A GREAT RESPONSE TO MIKE LEWIS’ SCREED ABOUT THOSE WHO DESIRE THE TLM—LEWIS IS UNHINGED BUT MAKES SOME GOOD POINTS BUT OTHERWISE IS UNCHARITABLE AND TO BE CONDEMNED FOR IT

Dennis Knapp at the blog, “The Latin Rite” has a great, but way too long, commentary on Mike Lewis screed against all Catholics who love the TLM, faithful Catholics at that, as Cardinal Sarah in His Eminence great charity recently highlighted! Sarah is no Lewis and let us praise God for that!

Press the title to read the entire Knapp commentary. Below the title I have a couple of good money bytes but the entire article is well worth reading and bookmarking “The Latin Rite” is well recommended:

Beyond Performative Hand-Wringing: Response To Mike Lewis

LAST UPDATED ON: OCTOBER 14, 2025 AT 8:00 AM   BY DENNIS KNAPP

What Lewis Gets Right

The Legitimate Core and Failure to Police Extremism

Lewis’s most powerful argument is that traditionalism has failed to police its own extremes. Rome’s restrictions were reactive because the Vatican’s patience had worn thin; the movement’s most visible spokesmen had become increasingly divisive.

This critique deserves honesty. Archbishop Viganò has descended into apocalyptic denunciations that no Catholic in good standing can defend. Other voices – Taylor Marshall and Peter Kwasniewski – command substantial platforms while routinely undermining papal authority and treating post-conciliar teaching with systematic suspicion. When figures like these define the movement’s public face, the question “Is this really fringe?” needs an answer.

Where Lewis’ Argument Fails

The Rhetorical Trap: Performative Hand-Wringing

The article goes too far. It transforms legitimate concern into a sweeping indictment through performative moralising. The author anticipates backlash: “I am already anticipating the trolling and personal attacks…” This is not a cautious aside but a narrative frame, casting him as a “truth-teller” confronting a “hostile mob.” Thus, any criticism becomes proof of his thesis.

It is a rhetorical trap. By predicting attacks, he inoculates himself against critique. If traditionalists respond with anger, it confirms they are unreasonable. If they respond calmly, he appears magnanimous. The logic is self-sealing, an intellectual sleight of hand that substitutes immunity for substance.

…A Better Way Forward

Responsibility runs both ways, though not equally. If Rome asks traditionalists to distance themselves from extremism, it must also protect those who remain loyal from collective punishment. At the same time, traditionalists bear a particular burden. They must demonstrate through word and deed that their movement is compatible with full communion.

This means, for traditionalists: actively cultivating voices that show both love for the ancient liturgy and fidelity to the living Magisterium; publicly rejecting conspiracy theories and figures who undermine papal authority; accepting Vatican II as legitimate and binding; demonstrating religious submission to papal teaching, even when it requires struggle; and recognizing that silence toward extremism risks complicity.

For the hierarchy, the responsibility is complementary: distinguishing between those who undermine communion and those seeking spiritual nourishment; acknowledging legitimate critique of post-conciliar failures; clarifying what submission to recent teaching entails; enhancing the beauty of the Novus Ordo; articulating a vision of unity that accommodates legitimate diversity; and providing pastoral accompaniment rather than restriction.

Both sides must rediscover the humility of the Church herself – semper reformanda, always purified by truth and charity. The situation is not symmetrical. Genuine reconciliation requires conversion on both sides, with the greater movement necessarily coming from those in resistance.