Posted on 09/01/2023 12:57:41 PM PDT by ebb tide
Remember, that the attacks on the Traditional Latin Mass are really attacks on the PEOPLE who desire it.
I received this from a reader…
How might one respond to this letter? How about something like this.
Dear Father Quang,
Thank you so much for your letter of August 25, 2023. I am saddened by your decision and that of Bishop Vann, and will regrettably be forced to have the spiritual and liturgical needs of my family met elsewhere. Considering the added distance to St. Michael’s Abbey and the cost of fuel, I’m sure you will understand that my past financial contributions to the parish and the diocese will need to be curtailed. My family will also no longer be available to participate in the apostolates and programs which we have enjoyed these past many years. I hope you will be able to find volunteers to replace us.
I hope that one day you and Bishop Vann, as well as the authorities in the Holy See come to an understanding and appreciation of the teachings of the Second Vatican Council on the apostolic authority of the bishop in governing his diocese (see Christus Dominus) and the rights of the faithful to seek and obtain reasonable liturgical and sacramental service from their local Church (see Sacrosanctum Concilium and Lumen gentium). Until that time, please know of my fervent prayers for you.
Sincerely,
Traditionis custodes is a manifestation of self-conscious defensive cruelty.
Ping
The constant attack on the faithful who desire the TLM is astounding. These “priests” and “bishops” will have a lot to answer for and will find eternity to be quite warm. Sede vacante.
Mass will be in English.
Isn’t that racist?
There is too much effort today to solve problems that don’t exist. Too much Latin Mass is not a problem. But there are people in the Vatican who desperately want to solve it.
The stupidity just makes my head hurt.
Language aside, it’s a totally different Mass.
I had a friend in college who liked to say, “It’s the same Mass, they only changed all the words.”
How might one more appropriately respond to this letter? How about something like this:
Dear Father Quang,
Your recent letter on the cancellation of the Latin Mass is the red flag that finally prompted me to examine the doctrine on the papacy and learn that true popes cannot issue heretical teachings and doctrines, as they are protected by the Holy Spirit from such error, no?
I have thus decided to attend Mass regularly at Queen of Angels Church in Santa Clarita!
They have only the unadulterated Latin Mass as it was offered prior to the Vatican II apostacy. I say “apostacy” because there were issued there, false doctrines contrary to the Gospel and to all past magisterium such as “ecumenism” (all religions are salvific) and changing the focus of the Mass to a meal from the eternal and true focus as a sacrifice, which heresy Luther was so fond of. Vatican II council was rife with modernism in many of its teachings, which as you may not know, Pope St. Pius X so fiercely condemned. (His gloriuos feast day is this Sunday!)
(Note: I am reassured to have learned that the bishop of Queen of Angels Church has true apostolic succession.)
So, I will pray for your conversion from the Vatican II new religion to the one true age-old faith of the saints that truly sanctifies souls. I mourn for those who will cling to your sinking ship. God’s mercy be yours as you repent.
Sincerely,
And this was said where? Musta missed that one.
Ecumenism & Interreligious Dialogue:
Indifferentism and Syncretism Repackaged
https://novusordowatch.org/ecumenism-interreligious-dialogue/
This just in:
Brazilian ‘Archbishop’ justifies giving ‘Communion’ to Muslim Sheik
https://novusordowatch.org/2023/08/brazilian-archbishop-steinmetz-gives-communion-to-muslim-imam/
I meant where is it said in Vatican II.
And where does it say in the Vatican II documents that all religions are salvific again? That’s what I asked.
Do they contradict? Are we so absolutely sure of that?
First, Unitatis Redintegratio doesn’t seem to be talking about all religions but only about the divisions among Christians. So it presupposes Baptism.
Second, the Council of Florence also said this:
“in case of necessity not only a priest or a deacon, but even a lay man or a woman, even a pagan and a heretic, can baptize provided he or she uses the form of the church and intends to do what the church does.”
If heretical communinities and schismatic churches validly baptize, then they are a means of that person’s salvation, no? What can a valid Baptism mean except that a person was made a member of the Holy Catholic Church?
Why are Catholics searching for "truth" with non-Christians?
Do not Catholics, alone, possess and know the Truth?
Yeah, and what’s wrong with that statement?
Are the Orthodox sacraments valid or not? Do they give grace, and do they give access to the communion of salvation?
Silly question. If a pagan baptizes an infant, the infant may be saved; the pagan, however, remains a pagan unless he later is baptized himself.
I don't know about you, but I already know the Truth and it isn't in schismatic churches.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.