Thank you. It's ironic that Traditionalists, themselves a tiny minority, are wholly responsible for what a tiny minority of traditionalists are saying, but no NOs are responsible for the outright heresy that runs through many NO bishops conferences and parishes. James Martin SJ, I'm talking to you.  German bishops...

You nailed it.  Thank you for your post and yeah, after 5 years of MSM gaslighting Trump supporters and 7+ years of this pope gaslighting not only Trads, but V2 conservatives, we are done with the bull.

There is no large Reformist wing, nor is there a Liberal wing. The essential beliefs are the same, just within a broad spectrum.

There have been larger, more precarious divisions in the 2000 years of the Church. This too shall pass.

I will buy a paper copy for any Catholic in this thread who wants one.  I'll set the limit to 10 for now, but I'm not necessarily opposed to going higher if there's a high demand.

Just IM me your address.

The issue with V2 is much more than the complete destruction of the Roman Rite. It was... everything.

Even Abp. Lefebvre desired an organic development of the liturgy, as he was concerned by the segmentation of the Faith life in the Church. He was a Council Father at V2 and helped prepare the original schemas which were thrown out in the first session, replaced with liberal, unCatholic ones, the process became bullied, no declarations were made (it was a Pastoral Council, and not an ecumenical one), and voila. We get... what, exactly, no one is sure.

Moreover, the Novus Ordo Mass is a huge shift from what Sacrosanctum Concilium stated. This is why Cardinal Ratzinger wrote in the foreword of Msgr. Klaus Gamber's book on the liturgy:




I'd recommend chapter 14 as a starting place, as it gives some background:
https://www.sspxasia.com/Documents/Archbishop-Lefebvre/OpenLetterToConfusedCatholics/Chapter-14.htm

I'll match your 10, for a total of 20.

@abnk please PM me when your 10 are exhausted and I need to fund 11-20.

I can paypal gift you shipped cost*10 to hold in escrow if you want.

This is not directed at you in particular.

I drive 3x as far to get to my TLM church as I drive to get to my former NOM parish because I think that the TLM is more reverent and better conveys the Catholic faith.

Some might say that this means I am denigrating the NOM.

If that is true, what did it mean when before last year I drove 10x as far to go to Holy Trinity (NOM) than the closest church to my house St Pius X (NOM)?

I’ll take it from 20 up to 50

Most generous.

After reading this morning's exchange, I was tempted to start a new thread challenging anyone or a group of members who want to debate the claim that the traditional Mass is objectively superior to the new Mass in just about every way.  I envisioned a five argument limit to not exceed 250 words per argument (plus five counters) for each side and two concluding arguments for each side not to exceed 100 words each.  I chose against it because it wouldn't much of a fight, but if anyone here wants to pick up the gauntlet, be my guest.

Great.... guess I need Twitter.


Still proud of my heritage though.

I would say you right and wrong. Catholic Catachism has much to be desired. But the reverence given to Our Lord in mass has been increasingly irreverent. Along with all the social justice going on in the Catholic Church, they stop following tenets of our Faith.

Can you be irreverent in the TLM? Yes, but much harder. Along with the NOM allowing priests to pick and choose "their" liturgical practices from a set if 3 and many other options. Bit, when the priest holds the Eucharist up to the Crucifix, it is undeniable that it is a worship-sacrifice. When a priest holds it up to the air with him being more forefront, it can be helped to be more about him. Especially, since the Crucifix he holds it to is a tiny replica a foot & a half in front of him. As, humans, it's human nature to not be as reverent to a man, than to your God.

You remove blame from the irreverence allowed on the altar and in the Sancuary, by the priest? What is taught must be reinforced and solidified with the Father. Just like a family.

You can not remove religion from politics!! Religion is the morality of politics. Without it.... there us authoritarianism.

It doesn't matter what society does. The church doesn't change with the times.... except with Vat II. That is modernism. That is why we are in this state today.

That is not true. There was many issues before. BUT, the mass was the same! Our Tradtion is vastly more important than "the times of the day." We do need to return to Our liturgy. It is a start.

Yeahhh, I will buy Kindle copies for those who want, but I just looked at the paperback price on Amazon.  1 for $416.00 another for about double that.  

Unless you have a cheaper source...

LOL

https://angeluspress.org/products/open-letter-to-confused-catholics

$14.95/per copy.

