Letters to the Editor
|Your comments and suggestions are welcomed by the Editor. If you can, please keep your comments brief. Write to: The Editor, The Angelus Press, Box 1387, Dickinson, TX 77539.||
Dear Fr. Cooper,
In reply to a letter from D. A. (Vienna, VA.) in the February Angelus you asked "What in the world does 'charis' mean?" It is a Greek word which means grace or gratia in Latin.
—A. R. V. (Cumberland, R.I.)
Thank you sir. As you can tell, I am not a student of Greek.
In the February 15 issue of The Remnant Michael Davies poses the following question to Fr. Emerson, of the Society of St. Peter, a question which originated with this writer and sent to Mr. Davies.
"Aren't you afraid of accepting the jurisdiction of bishops who are perhaps unorthodox? Surely you are no safer or more secure in your position than the orthodoxy of the bishop whose jurisdiction you accept?"
Fr. Emerson, in his response, comments on the alleged ignorance of one who would ask such a question and then proceeds to answer the question by not answering it. He substitutes the word "weak" for the word "unorthodox", answering that "bishops have always been weak," that "Peter was weak," but that that does not affect their right to rule.
The legitimate question here, of course, is not one of "weakness" but that of orthodoxy. Most traditional Catholics are quite willing to accept the jurisdiction of weak but totally orthodox bishops but certainly not that of unorthodox bishops who lead astray and destroy souls. Such bishops abound today. They are the false shepherds that our Lord warns us about in scripture. His command is clear that we are not to subject ourselves to such authority. Only orthodox bishops have the right to rule in His Name.
Most traditional Catholics, time will prove, are equally unwilling to follow such priests as Fr. Emerson, who has made it clear that he is willing to accept the authority of such unorthodox bishops. "The Society of St. Peter accepts the jurisdiction of every bishop in communion with Rome," meaning, of course, every Conciliar, New Order, modernist bishop in the world. Excluded from those Fr. Emerson considers "in union with Rome" are Archbishop Lefebvre, Bishop de Castro Mayer, and the four new bishops consecrated by the Archbishop on June 30; the six bishops truly in communion with Catholic Rome as opposed to modernist Rome.
Sincerely, M.T.R. (Mecanicsville, VA)
I think you posed a very good question. Perhaps Fr. Emerson didn't answer because that is precisely where the Society of St. Peter's instability will arise, from the unorthodoxy of the bishops to whom they must submit.
I enjoy your magazine very much, especially the latest article on Cardinal Slipyj. One note of correction though: in the February issue you mentioned that St. Sophia Sobor in Kiev was an eighteenth century church built upon the site of a ninth century one. This is not the case. The fact is that St. Sophia Sobor that stands today is the original ninth century church. The ancient icon of the 'Ornta' the Blessed Virgin (Immovable Wall) can still be seen. There was however, extensive remodeling done on this Sobor during the eighteenth century (thus the error in the article implying that it was a whole new building built on the site of the old), the most notable change being the domes on the top which were extended changing the style to a more 'Ukrainian' style—behind the sanctuary (on the outside of the structure—the former style being 'more' Greek. Of late the Soviet officials have uncovered portions of the wall of the church at the rear—(on the outside of the structure—the inside remains basically the same except for an Iconists [Icon Screen] added more recently) which exposes the original 9th century wall. I thought you might just be interested in this.
—Br. D. M. (Edmonton, Alberta)
Thank you for your information. The conclusion of Cardinal Slipyi's story is on page 17. If any readers have missed these articles, I encourage you to go back to your January - March issues for a fascinating story.
Dear Father Cooper,
The staff of The Angelus is to be congratulated. The Angelus gets better every issue.
The "interview with Thomas Cranmer" was a classic. I wish the Angelus Press would reprint this interview and "A Recent History of the Vatican's False Ecumenism" similar to the copy I am enclosing. It is so hard to tell friends, "read four or five of Michael Davis' books plus etc., etc." They just won't do it! We need something for 400 or 500 that we can put in their hands to 'shock them'. They are too lazy to read what we have been reading for 20 years.
—R. H. New Orleans, LA.
This is true, but it's difficult for us to get The Angelus out, let alone publish more and more pamphlets. Perhaps you can just send them certain issues of The Angelus, it would be a great way to spread good literature inexpensively.
Dear Father Cooper,
I read with interest your letter in the Angelus last January. I must agree with you that some bishops are not really granting the permission for the Latin Mass and are making it difficult as far as times and places.
I must take exception to your statements though as far as St. Patrick's Parish and Father Astuto from Omaha, Nebraska is concerned. At the very first Latin Mass last September 25th, Father made it very clear that the rubrics of this special and sacred Mass do not allow for Communion in the hand and that it is to be received kneeling. He also asked that women wear a mantilla or suitable head covering.
So please don't put all the priests and bishops down for trying to bring back the Mass of all times and follow the Holy Father.
—K. G. (Defiance, IA)
I was merely expressing my concerns about the "Indult Masses"—and what some new priests really thought about the Traditional Mass they were asked to say.
Anything specifically sacrificial or supporting Catholic doctrines, especially those of the holy priesthood and transubstantiation, have been systematically eliminated from the Mass. While the New Mass does not contain positive heresy, it highly favors Protestantism. It is not an unequivocal profession of faith, but it is ambiguous and is open to interpretation. Since one cannot pray with a non-Catholic text and still believe as a Catholic, the New Mass must be avoided. It is unacceptable and, because of its middle-ground position on issues like transubstantiation, it is evil. Liturgy must uncompromisingly express the faith in ritual and word. The New Mass does not do this, and in fact, leads the faithful away from the True Faith.
The Church will endure until the end... but prayer and action are needed to help her along. Simply to leave everything to the Holy Ghost without any participation by man in the workings of grace would be to fall into the quietist heresy. Msgr. Lefebvre is ensuring Holy Mother Church will last into the next millennium. When the life of the Church is threatened, no action preserving the faith can cause the condemnation of a man.
—W.C.H. (North Olmsted, OH)
This is precisely what His Grace says, though the New Mass is valid when said by a priest with the proper matter, form and intention, we should stay away from it for the very reasons you suggest. You made some good points.