UPDATE: Latin Mass Society about summer TLM training conference at Oxford

I received this from the Latin Mass Society about the status of the summer TLM training conference for priests at Oxford.


For Immediate Release

15 December 2008

* LMS Training Conference at Merton College, Oxford for Priests Wishing to Learn the Extraordinary Form of Mass (Traditional Latin Rite), August 2009

The following is a statement from Mr Paul Beardsmore, Secretary of the Latin Mass Society:

1.    The LMS Committee has not cancelled the Oxford Training Conference, and Merton College has not indicated to the Society that permission to hold the Conference has been withdrawn.

2.    Mr David Lloyd’s views concerning the Oxford Conference held in July 2008 were considered by the LMS Committee three months ago and did not receive the support of the majority of its members.

3.    The LMS Committee – including Mr Lloyd – is unanimous in its commitment to the implementation of the Motu Proprio, ‘Summorum Pontificum’, and consequently to the training of clergy to celebrate Mass in the Extraordinary Form.

4.    The leaking to the press of Mr Lloyd’s confidential e mail, and the attempt to link this e mail with the LMS Committee’s recent decision concerning the administrative arrangements for the Conference are mischievous.

Statement ends.

. . . . ENDS . . . .

LMS: (T) 020 7404 7284; (F) 020 7831 5585;
(E mail) thelatinmasssociety@snmail.co.uk


I am grateful for the additional information.

I consider it to have been a mistake not to go to the conference last year.  I would very much like to attend or help with the training.

UPDATE:  This is from the priest of the fine Valle Adurni blog.  My emphases and comments:

Sunday, 14 December 2008

Merton and all that Damian Thompson, in his Holy Smoke blog, has announced something that a few of us knew was in the air: the Latin Mass Society no longer wishes to support the training of ordinary diocesan priests to celebrate the Traditional Rites—or at least to do so in the format used for the last two summers. Damian quotes an email from David Lloyd, a former chairman of the LMS:

Our Society is constituted to provide the Mass to as many catholics as possible from all walks of life in churches and chapels the length and breadth of England and Wales, the majority of those who attend these Masses would not have understood anything of the splendour of Merton. [I wonder.] It is wrong therefore for the favoured few to be able to indulge in the obvious luxury of the liturgy provided. Many people (laity) have worked for the LMS for many years for no more than their expenses and a good number of them have not claimed for anything at all. Look then at the tuition fees and the expenses paid from the figures provided for 29 first time and 15 second time delegates from England and Wales. The clergy were in awe at the generosity of the Society they must have been laughing all the way back to their presbyteries at the size of the party bags distributed as gifts. [What a dim view of priests the writer has.] The whole concept of Merton (an Anglican institution) is privileged, the cost of Merton is obscene, continually asking our membership to subsidise elitist events is wrong. The direction the Society is taking is a cause for concern, high profile and elitism are the flavours of the day, committee must resist this, it must resist any thought of returning to Merton any proposal to do so must be overturned.

I found this very sad reading. David Lloyd is a man I like and respect; I have had dealings with him in the past and found him affable and kind. But I have to disagree profoundly with him on this matter which for me raises a ghost which I thought laid—I might add, laid with David’s help (he being then in the chair). This ghost was the tendency which the LMS had a few years ago (and no doubt is not dead) to support only those clergy who were prepared to celebrate exclusively the traditional rites: [the key is "exclusively"] their website then even proudly boasted it. It made me think of those priests, diocesan and religious, who for years had endured contempt and marginalization from their brothers and superiors for their willingness to keep celebrating the traditional rites for members of the LMS. That what we now call the Extraordinary Form was maintained in this country was due in no small measure to men like Mgr Macdonald, Fr Michael Ware and Fr Mark Taylor. They, like I, for so many years, also received only expenses, and very often not even that[I have on more than one occasion been called on to travel to X or Y and received nothing, not even to cover travel.  That happens.  There is a bit of an attitude among some Catholics that everything having to do with the Church must be free… to them.]