Might be able to negotiate a larger order price reduction. Dunno.

Too late to reneg now.

Angelus Press has them for $15 and I'm pretty sure I can get them for less if I place a large order.

I apologize in advance, as I know this isn't about me, but I think if I relate my experience it might help explain the trad mindset and provide some context to those who are not Catholic or haven't experienced the TLM.

I was raised in a NO parish.  We had weekly catechism classes but my formation left a lot to be desired.  It could be true that cultural changes in general combined with growing up in a parish in an economically depressed area explains a lot of this, but the effect is still the same--church wasn't taken seriously by anyone.  Then, due to a "situation" (that didn't directly affect me) we stopped attending when I was about 11.  In my 20s, rejecting what I thought was Catholicism, I tried every other denomination known to man (I now find these to be valuable experiences) before randomly discovering a latin mass at an FSSP parish in my 30s and one of the best priests I've ever known.  I was instantly blown away by the mass.  I reverted after maybe 25 years away from the church, fairly angry that this had been "hidden" from me.  Things clicked.  "So that's why my grandfather built a Fatima shrine in the backyard."  He was devout.  But he flat out quit after V2.  He still drove us to mass every week-he just sit out in the parking lot and listened to the radio until we were done.  I never understood why, I guess until now.  The particular form of the TLM really did (and still very much does) mean a lot to me.

To be honest, I wasn't an atypical fraternity parish member.  My story is similar to others and hopefully this explains why some of that stereotypical trad anger exists.  We just rediscovered something that we believe (rightly or wrongly) was hidden from us, and now you're going to take it away (from our kids too).

Long story short, roughly 10 years ago what just happened to Fr Altman happened to my priest for similar reasons.  Our priest was reassigned to a lucky parish on the other side of the country.  We were assigned a new priest, but our trad parish unexpectedly splintered into more theologically liberal (but still conservative) trads and "trad trads" over things like young earth creationism and such.  My personal story rambles on from there in a different direction but I'll spare you the details.  I will admit that the "toxic trad" thing can be real and I can understand why church leadership might want to push back on some of it.  But on the flip side the toxic modernist thing is also real and there should also be pushback there.  Anyway, in my view the Vatican ultimately created this problem to begin with and I think cancelling tradition is certainly the wrong way to push back.

ETA:  In response to some concern below, my point was to explain a trad mindset and how life experiences will cause some to cling to certain aspects of their religion, including the TLM in this case.  Yes, it can legitimately be argued that some are probably too "rigid," but the response shouldn't be to cancel them.  To clarify, I personally think TLM, the Byzantine Liturgies, and also NO are all valid, so long as legitimate apostolic succession is in place.  I'm not fully up to speed on the SSPX position, but I'd be shocked if they actually said NO was invalid.

Whew. That I can do. $15K maybe not.

Attached File

Pretty similar here only I wasn't away as long as you and i had been back relatively seriously for 7 years before switching last year.

I had a friend whose wife kept trying to get gim to go to TLM, but he resisted her because we belonged to one of those real "unicorn" NO parishes that was known throughout the area for the priest's holiness and reverence.  I supported my buddy staying at the NO parish, using many of the arguments that some here have used:  NOM is valid, NOM can be reverent, there is nothing is the NOM that keeps you from being a saint.

Then I went to my first TLM.  Only low Masses because the bishop had forbade singing due to COVID. The FSSP parish obeyed not only that direction from the bishop, but was also strict on masks and distancing out of obedience to the bishop.  More strict than some of the NO parishes in Norfolk/VA Beach.  So much for the rebellious trads.

Anyway, when I experienced my first low Mass, I kept asking myself "Where has this been all of my life?"  I was 52 and that was my first TLM.

I didn't get my first high Mass until this April in Baltimore. That mass was ethereal and transcendent. It was the most theocentric worship I have ever experienced. I've been to two more high Masses since then, one a solemn high Mass.  If you have never been, find one and go. Even if you have no desire to regularly attend TLM, you should experience a high Mass as part of your Catholic heritage.

LMAO. You are too much.

Francis has been making nice with the SSPX who, because of their irregular status, will be unaffected by the motu.

Francis is cracking the whip foremost on diocesan priests who offer the TLM and to a slightly lesser degree, the ICKSP and FSSP. In other words, the orders in full communion with Rome.

