Thursday, 4 September 2014

Card-Carrying TLM Nutters?

James Preece has announced that he and his wife have joined the Latin Mass Society and thus became “bona fide card carrying nutters” (see here). Sadly, this is how many who support the TLM are seen; as eccentric nutters; a people who are afraid and seek security in the past. This is entirely wrong. Those who join the LMS or attach themselves to the TLM as their form of worship are like the sensible man who “built his house on rock”; they are men who remain attached to their roots for firm anchorage in “the faith delivered once for all to the saints”. 


Joining the LMS, which I heartily approve of, may make a man seem like a ‘card-carrying nutter’, but only to those who do not, will not, or cannot value Sacred Tradition; those who want a form of worship that affirms the people, and a ‘do not judge’ Church which gives them the autonomy in moral and doctrinal matters that Adam sought in eating the forbidden fruit. Before God and the saints, I dare to say the card-carrying nutters are seen as fully and authentically Catholic, and those who abandon the Doctrine and worship of their forefathers as the nutters. Yes, TLM’ers are, like all of us, sinners, but they are folk who ‘push the envelope’ to encompass the whole of the Catholic Revelation and not just that portion which began in the 1960’s. Thse who do not, will not or cannot value Tradition box themselves off into a seriously flawed standpoint: that of following the latest moral and sociological fads to which they must constantly adapt in order to be ‘relevant’. As one Anglican clergyman said, “He who marries the spirit of the age is bound to be a widower in the next”. The Church is now packed with such widows who do not seem to see that the death of their spouse is the result of their pursuing every new novelty as though it were a new revelation. 

16 comments:

  1. Beautifully and bravely spoken!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thank you, Sarochka,
      God Bless you and yours.

      Delete
  2. Great quote from the Anglican clergyman and sound piece by you!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thank you
      I love that quote but can't remember who said it!
      God Bless.

      Delete
    2. Twas Dean Inge, of St Paul's Cathedral I beleive.

      Delete
    3. Thank you Pete, and God Bless1

      Delete
  3. Father,
    I think the quote about 'the spirit of the age' is by William Inge who was Dean of St Paul's Anglican Cathedral.
    Regards
    Allen

    ReplyDelete
  4. Fr.,
    I am a member of the LMS because it is one of several organisations concerned with preserving the ancient Catholic Mass which can be traced back to St Gregory the Great and beyond and which St Pius V in Quo Primum to be the principle Catholic Mass "in perpetuity". I have no doubt thta this is what BenedictXVI had in mind when he said,

    "What earlier generations held as sacred, remains sacred and great for us too, and it cannot be all of a sudden entirely forbidden or even considered harmful."

    It is not the only Mass of course and St Pius declared several others to be alternative valid Masses.

    Today for instance, the Pauiline Mass is a fully valid alternative to the Vetus Ordo as is the Ordinariate Mass.

    But good Catholics and true, I believe, have a duty to preserve the ancient Catholic Mass, amidst the present shambles which is the post-Vatican II conflict - and I use that word advisedly - which might well, as more and more thinkers believe, result in yet another "Reformation" type split in the Church.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thank you, Jacobi.
      I think the split is already here in germ: progressive Catholics not only refuse obedience to our Tradition but even to current papal/Roman teaching when it does not suit their purposes, and yet Rome and the Bishops seem to favour the liberal over the Traditional Catholic, who is left out in the cold in today’s Church. It seems to me that the future will see all who follow our sacred Tradition ending up in the same position as the SSPX and of St Athanasius: we will have the faith, but not the Churches. Until Rome and the Bishops see that liberalism will eventually cast them aside, they will continue to favour what they think is the faith progressing rather than see the truth, which is that the faith is decomposing.
      God Bless.

      Delete
  5. Disagree...in this sense, you are forming two morality outlooks based on liturgy. I had 6 years of Latin but prefer English in the liturgy. Am I liberal?
    I am for wifely obedience which is not mentioned in either Vatican II nor in the current catechism. I am for the death penalty and believe these last three Popes have circumvented Gen.9:6 and Romans 13:4 on that very matter.
    Do I want Islamic State bombed when that can be done without bombing captive women? You bet I do...despite Pope Francis' ..." I do not say bomb."
    Preferring English in the liturgy is not predictive of morality. Latin was the vernacular when it replaced the Greek. I'm sure people back then insisted on the older Greek and called the new Latin...a moral falling away.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thank you Bill.
      No one is liberal just because they prefer English Liturgy. I have always said I would prefer to have the Traditional Form in English that the New Form in Latin: it is the poverty of the New Form I do not like -and the disobedience to Vatican II which did not ask for or sanction a wholly vernacular Rite.
      As for morality, it is not the loss of Latin I say caused the loss of moral boundaries, but the ideology behind the changes: what had been presented for centuries as most sacred and unchanging was changed, which led to a loss of stability in the faith per se: people were left thinking “If the Mass can be changed, then anything can be changed”. Because of the English Martyrs, we had a saying here in England: “It’s the Mass that matters”.
      The death penalty I abhor simply because mistakes cannot be corrected, while bombing of the Islamic State is a prudential judgement, with many on both sides of the argument. Personally, I would support it if non-combatants could be avoided, though I suspect some would see it as a modern-day 'Crusade'.
      God Bless

      Delete
  6. Fr. Dickson,
    Thank you for a great response. The death penalty could be restricted to non doubtful cases of which there are many....public murders e.g. with multiple witnesses and video nowadays. Pope Benedict in sect.42 of Verbum Domini states that the OT prophets " challenged...every form of violence...individual and communal". Actually no but they did recurringly oppose the violence of rich Jews against poor Jews having to do with land seizures etc. But Elijah killed a minimum of 552 men revolving around other matters. God mandated that Eliseus kill any of the house of Ahab who escaped the sword of Jehu ( a prophet/ king). God rewarded Jehu's family for his killing of the house of Ahab and Jezubel. Samuel killed Agag because Saul failed to as ordered by God and Jeremiah the prophet threatens the Chaldeans if they fail to kill the Moabites per God's order in Jer.48:10 " Cursed are they who do the Lord's work carelessly; cursed are they who hold back their sword from shedding blood." Hence for Benedict to state that such prophets challenged every form of violence was not only inaccurate but bespeaks an underlying proclivity that later in his life was increasingly pacifist. It's similar to St. John Paul II calling the death penalty "cruel" verbally in St. Louis in 1999 but not in writing in EV where it would stain the Papal record of encyclical carefulness.
    Someday google homicides by country wiki...which has the UN figures for murder per 100,000 people. Six non death penalty Catholic countries are in the worst 20 or so. Central America...non death penalty....is 30 times more murderous than all of death penalty East Asia which also has millions of poor people as a factor.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thank you, Bill, for another worthwhile contribution to the post.
      God Bless you and yours.

      Delete
  7. The Holy Sacrifice of the Mass is not in keeping with Tradition because it is in Latin (or one of the liturgical languages of the other ancient rites) but is in Latin because it is in keeping with Traditiion. Tradition is the keeper of the Faith, including, if not especially, in the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thank you for this Lynda.
      Needless to say (I hope), that I agree.
      God Bless.

      Delete

Please comment using a pseudonym, not as 'anonymous'.
If you challenge the Magisterium, please do so respectfully.
We reserve the right to delete from comments any inflammatory remarks.
If we do not reply to your comment it is through lack of time rather than interest.