit the level of "Freemason".

Read the many biographies of +ABL. His life was a story of greater and greater clarity about the Crisis in the Church. His most extreme and anti-Modernist Rome statements happened in the last 3 years of his life (1988 - 1991). He was going further and further from union with the Conciliar Church, taking an increasingly hard-line stance, as opposed to what one would expect if he were a plant of some sort!

His real moment of clarity happened in 1988. That is why his best, most accurate, and wisest statements about Rome and the Crisis in the Church were given in the 3 years before his death.

He didn't infiltrate and steer or control any opposition. He CREATED a great, organized opposition that barely existed before his arrival. He started seminaries and formed Traditional priests from scratch! If it weren't for him, we'd have almost 0 Traditional priests today, because all the older priests would have died or retired. There would be no Indult or FSSP controlled opposition to fight against the SSPX to compete & absorb many Catholics into "Latin Mass communities" making it about the Mass rather than about the Faith as +Lefebvre insisted.

Of course some of his disciples weren't faithful (look at the neo-SSPX today), but who can blame +Lefebvre for this? He did nothing wrong; he did his best. Just like Our Lord had a black sheep (Judas) because each man has free will.

For most of these facts there's nothing to debate. It's all a matter of public record, for those who care to read for themselves.

Last Tradhican · « **Reply #5 on:** July 04, 2019, 12:39:05 AM »

Quote from: Matthew on July 03, 2019, 11:39:00 PM

Don't worry. It's a bunch of nonsense. It's never come up before. The Cardinal Lienart issue has come up a million times and been debunked a million times. Apparently they're getting more crazy with the passage of years.

It's not as though literally anyone, regardless of good works and sanctity, could be a secret Mason. Our Lord said to judge a tree by its fruits. A Mason would, eventually, bring forth fruits worthy of Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ. He would EVENTUALLY start working for his true team and making things more Freemasonic. Keep in mind that the Conciliar Church is Freemasonic to the core. Who opposed it more than +Lefebvre? Read your Vatican II history. +Lefebvre took a central role in the "International Group of Fathers" opposing all the novelties and attempted heresies in Vatican II. That's why the docuмents are so schizophrenic. They say something questionable, then something Catholic. But after Vatican II, when he saw the big picture, he made his whole life's work to be the preserving of Tradition and inoculating hundreds of priests and thousands of Faithful against Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ, Communism, ʝʊdɛօ-Masonry, etc.

Freemasons are the lowest category of sinner: those with a diabolical hatred of God. It is morally impossible for someone to do good works and be irreproachable in their doctrine and morality, and yet actually be in this lowest class of sinner. There is a Thomistic axiom that states, in so many words, that a holy nun with years of virtue under her belt doesn't wake up one day and act like Miley Cyrus or the Italian Great Whore who blasphemously uses Our Lady's name for her stage name. A fall happens more slowly than this, and there will be PLENTY of clues before they hit the level of "Freemason".

Read the many biographies of +ABL. His life was a story of greater and greater clarity about the Crisis in the Church. His most extreme and anti-Modernist Rome statements happened in the last 3 years of his life (1988 - 1991). He was going further and further from union with the Conciliar Church, taking an increasingly hard-line stance, as opposed to what one would expect if he were a plant of some sort!

His real moment of clarity happened in 1988. That is why his best, most accurate, and wisest statements about Rome and the Crisis in the Church were given in the 3 years before his death.

He didn't infiltrate and steer or control any opposition. He CREATED a great, organized opposition that barely existed before his arrival. He started seminaries and formed Traditional priests from scratch! If it weren't for him, we'd have almost 0 Traditional priests today, because all the older priests would have died or retired. There would be no Indult or FSSP controlled opposition to fight against the SSPX to compete & absorb many Catholics into "Latin Mass communities" making it about the Mass rather than about the Faith as +Lefebvre insisted.

Of course some of his disciples weren't faithful (look at the neo-SSPX today), but who can blame +Lefebvre for this? He did nothing wrong; he did his best. Just like Our Lord had a black sheep (Judas) because each man has free will.

For most of these facts there's nothing to debate. It's all a matter of public record, for those who care to read for themselves.

Through the years I've seen a lot of Matthew bootlickers respond positively to anything he says, but I am not one of them. This posting above is very good, and simple, like I said many times, "By their deeds you shall know them". The same gauge applies to Guimaraes, TIA and Plinio, their deeds are good too. So, to be consistent, I apply the same "gauge" to all of them (Abp. L, Guimaraes, TIA, Plinio) and conclude that they have all born good fruit and thus are good trees.