I am not sure if you are just under informed. When we had the thread on modernism a few months ago, were you the guy who thought modernism was having electricity in the church building?  

Apologies if that was not you.  The forum revisions make it impossible to tell who posted what in the archives, but I seem to remember that.

More things no one here posted...except you.

I can't say I followed some of the more subtle aspects of the exchanges going on here, but it's been quite interesting, to say the least.

While serving as a Mormon missionary in the 1990s, I did know on a Catholic guy's door. We chatted for a while and he offered to trade me a Catechism for a Book of Mormon, which I gladly did. I read the whole thing too.

I appreciate having so many well-informed and thoughtful Catholics on this forum.

I am neither a Trad nor an anti-Trad; I was raised a conservative Lutheran and did not encounter the TLM until I was an adult. I was married in the Church and have since converted. My wife was raised going to a church that celebrated the extraordinary form every weekend - beautifully and with great reverence.

We don’t currently attend a TLM, though we likely would, at least some of the time, if we had the option. Geography is a limiting factor here. While I would likely not choose to attend a Latin mass all the time, I appreciate the beauty and reverence inherent in it.

Having attended mass at many different parishes (and many Lutheran churches in the past), I have noticed what others have pointed out - the most active, youthful, and engaged congregations are those where reverence, substance, and beauty are present. That doesn’t always mean TLM, but to say that TLM does a better job of it than most English language masses in America is a dramatic understatement.

People are hungry for reverence, substance, and beauty. Sometimes we can’t find all three in the same parish. The Church is strongest where it presents the truth in an unflinching and reverent way. We are supposed to be different. There is no question that traditional masses, music, and teaching offer more than the contemporary forms, which are almost exclusively dull and dumbed down.

This move seems like an obvious dig at those who believe the Church should remain different.

Or.. I dunno, every accepted Catholic Theologian, Pope, etc., prior to the 2nd Vatican Council?

So what if there be social upheaval? That's the point of the Church: to be a bulwark against the storm, not to just be thrown to and fro, or worse, steering towards the rocks.

You do realize he was there, right? That he was a member of the Council? That he helped developed the schemas which got replaced by a huge set of liberal ones produced out of nowhere, and by people not commissioned to do so? And that he was extremely involved in missionary work, etc. prior to founding the SSPX? Abp. Lefebvre wasn't some nincompoop Bishop from some backwater village diocese.

He was the former Apostolic Delegate of Western Africa and the former Superior General of the Holy Ghost Fathers.

ETA: I find it fascinating you so easily dismiss such a man when you are seemingly so ignorant of the issues at play.

I agree that some trad priests can be Pharisaical, though in my experience I've seen it more with groups other than the SSPX.  I personally believe that it's a legitimate issue and a problem.  But I also think it's relatively minor in the grand scheme of things and the response shouldn't be to cancel the trads.  Again on the flip side I've personally seen a multitude of abuses at NO masses, and can't remember any liturgical abuses at a Byzantine Liturgy or a TLM.  I admit that I look at this with colored glasses.  I also admit that NO itself didn't cause any of it.  But somehow people seem to be selecting based on it.

For the record I've attended amazingly reverent NO masses at Gethsemane monastery.

Which one?  Baltimore?  We agree 100% on the concept of a Universal Church.  I suppose the best analogy I could come up with would be if a church president substantially changed the endowment ceremony while allowing the original one to also exist intact as an option for certain temples to use at their discretion.  More theologically conservative groups began favoring the original one and then at some point they get shut down.  This is a gross oversimplification of course.

I don't know anyone in this thread who would not consider you Catholic.  That's another strawman.  I don't think you are being dishonest, but I do think you are being careless.  

Aside from that, if the pushback surprised you, consider that what you did in this thread is not unlike going to the funeral of a friend's mother, and saying, "I'm sorry that you mother is dead and I wish it had not happened.  However, don't be too upset; your mother was a thieving whore."  Even if true, at the very least, wrong place and wrong time to say something like that.

Thank you for sharing the story.  Although to be honest, and not to disparage your experience, I have heard it countless times.  The names and locations change, the story remains the same.  Your grandfather's story is heartbreaking.

With regard to the "toxic trad," I have only encountered it online.  I suppose it's less convenient to be toxic in person when getting punched in the mouth is a real possibility.

