[klasG4e]

In 1981, the history and enigma of the Holy Shroud of Turin aroused his scientific curiosity. What he gradually discovered made him return, around 1985, to traditional Catholicism faithfully maintained by [Arch]Bishop Marcel Lefebvre.
In 1989, he participated in the founding of the International Centre for Shroud Studies in Turin (CIELT), whose symposiums in Paris (1989) and Rome (1993) established with certainty the authenticity of the Holy Shroud."

The SSPX has changed!

Not only is the SSPX heading for a full merger with the Modernist Rome of Vatican II, but countless changes have already occurred - past tense. The SSPX has already contradicted its former self, and compromised on its former position in many ways. This isn't about what the SSPX might do; it's about what THE SSPX HAS DONE over the past 7 years. Here is a book (almost 400 pages) detailing the evidence to prove this assertion. Relying mostly on official and trusted sources, if this book doesn't convince you that the SSPX has taken a hard U-turn back to Conciliar Modernist Rome, then nothing will!

https://www.chantcd.com/index.php/As-We-Are-101-Compromises-Changes-Contradictions-of-an-SSPX


The incredibly amazing Shroud of Turin is without a doubt the most studied artifact in the history of the world.  It is said to be -- and with perfect reason -- the most holy relic due to its actual blood stains in existence!

In the year 2004 four full body size authentic photographic images of the Shroud were donated to the SSPX.  They were specifically and expressly donated to and for St. Thomas Aquinas Seminary (STAS) in Winona, Minnesota.  The images consisted of two professional photographs taken one of the back and one of the front as well as two professional negatives, one of the front and one of the back.  (The individual who took and developed the photographs was none other than Barrie M. Schwortz (his bio is found here: https://www.shroud.com/speakers.htm ), the editor and founder of the internationally recognized Shroud of Turin Website (www.shroud.com), the oldest, largest and most extensive Shroud resource on the Internet.   Mr. Schwortz personally had them shipped to STAS.  

At the same time the aforesaid donation was made a sizeable monetary donation was made by the same donor to STAS for the cost of frames for all four of the images.  The God gifted/talented artistic Br. Marcel, SSPX was placed in charge of making the frames and he subsequently produced four beautiful frames for them.

Eventually two of the framed images were placed on the wall of a large classroom at STAS while the other two were placed on the wall of one of the corridors at STAS.  As far as I know the SSPX has never given any official publicity to the existence of their four framed images of the Shroud.

What I do know is that when STAS moved to Virginia the four beautifully  framed images of the Shroud of Turin were all left behind.  One is simply left to wonder why.  

[Meg]

I would like to ask for a clarification or explanation of part of Paul Chausee's Appendix ll, as translated by Sean Johnson, and posted to the CCCC thread on March 12. I'm not understanding what the 2003 part of the appendix contains, where it describes Paul Cernine's (Fr. Celier) quote from Etienne Couverts' book as saying..."In any error, there is a key, and it is gnosis," which Paul Cernine/Fr. Celier says is in the book by Etienne Couvert.

However, Paul Chaussee points out that Paul Cernine/Fr. Celier changed the quote, and that book by Etienne Couvert doesn't mention "In any error..." It just says: "There is a key, and it is gnosis." The "in any error" isn't mentioned at all. Paul Chausse rightly points that this falsification is enough to disqualify it's author (Paul Cernine/Fr. Celier), but I'm not understanding what the quote means at all, in either form.

It isn't explained what "There is a key, and it is gnosis" means at all. Or what it means to say that "In any error, there is a key and it is gnosis."
Certainly, Etienne Couvert is trying to refute Gnosticism, but I don't understand what he's trying to say in the quote or the paragraph that explains the quote, or what Paul Cernine/Fr. Celier is trying to say in his falsification of the quote.

Can Sean Johnson or X figure it out? If not, that's okay. There may not be enough info to do so.

I have a basic understanding of Gnosticism, in the "gnosis" means knowledge to the gnostics, but I don't get the greater context of the quote at all.

[Matthew]

Seraphina said:

Ugh!  Just when I started to feel better from a stomach virus, I see a photo of Max Krah in a tub!   
I do have a suggestion for him of a kindred spirit---a fellow named Anthony Weiner in New York.  

