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.
Loading ...
I’ll just leave this here:
https://sspx.org/en/state/california-0
I find the terminology shift in the second half to be fascinating.
In the first two paragraphs the soon-to-be-discontinued-mass-because-reasons is referred to as the “Traditional Latin Mass,” but then in the next two paragraphs is referred to as “the Mass in Latin,” juxtaposed with “the Mass in English.”
I’m not sure what to make of it. I have a few thoughts, but without knowing the situation or the parties involved I’d be hesitant to infer motives. Praying for this bishop, pastor and parish.
Father Chu seems to stipulate that the only difference between forms of the Roman Rite is the language they’re celebrated in. If he wants to continue celebrating Mass in Latin, he’s perfectly free to do so, only just not in the Extraordinary Form. It’s a peculiar choice to craft the letter’s wording so specifically, and focus on only the language. I would expect that from ignorance of someone who has never celebrated a TLM at all and/or doesn’t like it.
Redneck is right. The TLM in Costa Mesa survives, for now. But the stated goal of TC is to “accompany” EVERYONE to the Novus Ordo. So its days are numbered, only awaiting another turn of the Bergoglian screw in Rome.
Is it worth sacrificing your time and treasure there, only for the Middle Manager of Orange to eliminate it with one penstroke as soon as the CEO in Rome says so?
Utterly ridiculous, there has been a TLM there since the indult days, we used to attend it while visiting the in-laws in Ca. some 20-25y ago. Coincidentally we were out there last weekend and heard about this latest blow while attending the “exiled” TLM out at the Indian reservation in Pala (35 min drive for us) which replaced one in Oceanside (5m from where we were staying) and another in Escondido (where my son recently graduated from John Paul the Great – an excellent small Catholic film and creative arts university). Aside from the FSSP in San Diego and (near) LA, the Premonstratensians seem to be the only ones saying the TLM in Southern Cal… can’t help but wonder when a strike at them may come…
Anyway I had started a letter to the recently-ennobled Bishop of San Diego to thank him for the opportunity to drive out into the desert – on the “peripheries” to be sure – in order to attend Mass and also to express how grateful I was to meet such a diverse group of the Faithful from his dispersed flock. I do intend, as well, to ask His Eminence for his guidance in understanding how acts which cause the the Faithful to drive considerable distances in vehicles with internal combustion engines for the purpose of worship can be harmonized with the spirit of “Laudatio Si”…
Perhaps I had better not send it – the one thing that these thin-skinned thick-headed functionaries can’t handle is ridicule!
Long past the time to disobey Francis.
The “I pray that you will continue [to give us your money]” line was impressively tasteless.
The sad reality is that far too many (perhaps the majority) of bishops and priests and laity seriously do not understand what all the fuss is about. Liturgy is so unimportant to their faith and their spiritual life that, at most, many of them appear to see the banning of thousands of years of Sacred Tradition as no more than a minor inconvenience to a handful of esoteric laymen and not a critical crisis of identity and validity for the entire Catholic Church. Couple that with the hordes of “You have to defend the Pope no matter what he says or does” zealots that roam about the world looking for heretical/polemical statements they can justify, and sooner or later all men of good will may wind up in Archbishop Lefebvre’s lifeboat, whether they like it or not.
I do hope that the community affected in the above letter will find a way to continue their TLC in spite of all this. The TC + “dubia” restrictions are so convoluted and complicated, that at this point it ought to be tedious for the bad guys to be paying constant attention to any non-following of their incoherent rules. Ditto for all other TLM communities affected.
Thank you Fr Z for the sample letter. Just put it in my files.
Some related news. Just Thursday morning, a disturbed man torched St Joseph Church in Salem, Oregon. The only location in Salem offering the Traditional Mass. Archbishop Sample offered the noon Mass that very day, in the rain, out in the parking lot.
We are in a pitched battle.
I have some sympathy for Fr. Chu. He is the hapless messenger who is obligated to follow & convey directives from the chancery.
Indeed, these situations are often most demoralizing for the priests who have invested the time & effort to celebrate the TLM for their parishioners, only to have it ripped from them by a obtuse & needless edict.
In the commission of acts of immorality (and impiety), “I was just following orders,” is neither a defense in a court of law nor before the judgement seat of Our Lord.
Conversely, “I was just following orders” is not truly humble obedience and is not meritorious as it doesn’t stem from the will in charity.
Jason in kc (second comment, above) is on to something. The term Latin Mass is not equivalent to the term Traditional Latin Mass. Therefore, an easy next step for pastors would be to celebrate the Ordinary Form using the Latin language.
(It’s not the same as the Extraordinary Form, but it’s a temporary workaround, and it will serve to highlight the need for all to be precise in the terms.)
The hits just keep on coming. Prayers that priests will be able to walk the line between proper obedience and the care and protection a spiritual father should give his flock. I am reminded of the movie, The Mission, in which the Jesuit priests have to decide between obeying an unjust order and abandoning their own flock to death and slavery. Hell must smile when spiritual fathers abandon their flocks, and the poor little ones in the pew feel abandoned and demoralized. The crisis of fatherhood in the church starts at the top and flows downhill.
Pingback: MONDAY EDITION – BigPulpit.com
Lurker 59 writes: “In the commission of acts of immorality (and impiety), ‘I was just following orders,’ is neither a defense in a court of law nor before the judgement seat of Our Lord”
This has been much on my mind, but in a different context, for it was the explicit defense that one archbishop had for locking down the churches of his Archdiocese during the so-called pandemic, as also for mandating that all Catholic school personnel be vaccinated. He was obeying the governor. And given the way things are unfolding, it does not go without saying that we may not be subjected to the same treatment in the near future.
Now what I want to know is how reputable Catholic moral theologians assess this behavior. I cannot see how it comports favorably with the principle of double effect, where a given act has two effects. The first test is that the act must not be evil in itself, but depriving people of the sacraments is evil in itself. What am I missing? Probably a lot, which is why I would like to see competent moral theologians assess this behavior and come to the aid of our prelates before we are put through the wringer again.
As far as mandating the vaccine goes, this falls afoul of the Nuremburg code and there is a movement that all persons guilty of imposing such mandates be brought to trial, including governors, prelates, university presidents etc whether all such were following orders or not.