Definitely would not fly for one second.

I've only experienced it in person once, but to be fair the person is mentally ill and has a habitual pattern of doing the same thing to people over and over.

To be frank, I've experienced nothing but humbling charity and friendship from multiple Latin Mass goers at various parishes from CO to OK, running the gamut of financial and educational strata, etc.

When I was in RCIA at a Novus Ordo parish, I read Summorum Pontificum. I asked the pastor about it and he immediately went cold on me. Suggested I would be better off finishing up at the FSSP parish I had no idea existed in town. I did. The Latin Mass is exactly what I wanted when I was converting. There was a 6 month period when my wife and I had some life circumstances which forced us (or so we thought) to go to the most doctrinally and liturgically conservative Novus Ordo parish we could find. One Sunday during some weird membership drive... thing. I dunno. Parishes and their stupid programs. Anyway, instead of giving a sermon, the pastor had some rando layman come up and talk about "what it means to him to serve the parish in X capacity." Groan, big groan. At the end of rambling he asked everyone to, "Give Jesus a big round of applause." I was done. I didn't care what it took, I would NEVER, EVER expose my own soul, my wife, or my children to such absolute bullshit again. So we found out real quick how much we could sacrifice to go to the Latin Mass. And if this recent authoritarian, draconian, whatever one wants to call it, "move" forces it, we will just drive ourselves to the nearest SSPX chapel despite it meaning hours of driving every Sunday.

If one wants to see phariseeism, they should look no further than Traditionis Custodes.

I'm just going to use this as an opportunity to reject any funeral analogy.  It isn't dead.  It isn't going away.  (I know you didn't imply that it was)  

Surprisingly, even among the EO there's all of the sudden an interest in starting new mission parishes that celebrate the TLM.

Also, an example of the toxicity I am referring to would be excessive splintering.  SSPX/CMRI/SSPV/etc

You should check out rainbow flag cath twitter some time

And the Church had always been so until the major upheavals in the summer of 1968. Curious, huh?

I'm not accusing you of any incorrect assertions, just taking the opportunity to explain to any non-Catholic viewing this thread that the TLM, or the Tridentine Mass was not the first or only format the Catholic Church has used. Its inception dates to the 16th century, or 1570 in its official form.

As such, the greatest Church theologians, such as St. Augustine of Hippo, Thomas Aquinas, St. Jerome, John Chrysostom, etc. never participated in it.

Now, it is true that Latin has been the language of the Church for MOST, not all, of its history and as such, does enjoy a special connection to the Church.  However, during the initial (and I would argue the most formative) years of the Church, Mass was originally said in Greek, and the language was changed to meet the needs of the contemporary people and their Church.

Thus, one can rightly argue that Vatican II was within its rights and had good reason to change to the NO from TLM.

I'm not sure that I agree with that, but it would not be an unreasonable thing to assert.

Here is the earliest known "format" of the Mass:

The earliest surviving account of the celebration of the Eucharist or the Mass in Rome is that of Saint Justin Martyr (died c. 165), in chapter 67 of his First Apology:

"On the day called Sunday, all who live in cities or in the country gather together to one place, and the memoirs of the apostles or the writings of the prophets are read, as long as time permits; then, when the reader has ceased, the president verbally instructs, and exhorts to the imitation of these good things. Then we all rise together and pray, and, as we before said, when our prayer is ended, bread and wine and water are brought, and the president in like manner offers prayers and thanksgivings, according to his ability, and the people assent, saying Amen; and there is a distribution to each, and a participation of that over which thanks have been given, and to those who are absent a portion is sent by the deacons."

In chapter 65, Justin Martyr says that the kiss of peace was given before the bread and the wine mixed with water were brought to "the president of the brethren". The initial liturgical language used was Greek, before approximately the year 190 under Pope Victor, when the Church in Rome changed from Greek to Latin, except in particular for the Hebrew word "Amen", whose meaning Justin explains in Greek (?????t?), saying that by it "all the people present express their assent" when the president of the brethren "has concluded the prayers and thanksgivings".[6]

Also, in Chapter 66 of Justin Martyr's First Apology, he describes the change (explained by Roman Catholic theologians as evidence for transubstantiation) which occurs on the altar: "For not as common bread nor common drink do we receive these; but since Jesus Christ our Saviour was made incarnate by the word of God and had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so too, as we have been taught, the food which has been made into the Eucharist by the Eucharistic prayer set down by him, and by the change of which our blood and flesh is nurtured, is both the flesh and the blood of that incarnated Jesus". (First Apology 66:1–20 [AD 148]).