[hollingsworth]

I stopped copying at item #66.  The whole affair is beginning to weary me, and claim less of my attention.  Others may still be focused like laser beams on X's summaries.  But I'm swiftly losing interest.  Hey, X, why don't you just pull all this stuff together and write a book?

[Matthew]

I stopped copying at item #66.  The whole affair is beginning to weary me, and claim less of my attention.  Others may still be focused like laser beams on X's summaries.  But I'm swiftly losing interest.  Hey, X, why don't you just pull all this stuff together and write a book?

Hollingsworth, you use the word bore/bored way too frequently. I'm noticing a pattern. Do you think we're all here to entertain you, or what?

One of my favorite sayings: only boring people get bored. (Did I mention that I'm personally never bored?)

If you want to be entertained, go to the circus, a magic show, or watch a movie (if that's your thing).

CathInfo is for discussion of all manner of topics touching on Traditional Catholics, the Crisis in the Church, and the modern world. There are topics both light and deep. But overall, CathInfo tends to focus on serious, deep, economic, political, philosophical, and theological topics. There are topics to suit everyone's interest, but each individual topic is NOT going to be for everyone.

But complaining about a specific thread is silly. If you're no longer interested, then just ignore it! It's simple. There are plenty of others still interested in it.

And as for the thread in question, it gets clicked on about 200-300 times a day. (Note: unlike the old CathInfo software, hitting <F5> repeatedly to reload the page will NOT increase the hit count.)

[Matthew]

I would like to add:

If I switched places with you, and just about doubled my age, I might feel the same way about the Resistance, the future, etc. -- namely, weary. However, I'm considerably younger than you, and I still have young children to raise Catholic. So I have no choice but to get aggressively involved in this controversy and fight, especially by doing everything I can to:

promote the Resistance
coordinate a chapel
help "confirm my Resistant brethren in the Faith" by showing them that yes, they're not crazy even if they're outnumbered and isolated
show SSPX supporters that there's indeed a real problem -- as many as will listen/read

So naturally I'm going to be excited about something like the CCCC. I've scarcely ever seen such a concise and easy to follow list of precisely what is wrong with the modern SSPX. Not personal anecdotes, not hearsay, but actual evidence with quote A right next to quote B showing the change, contradiction, and/or compromise.

"X" has put a lot of work into this resource and I realize just how valuable it is. So I am very grateful for the service he is doing for the Traditional Catholic world. Who am I kidding -- the service he is doing for God and His Church.

[hollingsworth]

Matthew:

Hollingsworth, you use the word bore/bored way too frequently. I'm noticing a pattern. Do you think we're all here to entertain you, or what?

Uh-oh.  I must have irritated you, sir.  Acting bored, and a noticeable "pattern" of being bored by some CI commentary, could be grounds for banishment, I suppose.  After all, Matthew, you banned one member, Wessex, for being too "negative."  I'm not sure why Telesphorus and others were banned, but it must have been for things equally serious.  :D ( Anyway, since you follow the patterns of forum member so closely, you must have realized long ago that I could care less about banishment.) 
By the way, who is "X" anyway?  For someone as prolific as he has become, he must be accompanied by a pretty impressive set of credentials.
As for Poche, I seldom read him.  He has not said anything I'm aware of, though, that would qualify him as a  raging blasphemer.  At worst probably, he is little more than a Jєω-loving NO twit.  But he may not even be that.  If he says 15 decades of the Rosary a day, he's OK with me.

[Matthew]

Matthew:Uh-oh.  I must have irritated you, sir.  Acting bored, and a noticeable "pattern" of being bored by some CI commentary, could be grounds for banishment, I suppose.  After all, Matthew, you banned one member, Wessex, for being too "negative."  I'm not sure why Telesphorus and others were banned, but it must have been for things equally serious.  :D ( Anyway, since you follow the patterns of forum member so closely, you must have realized long ago that I could care less about banishment.)  
By the way, who is "X" anyway?  For someone as prolific as he has become, he must be accompanied by a pretty impressive set of credentials.
As for Poche, I seldom read him.  He has not said anything I'm aware of, though, that would qualify him as a  raging blasphemer.  At worst probably, he is little more than a Jєω-loving NO twit.  But he may not even be that.  If he says 15 decades of the Rosary a day, he's OK with me.