The Merton Conference was a most valuable resource in making it possible for ordinary diocesan and religious clergy to learn to be able to celebrate what is now entirely legitimate. It is firmly established that the traditional rites are not for an exclusive elite, but ordinary Catholics in the pew have a right to them. Of the seventy priests who attended last summer, most went home able to begin celebrating in the Extraordinary Form with some measure of confidence, which will grow as they get used to it. Yes, these men are unlikely exclusively to do so, but then they are men who do not believe that the vineyard of the Lord is confined to traditional Mass centres. They believe, as do I, that the people in ordinary parishes are Catholics too, with souls that need saving and sanctifying, and though the Ordinary Form is not such an efficient tool, nonetheless it is the only tool that many of our folk will accept at present and thus we must make the best of it.[YES!]  But now they have also recourse to the Extraordinary form, a better tool, which they can use as appropriate, both for their own sanctification and also for that of those who will come to appreciate it through their work.  [This priest gets it.  Very well put.]

Although Mr Lloyd thinks that the Merton conference was elitist, in reality it was quite the opposite, since the intent is to bring the Mass precisely back where it belongs—in the parishes.  [Excellent]

Second, I feel personally very hurt at the suggestion that priests went laughing back to their presbyteries [So was I and I wasn’t even there.] after the sybaritic extravaganza of the Merton conference, at the expense of the pennies of the LMS poor. The conference was not luxurious: all participants lived in student accommodation and ate (albeit very nice) student food. [I remember one English priest friend of mine who attended described the conditions.  I would hardly have thought of them as luxurious.]  The liturgy was splendid, but the traditional rites are splendid, when done properly. Are the LMS suggesting that a large gathering of priests should have celebrated Low Mass every day and said the office in private? That would be ridiculous! Perhaps it was the presence of prelates they objected to, especially when they were treated properly. Then there was the goody-bag. Each participant was given a study edition (which is actually useable) of the 1962 Missale Romanum, costing about 50 Euros, a cheap set of unframed paper altar cards (with at least one mistake on them) and sets of bound photocopied notes for the courses. The one possible extravagance was a beautifully produced and bound liturgical book with the offices and masses for the week, which may have cost (judging by Lulu prices) about £10[You know… you can’t make omlettes without breaking eggs.  Some spent money is truly well-spent.]

Though the participants were heavily subsidized, they did have to find expenses that other types of employees might not have to, such as paying for supply priests in their own parishes while they were away, and transport—three priests came from South Africa.  [If they were subsibized, so what?  First, priests do have a right to live from the altar.  Second, they also need "continuing education".  Third, if people (members of the LMS, etc.) want priests to say the older Mass, then they have to be willing also to pay for their training and give them supplies.]

But the money was not the issue; I strongly suspect that many, if not most, of the participants would have paid for themselves entirely if that were required. I, as a member of the teaching team, was given an honorarium: I was grateful, but would have helped for nothing, quite happily.
Should the Merton Conference not operate this year, it will prove to have been a pyrrhic victory for those who oppose it. [I entirely agree.] Yes, the LMS may well have more money in its bank account, but there will be fewer priests able to celebrate the rites which they love. And, please, what is the money for[RIGHT!  The LMS should be working to make itself unecessary, right?]

It is possible, I suppose, that another sponsor might be found, or perhaps priests might well be willing to pay for themselves. That would be great. But if the conference does not go ahead, then I would certainly be willing to take one or two priests (in good standing) at a time here for a few days to do the same thing, mutatis mutandis. No doubt others would be likewise willing.  [And I will help as I can.]

Well written, indeed.

About Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

Fr. Z is the guy who runs this blog. o{]:¬)
This entry was posted in SESSIUNCULA. Bookmark the permalink.


  1. Mark M says:

    Thank God for this, Father. The Press can be too knee-jerking with things!

  2. Peter says:

    Fr Z,

    Why on earth would you want to attend a conference to train priests to say the TLM? I was under the impression that you could do this already. Would this not be a waste of the donors money? [I think it would be a great event to report on, participate in, and even help with, as I mentioned in my top entry – which you probably missed. Would it be a waste? That doesn’t speak very well either of your opinion of me or of the purpose of the event.]


  3. Martin says:

    Damian Thompson’s blog is often informative; it is certainly interesting. In reporting this, however, his journalism has been shoddy. How can he be regarded as a credible journalist when he writes a report under the headline “Civil war in the Latin Mass Society” which does not even give the Latin Mass Society’s account of the situation? It is not enough for him to publish a statement by the LMS 3 days later…the damage has already been done. It’s easy to mouth-off in blogs. Let’s have some responsibility too.

  4. leutgeb says:

    I am not a member of the LMS, but if I were I would be very happy for my subscription to fund this sort of training.

