What People Are Commenting
Offensive Show, Assisi & Sede-Vacantism
Offensive TV Show in Canada
It has come to my attention that will be an airing of a comedic "Christmas" show concerning the Holy Family on CTV Canada and the Comedy Network on December 1, 2011, that portrays St. Joseph played by the comedian Russell Peters and the Blessed Virgin played by a former immoral actress, Pamela Anderson.
A statement from CTV said "Peters puts his own irreverent twist on the Christmas special".
If you are interested in contacting the stations to stop the showing, the information is below. If you are not interested, please offer reparation for this and other outrages that insult Our Lord Jesus and His Holy Mother.
Please pass this on to others as well.
CTV Contact Information:
P.O. Box 9, Station 'O,'
Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Telephone National: 1-866-690-6179
Telephone Ontario: 1-800-668-0060
Two Opposed Churches
Dear Tradition in Action,
A beautiful prayer, sung or recited after Communion by the congregation at the Eastern Rite Mass of St. John Chrysostom, goes as follows:
"We have seen the True Light,
We have received the Heavenly Spirit,
We have found the True Faith,
And we worship the Undivided Trinity,
For the Trinity has saved us."
While reciting this today at the local Ukrainian Catholic Church, I was comparing it in my mind to the recent Assisi Meeting called by Benedict XVI, and to Conciliar Ecumenism in general.
Have Protestants, Jews, Muslims, pagans of all sorts seen the True Light? No, they are in varied degrees of darkness.
Have they received the Heavenly Spirit? Protestants did when they were baptized, but they have driven Him out by obstinate heresy. Jews, Muslims, pagans - they have not received the Heavenly Spirit - although John Paul II inexplicably stated that the Holy Spirit resides in the heart of every man.
Only Catholics have found the True Faith, only Catholics have true worship of the Undivided Trinity, with very many of Benedict XVI's fellow Assisi attendees specifically denying the Trinity ... and so how can the Trinity save them? Our Lord said, in St. John's Gospel, "If you do not confess that I am He, you will die in your sins."
But for years Rome has been extolling the progress of false religions, and this false praise illustrates a chief complaint against Ecumenism: the Church now is content to leave non-Catholics of all stripes in their errors, and this in contradiction to the above prayer, present in the liturgy for untold centuries.
Who is correct, the Church of two millennia or the Church of Vatican II?
Basics of Sede-Vacantism
While we have disagreed on many issues in the past, I wanted to extend my appreciation and admiration of this article [Looking at Some Basics of Sede-Vacantism], especially on the implications of Pope St. Pius X's reform of the Roman Breviary, despite the strong words of Quod a nobis.
I have pointed out to several people the similarity of the language of Quod a nobis and Quo primum, but you are the first traditionalist site to actually deal with this issue. Most simply ignore it.
Again, I thank you.
Dear Mr. Atila,
My compliments for the article "Looking at some basics of Sede-Vacantism".
Thank you for your excellent and thorough article on sede-vacatism to your country man from the TIA site....
Best wishes in Blessed Mary,
Halloween & Puritans
I've been reading your site for some time, and there is much good in it.
However, in stating that little children should not or cannot go to the houses of their neighbors in costume on Halloween to get candy, you've verged over into Puritanism, a Protestant heresy. (And in addition, you are encouraging us to teach our children that Christ prohibits all innocent pleasure, which is untrue.)
The Puritans, we will remember, frowned on every pleasure including legitimate ones. So, one was not supposed to drink wine even in moderation, or dance, even modestly, or gamble, even innocently. Anything that was at all fun was anathema. (The God of this group was a kill-joy.) This point of view is rightly condemned by the Church, who sees innocent fun as part of the Creator's design, and who reminds us that Jesus undoubtedly danced at the wedding at Cana, and Who according to all reports, drank wine.
There is a difference between legitimate pleasure and excess. So in commending the moderate enjoyment of wine, we do not commend becoming an alcoholic; in commending dancing, we are not recommending obscene dancing.
So also Halloween. In commending little children dressed as princesses going to their neighbors' houses begging candy, we are not commending the ugly excesses you list. Be careful lest you slide into the Puritan heresy.
We are glad to find that we are both against Puritanism. We also have in common the belief that there is no harm for children to have innocent pleasures. If your children dress like princes and princesses at Halloween, we find nothing to censure in that; this would be another point in common.
However, if they - like most of those who commemorate Halloween - dress disguised as devils and witches, this is not an innocent pleasure, but an indirect homage to the evil spirits. Here we disagree. We uphold that parents should not allow children to dress this way. Besides being an indirect homage to the Devil it is also a bad formation for children, giving them the idea that the Devil and witches are just figures of commedy and joking. Also, if your children - dressed innocently as princesses and princes - go to parties or trick-or-treat on streets where other children are dressed badly, you send them the message that this is harmless and acceptable.
There are two faces of Protestantism. One is, as you note, Puritanism or Calvisnism, but it also has its Lutheran face that lives for pleasures (see this article, please). Both are unbalanced attitudes far from the Catholic equilibrium between seriousness and moderate joy in face of life.
For a true Catholic things are more serious than you assume in your e-mail. We will be judged for every single action we make, be it good or evil. Parents who form their children in a relativistic way will have a hard time explaining it to the Eternal Judge.
TIA correspondence desk
Roman Law, Jewish Law
In Enthusiasm from Resisters, Laughs from Sede-Vacantists, in your reply to a reader who commented on Prof. Plino's article on St. Dismas, you say that Jesus was dealt with according to Roman law. Did Pilate not say, "See to it yourself..."? It seems to be a stretch to call this according to Roman law.
When the Jews brought Jesus before Pilate to be judged, they were following the Roman Law. When Pilate agreed to crucify Christ under pressure of the Jews, who wanted Him to die to fulfill their law, this action was still a decision of Pilate, the due ruler of Roman Law. There is nothing stretched here.
If you still have doubts, re-read the decision of Pilate in the four Gospels.
TIA correspondence desk
Posted November 22, 2011
The opinions expressed in this section - What People Are Commenting -
do not necessarily express those of TIA
Related Topics of Interest
Looking at Some Basics of Sede-Vacantism
A Trick to Divert Attention from All Souls’ Day
Who Is the Tyrant?
The Lutheran and Calvinist Mentalities
Puritans and Pilgrims
Related Works of Interest
Comments | Questions | Objections | Home | Books | CDs | Search | Contact Us | Donate
Tradition in Action, Inc. All Rights Reserved