1. I can be mildly irritated or annoyed at someone without resorting to the last-ditch punishment of banning them. What kind of tin pot dictator do you think I am? You think I can't handle a disagreement? You think my skin is razor thin? You've been a CathInfo member for how long? You must not have read many of my posts. You couldn't be more wrong on this heading.

By the way, no one mentioned banning. Why do you bring it up? I hate it when members do that - when they react preemptively to the as-yet-nonexistent threat of being banned. Usually with an "I don't care if I'm banned" or "You can't ban me; it would show you're a dictator running an echo chamber!" and they think they got me.

When it's time to escalate the situation to bringing up the B word, I'll make sure to do that. I'm not that shy. In effect you've proven yourself wrong. If I were a tin pot dictator as you insinuate (your sarcastic "it must have been for things equally serious..."), I should have threatened you with banning or actually banned you by now. But YOU brought up the word, not me. It wasn't even on my radar yet.

2. I'll have you know that with few exceptions, I was practically forced to ban each and every person currently banned from CI. And yes, I had very good reasons. The idea that banning members can be avoided is a pipe dream indulged in only by small-time, wanna-be Admins with a small membership of 100 members or less. Once a forum grows out of the "infant" phase, especially a forum full of Traditional Catholics, a certain amount of banning becomes a necessity -- regardless of how much "variety" you would ideally like to have on the forum.

I'll give you a hint: I don't get called "trad-cuмenical" by my enemies for running an echo chamber or "Matthew's best friends' club".

But as I've said on the occasion of many bannings, I'm still waiting for someone to show me ONE, JUST ONE forum with a membership greater than 150 that allows insubordination and attacks against the forum itself and/or the owner and moderators. Banning members for insulting the owner/moderator seems to be standard practice -- not the realm of tin pot dictators. When you attack the owner, you basically flaunt all the rules at once by disdaining every shred of authority on the forum and attempting to destroy all order. That can't be allowed on any forum.

3. Regarding X, that's X's business. I actually think it's good to keep the focus on the message, rather than the messenger. Kind of like Q. How can you ad-hominem when the source is a mystery and a completely clean slate with no history or baggage?

4. We seem to be in agreement about Poche. I don't know why you brought him up in this post.

[hollingsworth]

Matthew:3.

Regarding X, that's X's business. I actually think it's good to keep the focus on the message, rather than the messenger. Kind of like Q. How can you ad-hominem when the source is a mystery and a completely clean slate with no history or baggage?

4. We seem to be in agreement about Poche. I don't know why you brought him up in this post.

You're right.  I should not have brought up Poche or banishment on this topic thread.  I guess I've been conditioned over the years to feel that one can get off topic at a whim on CI, and go in any which direction or deviate at will from the original OP.  My fault, and I apologize.
As for any ad hominem against X:  I didn't say a thing against him.  I did not treat his material disparagingly at all.  I simply indicated that I had grown weary of reading it, not that X has not been probably very accurate about most everything he says.  It would help me, though, and maybe others, to focus on the message, if I knew a bit more about the messenger.

[Matthew]

It would help me, though, and maybe others, to focus on the message, if I knew a bit more about the messenger.

I never suggested you had any desire past, present or future to throw ad-hominems at X. I was just stating the fact that it becomes possible for the public at large to attack him personally (rather than his ideas or message), once there's a face behind the name.

But your quote above leaves me scratching my head. So if the messenger were a convert Jєω, or used to run a pornography magazine, would that change the message at all -- would it become more worthy of rejection, or become any more false? What if he was a highly respected layman or cleric? Would the message suddenly grow more true?

I fail to see how the particulars of X's identity have ANY BEARING on the content he writes.

Who cares how old he is, his state of life, where he goes to Mass, his number of children (if applicable), his ecclesiastical rank (if applicable), or what Traditional group(s) he has supported in the past. A collection of data regarding changes, contradictions, and compromises in the SSPX is an objective thing. If it's based on true docuмents, and doesn't violate rules of logic, then it's true whether we like it, X, or none of the above.

[Pax Vobis]

Anyway, since you follow the patterns of forum member so closely, you must have realized long ago that I could care less about banishment.) 

Hollingsworth, as of late, most of your posts are critical or complain about something.  This was not your former personality, which was insightful and interesting, so it’s easy to see a pattern of change in your behavior.  I hope you stop being bored and get back your old mojo.  