    I am very sorry that this ‘story’ ever saw the light of day.

    The event last Summer received a great deal of positive coverage which would, I imagine, encourage more and differnt Priests to attend next Summer. I hope that they have that opportunity and really enjoy themselves to boot. There seems to be some creeping puritanism going on here.

  5. REMINDER: I don’t allow “anonymous” comments. You need to post with some name or handle.

  6. Shawn Joseph says:

    This LMS statement begs more questions than it answers. Holy Smoke asks some pretty pertinent ones to this debate:

    1. How does the LMS intend to hold its training conference at Merton College when the Chaplain of Merton has withdrawn his permission for the LMS to use the chapel as a direct consequence of the Committee’s recent sackings?

    2. Does Mr Lloyd hold his views now? If they are not supported by the Committee, why has he not resigned?

    3. Is it not true that at least one LMS Committee member has proposed that the Society ask Pope Benedict to rescind Summorum Pontificum’s permission for vernacular readings? If so, how can the committee be “unanimous” in its committment to the implementation of the Motu Proprio?

    4. Will the LMS publish – at least to their membership – the minutes of its meeting on December 6th so that the true positions of each of its committee members and the reasons for its decisions can be known?

    5. Why not retain the “winning team” of Wadsworth, Reid and Hemming and avoid all this division and scandal and have another “gold standard” training conference in 2009 like those of 2007/8, if the Committee does not share Lloyd’s views?

  7. boredoftheworld says:

    The reporting on this issue does seem excessively one sided and more designed to start fires than to inform. It’s very difficult for me to see both sides in cases like this but I do try and it seems to me that the original email from the former LMS chair came as the culmination of a long process and the message was “we’re straying from our goals”. The point from the “other side” seems to be “the times they are a changin'”. Both viewpoints are probably valid.

    I’m sure we’ve all been involved in organizations or projects that have grown beyond the goal for which they were designed, either legitimately or by being hijacked by people with different visions. Regardless, people usually get hurt. People get hurt. Not feelings, people.

    Father Zuhlsdorf comments on the dim view that David Lloyd has of priests and I wonder at the accuracy of that assessment but at the same time I struggle with the perception that many priests have a very dim view of the people.

  8. Martin says:

    Most of the questions posed by Shawn Joseph are not relevant. I’m a member of the Latin Mass Society. I expect to hear in due course if there is a training day for priests, as in the past couple of years. I very much hope there is. If there isn’t, then Damian Thompson and others can legitimately query why there isn’t one (and if they wish to provide a training day without the support of the LMS).

    For heaven’s sake, someone doesn’t need to resign from a committee every time he disagrees with the majority view. Of course, on some matters one may resign, but ordinarily one abides by the majority view. One can also “fully” support a document, even while desiring (or even requesting) that a change be made at a later date. I have no expectation of receiving minutes of a meeting. If I feel strongly about some decisions made this year I will attend the AGM and make my point in the appropriate way.

    All I know about the Merton training days is that they have been a great success. I have heard excellent accounts of the “winning team” of Revv. Wadsworth, Reid and Hemming and thus would be delighted if they continue to be part of that winning team. If there are issues to be resolved, let them be resolved within the LMS in a proper manner. The discussion today on Holy Smoke, discussing e.g., matters about one of the “winning team” which have nothing whatsoever to do with liturgy, is quite deplorable.

  9. Londiniensis says:

    This incident, as it has come to public attention, has been a disaster. Evidently, there have been some serious inaccuracies in the reporting. It is not apparent whose fault that is, but there has clearly been some mixture of deliberate misleading and lack of care in the preparation of the original story.

    My own answers to Mr. Thompson’s five questions:

    1) How do we know that the Chaplain of Merton HAS withdrawn his permission for the use of the Chapel? Mr. Thompson originally reported that Merton had cancelled the entire event. The LMS says that this is not so. How authoritative is Mr. Thompson’s source?

    2) Why should Mr Lloyd resign because he lost a Committee vote? I disagree with his views, but he’s an elected Committee member, and is entitled to express his views and vote as he chooses. The Society’s officers will naturally implement the policies adopted by the majority of the Committee, but that doesn’t mean that other members should resign.

    3) “Summorum Pontificum” can be fully implemented, whether anyone ever makes use of the permission to celebrate the traditional use with vernacular readings or not. Everyone in the LMS, whether they agree with that option being legal, wants the document to be fully implemented. Most simply wish it to be implemented with Latin readings.