The descriptions of the Mass liturgy in Rome by Hippolytus (died c. 235) and Novatian (died c. 250) are similar to Justin's.

I'm not saying you're wrong, but taking this opportunity to explain to other members in this thread that you're wrong.

Seriously though, if you're proposing that the traditional Mass did not come through the centuries unchanged from the apostolic times until 1962, obviously, I agree, and no one is making that claim.

If you are proposing that the traditional Mass is a PSPV creation, you are wrong.  Tridentine is not an accurate name for it, but an acceptable ones.  Other names for it you may encounter are Gregorian Mass, Mass of the Ages, usus antiquior, etc.  A few key things to look at:

    1. PSPV encoded what was verifiably at least 200 years old (200 years before him).  Therefore, not a XVI century innovation.  It was not even his creation.  He merely standardized some things, yet allowed many of the religious orders to retain their own versions.  These versions vary so little that the untrained Catholic may not even notice the differences.  These are the types of differences that he dealt with at his time.  So, if he went back to at least 200 years, was it a XIV century innovation then?  Nope.  The Canon of the Mass, which is the heart of the Mass (which PPVI desecrated), came from at least as early as the canon of PSGtG (hence, Gregorian Mass), just shy of a full millennium before PSPV.  The changes among the centuries were so small that most Catholics would not have noticed them through the course of their lifetime.

    2. Other popes made minor changes both before and after PSPV.  Heck, St. Thomas Aquinas not only celebrated the same Mass, but he actually wrote the propers for the Feast of Corpus Christi, which we still use today in the old Mass.  I know of no traditional Catholics that have a problem with careful changes that do not alter the form the substantially and that are consistent with Catholic tradition.  What we have a problem with is with the careless or wanton disregard of one of the key components of tradition and its replacement with something new that was heavily influenced by protestantism and secularism.

    3. As far as I know, we only know of one change that PSGtG made to the Canon during his reign, which points to the fact that it is much older.  Most scholars I'm aware of seem to narrow it down to around 400 AD when the Mass was mostly crystalized in its current form.  Minor modification across the centuries, of course, do not constitute a change of form, which is what the new Mass gave us.

My comment was about doctrine, not specifically the Mass.

If one desires a good, modern, accessible work on the historicity of the Mass, I’d suggest Fr. James Jackson’s “Nothing Superfluous”.

Thank you, brothers! I will buy my own & start getting the word out on this book.

I think it's both too simplistic and intellectual weak to advance that there is a parallel between having the basic tenets of the Mass, which are and have always been present, with the Rites of TLM. That is too great a leap to assert, and a conflation at best.  If such were true then the NO, which also has all of the core tenets, is likewise just an extension of TLM. This is obviously not the case.

Moreover, even if I were to agree with crux of your three points, which would again require quite a stretch, that would still only make the "TLM" in its present form date to the 1300s. Thus, it would be a very sacred and holy institution that comprises roughly 650 years of the Church's 2000 year history.

Again, the Church is Christ, and its mass is a product of both Christ and the Church; The Mass is not the Church.

I think it's intellectually far less defensible to assert that relatively minor evolutions that occurred organically over hundreds of years before being codified and regularized in the 1500s are equal to a revolutionary change that happened in less than a year followed by several more novelties and inventions like lay eucharistic ministers...or is that EMHCs?  So new we can't even get the name right, lay lectors, the abolition of minor orders, the suppression of the Leonine prayers, the indult (which became a forced practice) of communion in the hand, "masses of anticipation" etc.

This is especially true when these liturgical innovations do not follow Sacrosanctum Concilium.

These novelties and innovations were not limited to the Mass; they extend to all of the sacraments as well. Ever hear of an invalid baptism in the TLM?

Not exactly a trad source

I'm not saying that I agree with everything in the NO, but it is the Church's right, under its God-given authority to determine what traditions (t) it chooses to institute and if it chooses to alter them. So whether you agree with lay eucharistic ministers (I don't BTW), or female lay readers (Which I don't), you have no authority to determine which traditions or procedures are the "correct" or true. Period. If the Church decides to make the indult permanent, then so be it. It's not for you to decide, but to adhere to. So long as no blasphemy or heresy is occurring, then your role is to...know your role and follow.