Francisco · « **Reply #6 on:** July 04, 2019, 02:32:34 AM »

Long Live The Houris of Purdistan! ( Or Turdistan or whatever! )

cosmas · « **Reply #7 on:** July 04, 2019, 08:38:18 AM »

T.I.A. or anybody else 'PUT UP OR SHUT UP " COME UP WITH FACTS ON ARCHBISHOP LEFEBVRE being a Freemason or stop the accusations. There's nothing there. "FAKE NEWS "

Matthew · « **Reply #8 on:** July 04, 2019, 08:58:57 AM »

Quote from: Last Tradhican on July 04, 2019, 12:39:05 AM

Through the years I've seen a lot of Matthew bootlickers respond positively to anything he says, but I am not one of them.

You've seen a lot? I seem to have missed them. I can only think of 1 or 2, but they were in the past.

Let me put it this way: considering I've been running this forum for almost 13 years, having posted thousands of posts of varying length, you'd think I would have picked up more than "1 or 2" fans. Just look at any Youtube channel or blog that stuck with it for longer than 2 years. They have TONS of fans or "bootlickers" as you call them -- people who think as they do, who automatically pick the blogger or Youtuber's side over any hecklers.

How many do I have? Far, far less. Almost none. Even my "fans" are very much thinking for themselves, and only accidentally agree with me -- depends on if I agree with THEM on a given topic! hahaha

Long story short, this is the world of Traditional Catholics. If I had spent the thousands of hours on ANY other endeavor, I would have been more well-off as measured in earthly terms (fame, income, career, etc.) But because I have this personal attachment to the Traditional Catholic movement, I put so much time into CathInfo. Even though it's really more trouble than it's worth, I have to stick with it because I'm committed to the cause for life. What can move in and take the place of the Faith in my life? Nothing.

That's why I can't seem to ever get another successful website going. It takes a lot of work and time. Promoting/developing CathInfo overlaps with my intense interest in the Faith, so it was easier to justify all the time spent on it. But as an employed man with a family, I just don't have any time for another online hobby/platform. I'd love to have time to start a Youtube channel, for example. But I don't have time.

I'm not a serial entrepreneur -- it's just the one. Just CathInfo. Just like Thomas A. Nelson didn't have 5 other large, successful businesses -- no, he just had TAN Books and that was it.

ProLife · « **Reply #9 on:** July 04, 2019, 09:07:07 AM »

Quote from: Francisco on July 04, 2019, 02:32:34 AM

Long Live The Houris of Purdistan! ( Or Turdistan or whatever! )

Are you drunk? The Houris are the fabled 40 virgins that the Islamic ѕυιcιdє bombers are supposed to get in heaven. Besides being a stupid statement, it doesn't make sense in this thread at all.

Incredulous · « **Reply #10 on:** July 04, 2019, 09:25:17 AM »

Matthew,

I have many thoughts on this, so as not to waste your time, I'll try to put them in some brief, logical sequence.

1. We are mostly Catholics on this forum, looking for honest reporting and commentary, as much as possible.
2. Since becoming traditional Catholics, we're attuned to seeking the truth in news and are continually discerning the lies.
3. Cathinfo is our Trad version of the Jєω's Drudge Report. We hope for quick daily updates, concerning the battle for our Faith.
4. Your members expect a lot of you. Being a husband, father, worker and forum owner, you face difficult challenges.

5. Tradition In Action has deep roots the in Catholic battle. Therefore, they have been maligned since the day of their inception.
6. But I think you'd agree they have a place at the traditional Catholic table and the right to defend themselves?
7. The neoSSPX is motivated to destroy TIA's reputation because they are branding themselves as the owners of Catholic tradition.

8. Markus joined Cathinfo to post for the interests of TIA, and he commented in a gentlemanly, Catholic manner.
9. Whereas his adversary, Cera has posted in the interest of the neoSSPX by defaming TIA in a non Catholic manner.
10. I had warned you privately over a month ago that Cera was derailing topics that uncovered the neoSSPX's Quito plot.

11. TIA's charter is to be Catholic counter-revolutionaries. They examine, question and write on many diverse Catholic issues.
12. Those who know TIA, know they hate sedes.
13. In no way was TIA or Markus going down the sede path to question the validity of +ABL's ordination.
14. The Lineart masonic stuff on the SSPX has been out there for years. I recall about 3 years ago, you straightened me out on it.

