Synod, Coat of Arms & Assisi

Dear TIA,

Are Pope Francis and his Synod trying to drive conservative Roman Catholics out of the Church? If the Vatican is going to condone an assault upon fundamental Christian morality in the guise of "compassion" for homosexuals and divorced/remarried Catholics, is it willing to lose faithful Catholics to Traditionalist and even sede-vacantist groups?

Anyone who has studied the effects of the liberalization of morality within the Protestant sects for the past half-century will recognize that such liberalization drives traditional members and their families out of those sects into more "conservative" directions, including the Catholic Church. As Anglican "conservatives" have asserted, some Anglican churches have thought that they would increase their membership by reaching out to homosexuals; instead, they have emptied their churches, as with the Episcopal Church in the USA.

If I were a sede-vacantist, I would welcome what Pope Francis and his synod are apparently doing in launching their "trial balloons" to try to change Catholic morality, because I would have every reason to believe that this might be the last straw for some conservative Catholics, as it has been for conservatives in the Protestant sects. What the ordination of women in Protestant sects did not accomplish by way of driving out the conservatives in those groups, the acceptance of homosexuality did.

     W.M.

Dear TIA,

Does not the crosier look like a snake? Note the head: is the tree branch supposed to represent the tree of knowledge in the Garden of Eden?

I think it is obvious who is being worshipped here.

     Our Lady of Good Success pray for us.

     J.P.M.

Dear TIA,

The newly ordained Archbishop of the Kuala Lumpur Archdiocese (Malaysia) has decided to use symbols of non-Christian religions in his Coat of Arms.

You may refer to the Coat of Arms and its meaning here.

The meaning of the Tree with various non-Christian icons : The ability to recognize the Divine in every person we encounter, and to be open to dialogue and to seek the good of the other.

Instead of proclaiming the Gospel of Christ via the Church which Christ established, the statement above seems to have a more of an Eastern religious flavour to it.

     Thanks & regards,

     N.S.

Dear Mr. Guimarães,

I've just completed a new, fairly extensive documentation on (still-Soviet-)Russia's ever more escalating pre-world war propaganda, titled:

"Russia's Pre-World War III Propaganda: Not for the Fainthearted."

Would you mind sharing this with your readers, uncomfortable and indeed shocking as this material may be?

     All the best to you from “far away” Europe,

     O.R.

TIA,

A few years ago I saw a website recording the deaths of the nuns to which Sr. Lucy belonged and registered at # 265 was Lucia Santos, Fatima, her birth date and the date of her death as May 31 1949.

I've search your site but can't find a reference to this site. Do you remember this?

Can you send me a link?

     Thank you

     J.A.


TIA responds:

J.A.

The page you are looking for is here. You can go to entry 265 and you will see the name of Sister Lucia.

The entry was taken off days after TIA published that entry as a proof that the religious establishment was hiding the truth about Sister Lucy.

     Cordially,

     TIA correspondent desk

Dear Dr. Marian,

Please pray for a 19-year-old girl who is terminally ill with brain tumor. Laura O’Sullivan from Rooska, Bantry, Co. Cork, Ireland, is desperately seeking your prayers for a miracle with God’s holy help. The greatest gift is to be able to accept the suffering and to patiently bear all the trials that God sends to us for the salvation of our souls. Please pray for Laura’s parents, Liz and Marin, an d her only brother Patrick that almighty God will strengthen them in their distress and console them in their sufferings.

I am using your exquisite holy prayer cards as much as possible.

Life is precious. Let us beg for and treasure the gifts being sent from heaven on this holy day of the 97th anniversary of the Miracle of the Sun, Fatima 1917.

Deo Gratias.

     Cordially and with my most sincere appreciation and warmest affection,

     Mary Wrenne, Ireland

Hello Dear, Respected Friends at TIA,

I am in the midst of a disagreement and perhaps you could clarify if you find it is worth responding. I supplied your article on Assisi and the Buddha statue being placed upon a tabernacle. A respondent states the following while claiming TIA lied:

"On October 27, 1986, with due permission of John Paul II, the Dalai Lama and Tibetan Buddhist monks of his sect placed a small statue of Buddha over the tabernacle of St. Peter Church in Assisi." Lie number one: this was not done 'with due permission of John Paul II.' Lie number two: it wasn't a tabernacle. I've had years to mourn the disrespect of allowing a statue of Buddha to be placed over the tabernacle. Now I'm just as disgusted at the people who falsely reported about."

I am not sure it's worth responding to and understand if you do not dignify the argument by doing so.

In my opinion, it doesn’t really matter if Pope JPII was there giving permission or just gave them the chapel and walked away. Either way it is the quick lane to hell.

     I hope to see you all soon. May God bless and keep you,

     P.M., Germany


TIA responds:

Hello P.M.,

Thank you for your visit to our TIA headquarters. It was a pleasure to have you for some hours here with us.

Regarding your e-mail in which you report an objector who accuses us of lying, we would remind you and him/her that, in any polemic or objection, the onus of proof belongs to the accuser. If he/she does not present any, his/her assertions can simply be denied. There is a classical axiom that governs discussions: Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur. What is asserted without proof may be denied without proof.

Indeed, TIA produced many pictures (here and here) and two videos (here and here) taken on the site that shows a statue of Buddha over a tabernacle in the Church of Santa Maria Maggiore in Assisi. This ensemble constitutes quite strong evidence that cannot be denied without equally convincing proofs. If your objector would have a minimum of logic, he/she would have tried to present these proofs. But he/she did not; he/she just affirmed nervously that is a lie. So, we can simply respond: No, it is not a lie and you have the obligation of proving it if you want to be taken seriously.

Notwithstanding this fundamental lacuna, P.M., to help you in this and other possible objections, we transcribe a text from a book by Card. Silvio Oddi, who was the Prefect of the Congregation for the Clergy in 1986 and was present at that first inter-religious meeting of Assisi. In his book-interview Il Tenero Mastino di Dio (The Meek Watchdog of God) he reports what took place in Assisi.

“Question: It is said that you did not appreciate the ecumenical meeting of Assisi in October 1986, which became one of the more important gestures of the present pontificate [John Paul II]. Is this true?

“Answer: I was present at Assisi in the condition of ‘patron of the house,’ since I am the Pontifical Legate to the Basilica of St. Francis. I did not participate at any time in the prayers. But I watched closely how the event developed. The Church of Santa Maria Maggiore was given to the Buddhists. … It caused a certain effect on me, I must say, that array of some 40 Buddhist monks in the Basilica of Our Lady. The Crucifix was taken off the Tabernacle and replaced by a bust of Buddha, incensed repeatedly by a group of Buddhist monks dressed in capes. …

“An old Benedictine present among the curious started to shout that it was a scandal and told them to stop. The order enforcement service intervened and the Benedictine, who certainly had more right than the Buddhists to be in the church, was sent away by force.” (Il Tenero Mastino di Dio, Rome: Progetti Museali Editore, 1985, pp. 154-155)

With this, you have the answer to your objector’s statement that there was no Tabernacle.

Regarding our affirmation that the event had the approval of John Paul II, it is obvious that the Pope gave his general approval for permitting the many churches of Assisi to be given to the false religions for their prayers. That general approval included the one described by Card. Oddi. No person in the possession of his/her senses would imagine that John Paul II was at the sacristy of that church approving every single act. It was a general approval that, according to all the rules, makes him responsible for what happened there.

     Cordially,

     TIA correspondent desk