Second, if you don’t like a thread just don’t read it. 

Third, posts of the kind from X, which are factually based, would only be impaired and distracted by knowing the personality of the poster.  Facts stand alone as proof...or at least they should.  

[klasG4e]

As regard #s 1 (Christian Warfare, published by the SSPX) and 51 (Divine Mercy), I noticed that in my 2009 Christian Warfare "New Deluxe Edition" in Chapter IV (Devotion to the Sacred Heart) on p. 122 one finds printed out the Chaplet of Divine Mercy!

[X]

As regard #s 1 (Christian Warfare, published by the SSPX) and 51 (Divine Mercy), I noticed that in my 2009 Christian Warfare "New Deluxe Edition" in Chapter IV (Devotion to the Sacred Heart) on p. 122 one finds printed out the Chaplet of Divine Mercy!

Thank you for this contribution, Klas!
I just went and checked my 2006 edition, and the Chaplet of Divine Mercy is definitely NOT in there.
So this is a change that will certainly make the list.

[X]

Interesting prophecy in Sean Johnson's article (i.e., the latest post in the CCCC thread):

"When the day comes that you see the indultarian and SSPX Chartres Pilgrimages for Tradition marching in the same direction, understand that there is much more symbolism there than meets the eye."

Today in France, it is being reported that SSPXers participated in a pilgrimage (where among other things, they venerated the "Saint" who "excommunicated" their founder!):

Traitors. 


http://resistance.vraiforum.com/t877-Jubile-et-saintete-conciliaires-a-Cotignac.htm

"We will consult with interest the report of FSSPX-News on the pilgrimage of March 10 to Cotignac (Var) for the 500th anniversary of these apparitions:

https://fsspx.news/fr/jour-de-graces-a-cotignac-46148

The process of discreet rallying, in small steps, is therefore continuing before our eyes.

A thousand pilgrims of the Fraternity came "to seek the plenary indulgence attached this year to the sanctuary".

To obtain it, we made the "jubilee journey" approved by the "good" Bishop of Toulon, Mgr Dominique Rey. And seven pergolas were piously recollected "presenting the life and spirituality of saints of the 19th and 20th centuries, illustrating three by three the seven gifts of the Holy Spirit: Padre Pio, Maximilien Kolbe, Elisabeth of the Trinity, Louis and Zélie Martin..." These are certainly excellent examples, but... with the exception of St Gemma Galgani and St Maria Goretti, all beatified or canonized by the Council Popes according to the new procedures in force, those that have also made it possible to "canonize" John XXIII, Paul VI, and John Paul II without difficulty, not to mention Bishop Oscar Romero!

To make matters worse, the FSSPX-News report "forgets" to specify that the false "Saint John Paul II" also appears in the seventh pergola of the journey, as "artisan of peace through his travels" and illustration of the gift of Wisdom of the Spirit !

This can be checked at: http://www.nd-de-graces.com/les-saints-du-jubile/

One can imagine the painful surprise of the pilgrims still attached to Bishop Lefebvre, to see themselves dragged by their pastors along such a "path" of adulterated holiness, and to have to publicly venerate the memory of the one who excommunicated the Founder of the Fraternity!

As we can see, the subtle "traditional-conciliar" mixture led by the General House is now working perfectly: after Bishop Huonder, who will soon be welcomed in Switzerland for his retirement, and the visit of the Bishop of Portsmouth, Bishop Egan, to a FSSPX school in England, we will have had the consensual and "peaceful" pilgrimage of the FSSPX to Cotignac.

The Council Church and its representatives must no longer be "angry", such is the instruction inherited from the betrayal of the 2012 Chapter, such is the line inaugurated by Bishop Fellay, conscientiously followed by his successor Pagliarani and the leaders of the current neo-Fraternity.

Thus, day after day, the spirit of resistance to the new religion of Vatican II is blunted; thus, little by little, in general indifference, the precious heritage of Bishop Lefebvre is being squandered.

To this miserable manoeuvre, the abbot of Jorna lent his authority as Superior of the District of France, ... he who was considered a strict, doctrinal, and courageous priest!

But only those who are willing to do so are deceived..."