    4) I’m sure the LMS will not publish minutes of Committee meetings. Why should it? It is not a public body. Members of the LMS can question their representatives at General Meetings. They can also approach them individually, both now and at election time, in accordance with the Society’s internal procedures.

    5) Here we are at the crux of the issue, I suspect. The only thing that clearly does seem to be true and relevant from the original report is that Drs. Reid and Hemming and Fr. Wadsworth are being replaced. The LMS Press Release doesn’t deny that. I have no idea why this should be, and frankly, it is no-one’s business, except those directly involved. Mr Lloyd’s email seems to be irrelevant, since the Committee did not accept his arguments, and decided to proceed with the Merton Conference. The fact that its direct organizers will be different this year does not suggest that the Conference will be less successful.

    I am left with the feeling that Fr Zuhlsdorf’s observation a few days ago, that the Devil is extremely active at the moment, is applicable to this situation. This event seems to have been magnified out of proportion, and portrayed quite misleadingly. All the participants, including Mr. Thompson, are fundamentally in agreement with one another. It is far from clear that there is any underlying scandal in what is going on; more details may yet come to light between now and next August. Still, the appearance of a scandal has now been created, and is a further instance of a self-inflicted wound on the part of the traditional movement.

  10. Victor says:

    Damian is a friend but I always feel a little unclean coming away from his blog. I am saddened that issues that should be private regarding individuals have been brought to the fore and reputations have been damaged as has the credibility of the LMS, just at the time it needs to be strong.
    Reading some blogs can actually be bad for soul, thank God for Fr Z!

  11. JPG says:

    I only pray that everyone over there comes to some sort of accomodation. The observation of an invisible enemy hand is quite pertinent. Only if the Modernists and innovators showed such discord.
    Fairfield, CT

  12. Londiniensis says:

    I am not sure whether to be flattered or annoyed that someone should misappropriate to himself my nom-de-guerre of long usage. The faux-Londiniensis posting above is not me, and the views, which appear studiedly disingenuous, are not mine.

  13. Michael says:

    The recent news is that Dr Hemming has published an article supporting homosexual practices. From the quote from Dr. Hemming’s writing offered as evidence it is difficult to grasp what Dr.Hemming has in mind, but it may well be that in the LMS know more. It was also commented, but unrelated to this article as such, that the Archbishop of Westminster had declined to ordain him to priesthood.

    That apart, there seems to be a conflict between those who are more concerned with the ritual than with the doctrine, and are not all that much concerned with the preservation of integrity of the TLM, and wouldn’t object to certain elements of Novus-ordoization, like communion in the hand etc. My impression is that Mr. Thompson is in this “category” – thus his attack on the LMS. The LMS, on the other hand, is concerned in having the TLM in as many places as possible in its pure form, even if it were not so supersplendid as during the Merton conference, which, however beutiful, isn’t a viable proposal in practice.

    My opinion is that if we start messing with the TLM at the outset, it wouldn’t survive very long. The Holy Father seems to favour certain cross-fertilization, which I personally think is a mistake, because while the NO can take in everything without changig what it is, i.e the mess; the smallest Novus-ordoization of the TLM at this stage would amount to a death sentence.

  14. Earlier Londiniensis says:

    To my namesake: I apologize for inadvertently using your “name”. There are several million of us who are entitled to the description, after all, and I hadn’t associated it with any one person in the Catholic blogosphere. Please forgive the oversight.

    In any case, my comments were not intended to represent anyone else’s views but my own. I am sorry they appear disingenuous to anyone else, but they certainly do genuinely represent my opinions.

  15. Calleva says:

    Michael’s view is the one held among the more traditional LMS members, many of whom are scandalised because the priests attending Merton are or have been saying the Novus Ordo Mass. To some trads, this is an abomination. LMS funds, they feel, should only go towards helping priests who will only ever say the EF. [As an aside, I spoke to a long-term member of the LMS who told me that since the June 08 Pontifical High Mass in Westminster Cathedral, the membership of the LMS has doubled – this means that half the current membership joined post Summorum Pontificum, and if the number is true, then influence of the LMS old guard will matter less and less]

    Dr Hemmings has written an article in a scholarly, seldom-read tome about sexual identity. I am going on hearsay, like most other people here, because I haven’t read it. It has been possible to track down part of his essay which is written in the jargon-intense and arcane language of much contemporary scholarship. Someone kindly translated it into clear English on Damian’s blog and it didn’t really say very much. It’s possible that Dr Hemmings has an unorthodox approach to this matter but he is not donning rainbow garments and manning a float at the LA Gay Parade. The Merton Conference does not require any teaching on moral theology anyway. Someone on Damian’s blog has also inferred that another teacher at Merton is a homosexual predator.

