Just as the Faith of the Apostles was shaken by the crucifixion, asking “How can this be.” I ask myself the same question , Our Lord tells us “The Gates Of Hell Shall not Prevail” but yet they have prevailed!!!  How can this be??

Our Lord tells us “The Gates Of Hell Shall not Prevail” but yet they have prevailed!!!  How can this be?? The Church in every way possible has been overrun. Masons and ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖs are now in charge on every level, there is no unity of faith anymore, the church is no longer Holy, she has become a whore, selling herself to the highest bidder. There is no equal in the whole of History of The Church, to the crises we are now facing.

I believe I have raised the rhetorical question whether it is always good, or charitable, to tell a truth that may cause more harm than good?  Not that we should learn truth and wisdom from commercials on TV, but is one really commanded to tell one's wife that this dress makes her look fat just because it's the truth?

So what IS the "truth" about Assisi?  At its most objective and stripped of all editorializing, at Assisi the Pope invited religious leaders from around the world to come together and pray for peace.  Since this an objectively true statement, it goes far to explain why the secular media ignored it almost completely, and why it would be considered a "page 5" news item even in the Catholic press.  It's pretty boring, isn't it?

What makes it interesting to the Protestant Traditionalists in this forum is that, at Assisi, the Pope MIGHT give the impression that he considers all religions to be of equal value.  Of course, this impression would be FALSE because the Pope, if asked, would say that all religions are NOT of equal value (as he articulated in Dominus Iesus).  Since the Pope does not teach that all religions are of equal value, then any impression that he is so teaching is just plain FALSE.

Okay.  Now it can be asked "if you consider this story rather boring and that false impressions about the Assisi event are easily refuted, then why didn't you run a story on it?"  How about "Because the positive content of this story is about as interesting as any of several papal visits to various sites in Italy and because there is the potential for misunderstanding (as demonstrated by those who find fault with almost anything the Pope does, who create problems that they can look faithful and pious in the solving) that would make the net value of this story to be negative rather than positive."  How's that?

People here in this Forum have reacted to Assisi as an event well beyond its actual importance.  Sure, it was important to the Pope to do this, just as it seems to be important to have the Pope add prestige by his presence at  countless events.  This story was and is almost NOTHING almost EVERYWHERE.  Only the Protestant Traditionalists are reacting to this story as if it were comparable to selling indulgences to build St. Peter's basilica!

It's really astonishing how many "out of context" platitudes can be marched out to attack both prudence and common sense.  Can anyone take seriously that St. Thomas Aquinas would be thinking about an event like Assisi when he said "If people are scandalized at the Truth, it is better to allow the birth of scandal, than to abandon the Truth."  Is the Assisi event even a "Truth"?  Or is the Assisi event a scandal primarily because it serves the agenda of those who purport to defend the Faith and want to reinforce their reasons for not being in communion with the Church?  If it weren't for the existence of people who have already rejected the authority of the Pope and seek to justify their rejection by accuмulating examples of papal malfeasance, ineptitude and perceived heterodoxy, the Assisi event wouldn't even appear on most radars.  The Assisi event is not "Truth."  It was an event that can be described objectively as "world religious leaders come together to pray for peace."  For reasons that I do not judge honorable, the Assisi event has been made into an occasion of scandal when the entire event could have taken place and passed into history with nary a whimper.

We judged the Assisi event as not newsworthy.  I don't think we even covered it as a news item, which could have been done objectively but for the poisonous context which had already been created for its reception.  If everyone had let this event pass without notice, it wouldn't have been noticed and couldn't have caused any scandal.  But because of the hyperventilating of Protestant Traditionalists, the story became toxic and couldn't even be covered fairly and objectively.

The more important issue, to me, has become how blindingly obvious it is that the voices in this Forum whose raison d'etre seems to be attacking "The Pope and his Church" behind a pretense of loving and defending the Truth have spectacular parallels with early Protestantism!  Luther et al attacked "The Pope and his Church" for teaching error, thus forfeiting any authoritative legitimacy in Rome.  They had their pet issues which they defended by appeal to an authority other than "The Pope and his Church," namely Scripture.  The Protestant Traditionalists use Tradition and the Magisterium (the historical record) against "The Pope and his Church."  Unlike Luther et al, because of advances in modern technology, today's Protestant Traditionalists have their own "house organs" (book publishers and magazines), conferences that cater to their issues featuring speakers who who absolutely MUST reinforce the virtue of bashing "The Pope and his Church," and even validly ordained clergy to celebrate liturgies that are disconnected from the authority of the Roman Catholic Church.  Most likely, as with early Protestantism, these separatist tendencies will continue until the definition of a truly separate and new Christian denomination will be more obvious.  Right now, the Protestant Traditionalists don't perceive themselves so much as "outside the Church" as "we are the real Catholic Church" and what everyone else thought was the Catholic Church has become a "false" ("Conciliar") church."  The parallels are striking and, to me, tragic.

So, no, we didn't cover the Assisi event.  Perhaps we could have if the well hadn't been so thoroughly poisoned in advance.  But since the well was poisoned, it was prudent to ignore the story for the good of souls.  Yes, the story was "true," but it isn't always virtuous to tell the truth.  It's never a virtue to lie.  But you shouldn't always tell the truth.  Sometimes silence is the more virtuous course.

Not all the voices in this Forum are Protestant.  But the loudest ones are.

Terry Carroll
Executive Producer
RealCatholicTV.com

Some executive from Real Catholic TV accused trads of being Protestant over on Fisheaters, Jitprig posting as Jackson K. Eskew provoked the response. It's almost as if he knew Voris and co. were browsing there.

Quote from: Dellery

Some executive from Real Catholic TV accused trads of being Protestant over on Fisheaters, Jitprig posting as Jackson K. Eskew provoked the response. It's almost as if he knew Voris and co. were browsing there.

Fisheaters is to the right of Real Catholic TV (on average).

RCTV won't cover Assisi, Fatima's Third Secret or ever suggest the buck stops at the top in relation to many of the Church's problems.

In that sense RCTC is pretty impotent.  Bishop so and so did this, how terrible!"  [ The only person who can do anything about it, is completely inert but we won't bring that up].  Next week, rinse repeat.  "Oh dear!  Write letters and complain to the chancery".

Eventually people will either lose heart or look deeper at the problem.  

If that was their game then it would be succeeding.  I suspect however they are mentally stuck at reaching the conclusions that common sense will take you to.

I'd like to see what their long term subscrition renewals look like.  I bet people subscribe for a year, maybe two and then move on.