Now, do I think the Pope's action against TLM was just or appropriate? Of course not. TLM should always have a place in the Church, and one should be free to worship in that manner if they see fit.

As far as invalid Baptisms in TLM; Yes, there have been and still can be invalid Baptisms if the Baptismal Rite is not done correctly. Incidentally, your issue with the invalidating of Baptism in the NO is curious, as the decision was made in order to keep Baptism more in line with the formula used in TLM:

"In June the congregation, which deals with doctrinal issues, ruled that a baptism was invalid if the minister said, “We baptize” instead of “I baptize.…”

ETA: By asserting that TLM is the "true" or "legitimate" right (my words), you run the risk of diminishing or rejecting the validity and historicity of the other 5 major rites which have as long, or a longer, record in the Church, as well as all of the minor rites.

I grew up in a very conservative non-instrumental Church of Christ family and congregation.  I was later confirmed and married in the Episcopal Church so I have a general understanding of  the flow of a catholic mass.  Why would I want to attend a religious service spoken in a language I cannot understand?  For me personally I would get very little out of that service, it would not engage my mind and my spirt/heart would wander and not focus on the worship.

re: your ETA: like Pope Pius XII in Mediator Dei, when Latin Rite Catholics speak of things like true, legitimate, etc., it is specifically when dealing with the Latin Rite.

My role, and yours too, is to adhere to the Catholic Faith as it was passed from Christ to the Apostles, the Church Fathers, and on down the line. Developmental understandings notwithstanding, the idea that what was black yesterday can be white today and 2+2=5 if we just "trust the Spirit!" and turn off the rational portion of our intellect is distasteful to anyone of good will.

Not only is this move destroying the tenuous hope of many in a cruel fashion, it is going to embolden the decline of the liturgical reform which Pope Benedict XVI was hoping for. Mark my words, you will see this move embolden those whose chief goal is to "modernize" and decimate the liturgy.

If you believe this move by Bergoglio was unjust, and since it only has the character of law and not the Faith per se, then it is an unjust law and no law at all.

I for one will not encourage the pay, pray and obey/hop on the train to hell mentality.

His goal is clear: everyone will "return" to the Novus Ordo. No, I will not. Ever. I don't care if I have to live in a freaking trailer and eat roadkill. I will NEVER go to a Novus Ordo again.

Now this right here is a very interesting and astute point. If the law is unjust, then most of us would sincerely believe that it is no longer a legitimate law. Now, whether that means it should be ignored out of obligation to our conscience is subject to some debate. Some will say "yes", others may say "Leave unto Ceasar...etc".

I fall into the camp that I think you do as well; I believe we are not obligated to follow unjust laws. HOWEVER, here is where it becomes a bit sticky for me;

There exists a distinction between laws and the Church's promulgation of Faith as defined by its natural authority. This is the line whose boundary I have yet to reconcile. If I consider a law to be unjust, at what point does that law take a subordinate position to a Church proclamation. In this case, I do consider his promulgation quite disturbing and bordering or unjust, if not unjust outright.

Still, I have yet to arrive at a conclusion as to which, in this case, would be subordinate to the other. My feelings say that his decision could justly be ignored, but my reason tells me that such an action would be an affront to the Church as the TLM is not an Article of Faith.

Again, I believe that TLM should always hold an active place in our Church, perhaps not to an extent that it is holds a primary position, but it should still be widely accessible. So yes, I do not agree or find well-intentioned this decision of his.

For priests this is a huge issue. It's absolutely abusive. That extends to the laity but we at least have the opportunity and ability to go elsewhere, where the Latin Mass is celebrated.

If I were a priest right now, I'd simply look at the SSPX and subject myself to their requirements to come over from a Diocese. This is going to be problematic for many seminarians as well who entered seminary and are almost ordained, thinking they could become a TLM parish priest within the Diocese.

I know one priest discerning with the FSSP, who likely will not be fully accepted but has said he can never go back to the Novus Ordo. I have no idea what he will do if released from the FSSP.

All the way around this is a big mess.

Again, I don't want you or anyone else to misunderstand my position. I am not opposed to the TLM in the least, and I am looking forward to visiting one ASAP.