    All I know is that the Merton Conference to date has been a spectacular success: it has educated priests who wish to learn the EF, it has got them together to meet and support each other, and in the glorious surroundings of an Oxford College.

    I am wondering if all the scandal-mongering is being whipped up by those who were always opposed to Merton. There is no hint of anything amiss going on at Merton itself, quite the reverse.

    As to the Londiniensi – please would the one who comments on Holy Smoke identify himself? This is the one we would prefer to identify as ‘the earlier’.

  16. pelerin says:

    Regarding the Londoniensi – Calleva is right in saying that the original Londoniensis should be ‘the earlier’. I am surprised that the second one had not read any comments in the Catholic blogosphere from this name. It must be particularly annoying when someone else writes under the nom de blog you have chosen – I deliberately chose mine for English blogs hoping that nobody else would use it. None of us wishes to be associated with views with which we may disagree.

  17. Daniel Mitsui says:

    David Lloyd must be irked at the number of times his private correspondence has been reproduced across the Catholic blogosphere, presumably without his consent.

  18. Londiniensis from 1:47 and 11:28 says:

    When I described myself as “earlier” in my last post, I simply meant “the one who commented previously on this thread.” I had no intention of claiming to be the first person ever to use “Londiniensis” on Catholic blogs, or to have used it before the person who commented at 6:49.

    Pelerin: I wasn’t suggesting I’d never read any comments from a Londiniensis before. In fact, I’ve used the term myself occasionally in the past, without protest from anyone else. I simply never identified it with any individual, and so didn’t think my posts risked being associated with someone else. All the word means, after all, is “Londoner”. In any event, I’m sorry for any confusion or offence caused, and I shall leave the term in future to the gentleman who apparently believes he has the exclusive right to the designation.

    Calleva: I assume I’m the one you were addressing, when you asked the one who commented on Holy Smoke to identify himself. What sort of identification do you want? Incidentally, the plural of “Londiniensis” is “Londinienses”.

  19. T. Chan says:

    I just learned of Dr. Hemmings’s essay this morning–I took a look at it, but didn’t have the time or patience to read it through carefully. He may not be contradicting Church teaching directly (‘marriage is between one man and one woman only’)–but he does seem opposed to the arguments (from reason) that have been used in its favor. (He also seems to be skeptical about arguments from Scripture and Tradition.)

    An example of bad philosophy –> bad theology?

  20. Calleva says:

    Londoniensis: Erm no, I just mean to confirm if you ARE the chap who posts on HS, with the Steed avatar. Nothing beyond that. Sorry to have sounded vague, or even vaguely hostile, which wasn’t my intention. And thanks for the plural; O Level Latin, scraped, doesn’t really equip me to write anything without checking first!

  21. Fr Z interjects a comment: To the person who is a newcomer, if you see someone is already using a “handle” … don’t use it. Use something else.

  22. The Holy Father promulgated “Summorum Pontificum” to bring the traditional Latin Mass into the popular domain of Catholics. He wants this form of the Mass to become a normal one in the parishes so that even young communities can become familiar with the Rite which the Church has celebrated for more than 1000 years. This can only happen when priests are trained properly in the ancient Rite.

    After hearing the recent comments of Cardinal Dario Castrillon Hoyos (President of Ecclesia Dei Commission) it is clear that the Holy Father considers that all should have access to this treasure of the ancient liturgy of the Church. And even if not specifically requested by the faithful, the Holy Father wants it available to all. He considers it a gift which the Church is offering to the faithful. Of course this requires training, which is what the Latin Mass Society offered.