PS: did I also see a suggestion regarding consolidating indult/SSPX pilgrimages in the recent Michael Matt/Taylor Marshall threads that aired here last week (Remnant TV?)?

[X]

Interesting prophecy in Sean Johnson's article (i.e., the latest post in the CCCC thread):

"When the day comes that you see the indultarian and SSPX Chartres Pilgrimages for Tradition marching in the same direction, understand that there is much more symbolism there than meets the eye."

Today in France, it is being reported that SSPXers participated in a pilgrimage (where among other things, they venerated the "Saint" who "excommunicated" their founder!):

Traitors.


http://resistance.vraiforum.com/t877-Jubile-et-saintete-conciliaires-a-Cotignac.htm

"We will consult with interest the report of FSSPX-News on the pilgrimage of March 10 to Cotignac (Var) for the 500th anniversary of these apparitions:

https://fsspx.news/fr/jour-de-graces-a-cotignac-46148

The process of discreet rallying, in small steps, is therefore continuing before our eyes.

A thousand pilgrims of the Fraternity came "to seek the plenary indulgence attached this year to the sanctuary".

To obtain it, we made the "jubilee journey" approved by the "good" Bishop of Toulon, Mgr Dominique Rey. And seven pergolas were piously recollected "presenting the life and spirituality of saints of the 19th and 20th centuries, illustrating three by three the seven gifts of the Holy Spirit: Padre Pio, Maximilien Kolbe, Elisabeth of the Trinity, Louis and Zélie Martin..." These are certainly excellent examples, but... with the exception of St Gemma Galgani and St Maria Goretti, all beatified or canonized by the Council Popes according to the new procedures in force, those that have also made it possible to "canonize" John XXIII, Paul VI, and John Paul II without difficulty, not to mention Bishop Oscar Romero!

To make matters worse, the FSSPX-News report "forgets" to specify that the false "Saint John Paul II" also appears in the seventh pergola of the journey, as "artisan of peace through his travels" and illustration of the gift of Wisdom of the Spirit !

This can be checked at: http://www.nd-de-graces.com/les-saints-du-jubile/

One can imagine the painful surprise of the pilgrims still attached to Bishop Lefebvre, to see themselves dragged by their pastors along such a "path" of adulterated holiness, and to have to publicly venerate the memory of the one who excommunicated the Founder of the Fraternity!

As we can see, the subtle "traditional-conciliar" mixture led by the General House is now working perfectly: after Bishop Huonder, who will soon be welcomed in Switzerland for his retirement, and the visit of the Bishop of Portsmouth, Bishop Egan, to a FSSPX school in England, we will have had the consensual and "peaceful" pilgrimage of the FSSPX to Cotignac.

The Council Church and its representatives must no longer be "angry", such is the instruction inherited from the betrayal of the 2012 Chapter, such is the line inaugurated by Bishop Fellay, conscientiously followed by his successor Pagliarani and the leaders of the current neo-Fraternity.

Thus, day after day, the spirit of resistance to the new religion of Vatican II is blunted; thus, little by little, in general indifference, the precious heritage of Bishop Lefebvre is being squandered.

To this miserable manoeuvre, the abbot of Jorna lent his authority as Superior of the District of France, ... he who was considered a strict, doctrinal, and courageous priest!

But only those who are willing to do so are deceived..."

PS: did I also see a suggestion regarding consolidating indult/SSPX pilgrimages in the recent Michael Matt/Taylor Marshall threads that aired here last week (Remnant TV?)?

When FSSPX-News uses the old "..." trick, you had better look and see what is missing!

In the article above, doing so would add to this paragraph:

"To obtain it, we made the "jubilee journey" approved by the "good" Bishop of Toulon, Mgr Dominique Rey. And seven pergolas were piously recollected "presenting the life and spirituality of saints of the 19th and 20th centuries, illustrating three by three the seven gifts of the Holy Spirit: Padre Pio, Maximilien Kolbe, Elisabeth of the Trinity, Louis and Zélie Martin..."

This: 

...St. Teresa of Calcutta, St. Faustina, St. John Paul II, and Bl. Chiara Luce Badano (Focolare movement)!

http://resistance.vraiforum.com/t877-Jubile-et-saintete-conciliaires-a-Cotignac.htm
But Rome must take us "as we are!"  We're not going to change!