Vaccine reactions
I am writing in response to the letters regarding Dr. Seeds’ commentary (Catholic Virginian, Jan. 10). I will explain my experience with the vaccine in the hopes it may show that there are individuals who had reactions to the vaccine.
I had a very mild case of COVID in late January 2021. My symptoms lasted for at most one day. Three months later I signed up to take the first Moderna vaccine at my doctor’s office. I got the shot on a Saturday morning and woke up during the night feely achy and miserable. I had had mild reactions to the flu shot a few times in the past but nothing like this.
By the morning, I felt so sick. It wasn’t flu-like symptoms — no fever, no cough. What seemed to be affected were my kidneys and lymph nodes. I felt so bad by Monday morning I called my physician’s office as soon as they opened to ask them if I should be concerned. I was told not to worry; none of their patients ended up in the emergency room. I am pretty sure my reaction was not documented in my file — or anywhere.
I did finally recover but it took four days. I decided against getting the second shot — a decision I have not regretted. A few months later at an appointment with my physician, he asked if I was fully vaccinated. I told him no and I told him why. I still doubt that what happened to me was ever recorded or reported. – Patrice Becker, Chesapeake
Beware of ‘stampede’ by ‘Modernist storm’
While I share the enthusiasm of Anthony Rago Jr. (Catholic Virginian, Feb. 7) for the growing awareness of the multiple rites that are part of the patrimony of Holy Mother Church, I cannot help but contrast that with the continuing war to crush and destroy the “Usus Antiquior” — the Mass that in all essentials has been celebrated by the Western Church for approximately 16 centuries.
This persecution was begun by the remarkably uncharitable, mean spirited, indeed cruel, motu proprio, “Traditions Custodes,” of Pope Francis, which was recently explicated by the Congregation for Divine Worship’s “Responsa Ad Dubia.” This Mass of St. Gregory the Great never was suppressed by Vatican Council II and was affirmed by Benedict XVI’s “Summorum Pontificum.”
Pope Francis faces risks of schism on a number of fronts that are unprecedented in recent times, which makes it all the more puzzling why he would attempt to kick the legs out from under a growing segment of Catholics who affirm, and are affirmed by, the Traditional Latin Mass. God bless those of our bishops, including Bishop Barry C. Knestout, who have not been stampeded by the Modernist storm and prize the patrimony of Holy Mother Church, Eastern and Western. – Robert R. Kaplan, Midlothian
TLM provides ‘fullness of Roman Catholicism’
Anthony Rago Jr. is entitled to his own opinion “Grateful Vatican II stimulated renaissance” (Catholic Virginian, Jan. 24), but he is not entitled to his own facts. The bishops, priests, religious and laity of the 1970s abandoned or, in some places, attempted to destroy much of that heritage in the name of Vatican II.
The dichotomy of those offering Mass according to the Missal of 1962 and that of 1970 clearly demonstrates that the implementation of Vatican II served to accomplish the exact opposite of restoration. I would recommend the works of Mr. Evelyn Waugh or of the inestimable J.R.R. Tolkien to see personal perspectives on the destruction wrought in the name of Vatican II.
The reason why these customs and practices are returning has little positive to do with Vatican II. Certain groups simply continued to do what was done before 1970 and preserved much of that heritage to pass on to the next generation.
Pope Benedict XVI’s letter “Summorum Pontificum” on the use of the Roman Liturgy prior to the reform of 1970 opened the eyes of many to what was lost because the bishops cannot control the internet. COVID-19 accelerated the process.
Young families and converts have turned to parishes offering the Traditional Latin Mass. Why? They desire the fullness of Roman Catholicism. – Timothy Olmsted, Farmville