    The Ancient Rite has certain characteristics, theological, liturgical, and cultural, and has been united to the developing life of the church in every sense, for more than 1000 years. This Rite gave rise to the music of Gregorian chant, the great polyphonic compositions, and the famous Masses of great composers like Bach, Beethoven, and Mozart. From this Rite came the great cathedrals and the wonders of religious art. This Rite brought unity to the faith and became the single expression through which the Church adores God, making present on the altar the Sacrifice of the Cross. The ancient Rite maintains the sacred silence, contemplation and it makes present the Lord Jesus in an expression of rich liturgical beauty, as the conqueror of Sin and Death. Clearly the Holy Father wanted to recover for the entire Church this form of the single Roman RIte. Again, the LMS training for priests and seminarians held at Merton College provided the holistic context for a proper appreciation of the single Roman Rite.

    It is also clear the mind of the Holy Father concerns Catholic identity. His legislation includes the heritage of the Church. As this Rite includes: Low Mass, High Mass (Sung Mass or Missa Cantata) the Solemn High Mass (Sung Mass with full Ceremonial, i.e., one Priest assisted by Deacon and Subdeacon), plus the Roman Ritual, etc. This year’s Latin Mass training included the above.

    Regarding the cost of training it is little compared with the cost to ordain a priest. Seminarian formation is generally 7 years, including 2 years of Philosophy and 5 years of Sacred Theology. Costs include the overhead of supporting all those who leave the seminary before ordination. The real cost per ordained priest is over £ 1,000,000. Whatever the cost was to the Latin Mass Society for the generous subsidy in providing the 5 day training at Merton, it was a pittance in comparison to what bishops spend to ordain a single priest.

    (For the record, each of the priest participants at the LMS training did contribute a portion of the cost of the Latin Mass training.)

    There is more to the Ancient Latin Rite than the so-called “Low Mass.” In fact, the mind of the Holy Father takes as his point of reference the Solemn High Mass with full Ceremonial. This is precisely the training which LMS financing provided at Merton College. In this the LMS made a significant step in the practical implementation of the Holy Father’s Motu Propio.

    It is timely for rectors of seminaries, and especially bishops, to become familiarized and trained in the ancient Rite. I pray that the LMS will continue to play a role in this endeavor, to effectively further the so-called “Benedictine Reform.” Respectfully …

  23. The person posting as Londiniensis for the last time! says:

    Fr. Z: Understood. This will be my last post linked with this “handle”, to finish clearing up the mess I inadvertently caused. My apologies for that.

    Calleva: Thanks for your note. No offence taken. I’m the one who posted here at 1:47 (and 11:28, and today at 9:27). I am NOT the person who posted on Holy Smoke under the name Londiniensis. I didn’t notice that anyone had, in fact. That may be why the gentleman who posted here at 6:49 yesterday seemed so annoyed with me, if he had already posted elsewhere and then found someone else disagreeing with him on the same issue, posting under the same name.

    Anyway, I hope this side-issue is now closed. I stand by my original comments from 1:47 yesterday, but I am not to be identified with any poster on any other blog, and I will not use this handle again anywhere. Apologies once more to everyone for the confusion.

  24. Michael says:

    Let’s be fair, Calleva,. I have only reported what Fr. Z didn’t because what I had learned was a new information. I was cautious not to say more than I knew for sure.

    The only place where I have expressed my opinion was the last paragraph, and that had nothing to do with the “the priests attending Merton are or have been saying the Novus Ordo Mass” I do not yet know what this conflict within the LMS is all about, nor am I sure that what was reported about Dr. Hemming is true.

    However, once you push me, if it is true, I mean: that he objects the Church Teaching, – to be distinguished from his orientation which, even if true, would not be his fault – he is not in a full sense Catholic, and has no place in training priests to celebrate the TLM. Such a place is not a private position, and his writing for the public isn’t a private matter in view of the position which was entrusted to him.

    While the “Merton Conference does not require any teaching on moral theology anyway” it does require Catholic tutors, and cannot tolerate dissidents who claim to be Catholic. The Catholic Faith is not a pick and choose faith. The LMS is a Catholic organization, and its aim is not the TLM for its own sake, but the Caholic Faith in its full integrity which includes the Catholic integrity of its members. I am sure that, if the matter were put on vote, an overhelming majority of the LMS members would rule our the idea of having a dissident in a position which had been entnrusted to Dr. Hemming.

    Obviously, this is all hypothetical, because I do not know the facts.

  25. ssoldie says:

    I am a member of the Latin Mass Society and have always been so happy that the money from my subscriptions have gone to the training of priest’s to learn the TLM “Gregorian Rite” God bless you all and hopefully it will continue.

Comments are closed.