15. It appeared you didn't have time to fully study the different posts and intricacies of TIA's report on the SSPX Quito issue?
16. For some reason, you got into snit and banned Markus, erasing all of his posts. Walla! Markus no longer existed.
17. Is this Catholic? You didn't give him any warning or counsel or notify other Cathinfo members of the ban, like you usually do?
18. From the basis of cutting off a fellow Catholic so completely, does it not encroach upon the 5th Commandment? Just a thought.
19. Markus posted his experience, dismay and doubt on TIA's website, which has a substantial readership. What else could he do?

20. We are moving into a new phase of the trad battle, where the neoSSPX grows stronger by the day. Their media outlets
Angelus Press, CFN, Fatima Center, DICI, controlled by "Dutch branding", are flush with cash... concocting taller & taller tales.

21. Where will Cathinfo and TIA go in the future?
Who knows, only Our Lord knows. But if they both keep to the simple basics in #1., they may endure.

Thank you for allowing me to post.

Meg · « **Reply #11 on:** July 04, 2019, 11:04:35 AM »

Quote from: Last Tradhican on July 04, 2019, 12:39:05 AM

The same gauge applies to Guimaraes, TIA and Plinio, their deeds are good too. So, to be consistent, I apply the same "gauge" to all of them (Abp. L, Guimaraes, TIA, Plinio) and conclude that they have all born good fruit and thus are good trees.

You yourself may believe that +ABL bore good fruit (and it's good to make note of that), but from what I've read, Guimaraes does not believe that. And he's the one that we are often discussing. So it's HIS views that are an issue. You shouldn't confuse your views with that of Guimaraes.

Cera · « **Reply #12 on:** July 04, 2019, 01:31:29 PM »

Quote from: forlorn on July 03, 2019, 08:34:51 PM

What's more worrying and important to me are the claims of Lefebvre being a freemason. Anyone have a link to a post explaining(and hopefully also debunking) these claims?

How can an accusation based on innuendo cause you to worry? Consider the source. Atila has a pattern of making unfounded accusations based on unnamed sources. He has done this to Blessed Cardinal Newman, Bishop Travez, and many Catholic priests.

This is consistent with what Bishop Mayer said of TIA's parent organization TFP; he called it an "anti-Catholic, anti-clerical heretical sect."

It is blatantly unfair to make an unfounded accusation (based on an unidentified source) and demand that the target of your attack PROVE A NEGATIVE.

This is exactly the same tactic that Mueller used against Trump: prove that you are not a Russian agent.

Atila says to the good Archbishop who is no longer here to defend himself: prove that you a not a Freemason.

If you must worry, worry about the instigator of this unwarranted attack, not the victim.

Incredulous · « **Reply #13 on:** July 05, 2019, 04:40:45 PM »

Trad Granny's posts are a treasure trove of information :farmer:

What we just learned from her:

1. She doesn't know the problem with Cardinal Lie'nart.

2. She believes in B16's Novus ordo canonizations of highly questionable candidates, who avoided the Devils advocate process.

3. She think Novus ordo bishops who have sex-scandals exploding in their dioceses on major Marian feast-days are beyond reproach.

4. She watches the evening Freemasonic news, which Bp. Williamson has repeatedly warned us not to do.

Meg · « **Reply #14 on:** July 05, 2019, 05:06:11 PM »

Quote from: Cera on July 04, 2019, 01:31:29 PM

It is blatantly unfair to make an unfounded accusation (based on an unidentified source) and demand that the target of your attack PROVE A NEGATIVE.

I agree. The demand by Guimaraes that is must be proven that the accusations against Archbishop Lefebvre being a freemason were wrong, or it would be assumed that the accusations were true, is ridiculous. I suspect that Guimaraes was upset that he has been criticized on this forum, and it was payback time. Maybe he was trying to get even.

Author Topic: Is this their way to spread disinformation ? (Read 2472 times)

cosmas

Is this their way to spread disinformation ?

forlorn

Re: Is this their way to spread disinformation ?

Your Friend Colin

Re: Is this their way to spread disinformation ?

Matthew

Re: Is this their way to spread disinformation ?

Matthew

Re: Is this their way to spread disinformation ?

Last Tradhican

Re: Is this their way to spread disinformation ?

Francisco

Re: Is this their way to spread disinformation ?

cosmas

Re: Is this their way to spread disinformation ?

Matthew

Re: Is this their way to spread disinformation ?

ProLife

Re: Is this their way to spread disinformation ?

Incredulous

Re: Is this their way to spread disinformation ?

Meg

Re: Is this their way to spread disinformation ?

Cera

Re: Is this their way to spread disinformation ?

Incredulous

Re: Is this their way to spread disinformation ?

Meg

Re: Is this their way to spread disinformation ?