Music, ‘Gay’ Priest & Apostolic Succession

Dear TIA,

I am following your comments on the reactions in France to the terrorist attacks against that Masonic weekly tabloid and some Jewish inhabitants of Paris. You are on the right track. That immense French multitude was primarily reacting against Islamic terrorists, who were already harassing France months before: killing police officers, burning cars and public places, rioting and making other random attacks. The French population was fed up with that aggression and reacted in unison to protest against it after the last crimes.

The fact that the Charlie Hebdo tabloid is blasphemous was almost irrelevant for the population who took the streets. No one was looking at the editorial line of the weekly. What infuriated them was that it was another aggression: the last straw.

It was the Freemasons, in solidarity with two of their brothers who directed that blasphemous tabloid, who took advantage of the manifestation and spread the slogan Je suis Charles, and pretended that the manifestation was pro freedom of speech. Please take a look at the Grand Orient of France preparing its participation in the march here and here. By spreading that slogan, the Freemasons tried to corrupt the true sense of the march, whose original intent was very good, against Islamic terrorism.

In the matter of analyzing public opinion, which is my job, I note with pleasure that your writers are habitually accurate. I have also noticed that, on the same topic, some traditionalists are quite blind. They have the false presupposition that the most radical interpretation of a fact has to be the right one. I am sorry for them, but reality does not follow this rule. After placing themselves in their theoretically “infallible position,” they often label as liberals all those who do not share their simplified view.

They are imagining, for example, that all that multitude in France was pro freedom of speech. This is what the Masons want them to believe. The majority of the multitude was there only to protest against terrorism.

I suggest you not to lose time answering these people. It is like playing music for the deaf.

     Best regards,

     W.K.

P.S.  See below a photo of the manifestation where people stressed they were not afraid, as you correctly observed. This was shortly before the Je suis Charlie motto was spread by Freemasons & the media.

Dear TIA-Team,

I want to share this news story from Dublin, Ireland, with you in order to highlight the extent to which the Catholic laity has been corrupted since Vatican II: An Irish priest comes out as gay to his congregation and receives a standing ovation!

As a matter of fact, I'm tempted here to refer to the Catholic teaching concerning homosexuality and the participation in the sins of other people, but then again, who am I to judge?

The link is here.

     Kind regards

     F.W.R., Germany

Dear Sir or Madam,

As a history devotee, I was fascinated to come across your page on modern inaccurate views of the medieval European period. The presentation of text supported by the gorgeous period illustrations was thoroughly enjoyable. You’ll be interested to know (or, maybe you already do) that some of the erroneous passages are posted as boards of entertaining “information” in the high-class Fairway Market grocery stores.

Thank you for a wonderful contribution to world knowledge.

     Sincerely,

     W.R.

Dear Tradition in Action,

According to Catholic theology, could there ever exist a gap, even a “temporary” one, in the continuation of the apostolic hierarchy of the Church (i.e. referring to the entire body of bishops as a whole, who, as full successors of the Apostles, govern the Church, and not just the Pope) throughout time which would not undermine the Apostolicity of the Church (cf. Vatican I, Session IV, "First Dogmatic Constitution on the Church of Christ" [Introduction], #3)?

In other words, could the Church actually survive a period where it lacked any bishops with full apostolic authority (i.e. bishops who possess both valid orders and ordinary jurisdiction?

     Thank you and God bless,

     T.B.


TIA responds:

Dear T.B.,

In order to maintain the Apostolic continuity, as far as we know, it would be necessary to have at least one faithful Bishop. This is what happened when St. John the Evangelist remained faithful at the foot of the Cross when the other Apostles had fled. At that moment, he represented the entire body, although he was not the Pope.

There is a solid tradition that Elias and Enoch are alive in the earthly Paradise. Some authors defend that those two Prophets were present at the Last Supper, received Communion and were made Bishops by Our Lord.

There is also a solid tradition, based upon the interpretation of the last episode reported in the Gospel of St. John, supporting that he did not die, but was transferred to the earthly Paradise. There he will remain until he returns with the previously mentioned Prophets and give witness to the true Faith at the time of the Antichrist.

If we accept these two traditions we would have three Bishops. Even if we accept only the last one, it seems that the problem of the Apostolic Succession would be resolved because we would have St. John, who is indisputably a Bishop, maintaining once again the Apostolic continuity when all the rest of the Prelates in the Militant Church apostatized.

As you may recall, the earthly Paradise is not the Church Triumphant and, therefore, is part of the Church Militant .

     Cordially,

     TIA correspondence desk

TIA,

St. Francis of Assisi Supported the Crusades.

St. Francis did not consider preaching the Gospel to save Muslim souls to be incompatible with the use of force to defend Christian lives

He respected the Pope's call for military action to protect Christian lives and property in the Middle East. Yet at the same time Francis attempted to convert Muslims to Christianity, and risked martyrdom himself in order to do so.

Documentation for the saint's support of the Fifth Crusade, upon which he embarked in 1219, comes from numerous sources. Pope Innocent III had initially laid the plans for this Crusade, but it was Pope Honorius III who launched it in 1217. Two years later, St. Francis along with a dozen followers, embarked on one of the galleys comprising the Crusader fleet, as it left Ancona, Italy. He disembarked in Syria to visit his friars of his Order in that area, and then resumed his journey on another Crusader vessel. He finally reached the city of Damietta in Egypt, a Muslim port city on the Nile under siege by the Crusader army. The main Muslim force, led by their king, Sultan al-Kamil, was encamped further up the river.

Risking martyrdom, during a temporary truce he crossed over to the camp of the Sultan's army. Francis and one other member of his Order (who probably was the interpreter) were captured by the sentries, beaten, and carried in chains to al-Kamil, after indicating that they wanted to speak to him. He explained to the Sultan that he was not an emissary sent by the Crusaders, but was sent by God to proclaim the gospel message of salvation taught by Jesus Christ. Impressed by the courage of Francis, the Sultan listened to him intently as the Faith was preached to him and his attendants, apparently over a number of days.

The saint did not directly attack the religion of Mohammed, but confined his discourse to expounding the truths of the Christian religion. He told the Sultan that he was concerned about his salvation, since if the Sultan refused to believe, God would not accept his soul. In addition he said that it was just that the Christians invade the land his followers inhabit, since they blaspheme the name of Christ and alienate everyone they can from His worship.

A foremost expert on Francis and the Fifth Crusade, Professor James Powell, wrote: "Francis of Assisi went to Damietta on a mission of peace. There can be no question about this. We should not however try to make him a pacifist or to label him as a critic of the crusade." Another leading crusade scholar, Christoph Maier, was even more explicit: "Francis thus accepted the crusade as both legitimate and ordained by God, and he was quite obviously not opposed to the use of violence when it came to the struggle between Christians and Muslims." Another historian noted that "unreserved support of the crusade had become normative in the Order."

Detailed references for the sources mentioned are available in my work, St. Francis of Assisi and the Conversion of the Muslims, published by TAN Books.

     Peace,

     Frank Rega