23 Comments
12 hrs agoLiked by Peter Kwasniewski

That third submission very much resonated with my own experience, specifically regarding how we of that "middle" generation after the Council ended up laboring fruitlessly to, first of all, just get the N.O. to "make sense" in terms of what we learned about the faith from our parents; but then, secondly, laboring fruitlessly to "force" my own faith onto something that couldn't "receive" it. On top of that, it became obvious that those "in charge" really had no interest in making the N.O. "fit" genuine Catholic tradition, but were intent on "forgetting" tradition. This all left me spiritually exhausted and totally frustrated. Then God pointed me to the TLM, where all of the above just evaporated in the Sun of all Truth and Beauty!

Expand full comment
author

Tom, I agree 100% with how you've put this.

The most tragic part of all is that the NOM, and the entire culture surrounding it, made the transmission of the faith something miraculous, rather than something that could be more or less expected for people of good will who faithfully practiced. Even those who kept going to church lost the next generation, because there was such an emptiness and banality and even sacrilege to what took place in church - enough to repel any sane person. I consider it a veritable miracle that I survived my youth with faith intact.

Expand full comment
10 hrs agoLiked by Peter Kwasniewski

I took something else out that last submission (a mark of good analysis and writing). For me it helped to explain for me in part why it took me so long to see the flaws in the NO and why my sister (nearly the same age as me) sees nothing wrong with the NO liturgy still. I was nine when the Council began and twelve when it ended. Thanks to our early catechesis (courtesy of the nuns, those that didn’t become sister pantsuit, and my greatest generation parents) by the time the real changes began we had had a good grounding in the Vetus Ordo and we have been mentally filling in the blanks so to speak in the new mass ever since. We hadn’t noticed the cracks in the structure. We learned just enough to fill in the missing parts and had been indoctrinated enough to accept the changes as not really changes at all. She continues to see nothing wrong with the NO. I on the other hand, a devotee of Chesterton always assumed I was a part of a Church that did not move with the world instead of with it. The so called pandemic opened my eyes. The churches that kept to the unbroken Tradition of the Catholic Church remained open and those that did not allowed the world to dictate to them to the detriment of countless souls. I thought there must be a reason for this. So I started attending the TLM. Then I started reading. I owe much to you in this regard. I could build a library with the books of yours I have bought, up to and including Turned Around. My first inkling that there was more than I had experienced was reading The Holy Bread of Eternal Life. Wow. It explains why she still goes and I no longer can. Thank you again for providing us with insight and clarification in this time of crisis.

Expand full comment
author

Thanks so much, Denise!

The pandemic was a wakeup call for so many, and as you know, attendance at the TLM boomed during that time. This was God's way of providentially furthering the future shift back to tradition. The pope's motu proprio TC was another such moment, as it brought a huge amount of attention to the TLM, again increasing attendance.

I had a long process of awakening in my own life, as I struggled to reconcile a rather naive ultramontanism with the increasingly undeniable evidence that something had gone badly wrong during and after Vatican II. Eventually it was impossible to "square the circle" and I came down firmly on the side of immemorial tradition. That has been very liberating intellectually and spiritually, for one is living in the truth, and no longer swallowing lies.

Thanks for being a reader. If you enjoy "Turned Around," please leave a review of it somewhere! I'm hoping this one gets into the hands of many people.

Expand full comment
8 hrs agoLiked by Peter Kwasniewski

Will gladly leave a glowing review! All of your writing is stellar, educational, challenging and uplifting. It has been a gift from God to discover your articles, videos and books. I recommend them to anyone seeking a better understanding of Tradition and the perennial teaching of the Catholic Church. Also every book you have ever recommended has been outstanding. Thanks to a passage you quoted I read By What Authority and was moved to tears. God bless you and all that you do!

Expand full comment
author

(Would insert big smiley face if Substack had it!)

Thank you, and truly, to God be the glory.

Expand full comment

If I may, why does she still go, while you no longer can?

Expand full comment
6 hrs agoLiked by Peter Kwasniewski

I think it is because she has become used to it. I’ve heard that a lot of people become accustomed to certain things. Comfortable and they are reluctant to step out of their comfort zone. It would mean a learning curve would have to be surmounted. A new (really an old) way of praying would have to be relearned. And as I have said, as the article said, that mental trick of filling in the blanks adds to that complacency. That hyperpapalism plays a part too. The beloved JP II offered that Mass so there is nothing to question. Francis is the pope so why are we in opposition? Additionally, there isn’t a TLM nearby to her and in truth she is overwhelmed at home with greatly consuming duties and responsibilities that present an additional obstacles. I have to travel a minimum of 30 mins to my exceptionally crowded TLM parish. It is a difficulty but I would go even farther if it means that I can pray as the Church has prayed since the apostles but I don’t have the additional responsibilities she has (except for immediate family that will never go with me). She’s very devout. Prays the Rosary daily and never willingly misses Mass or holy days. She feels she is receiving what she needs there. Perhaps she is. I just feel she is missing out on the more that the TLM and everything Traditional has to offer. Sorry this is so long.

Expand full comment
author

This is a good description of many people. They don't know what they're missing. And for us who know it, we can't look back, and we feel sad at the starvation diet that is being fed to so many people.

Expand full comment

I'm one of those people who is stuck going to the NO, as I have no choice (taking care of an elderly family member and can't take the time to drive further away to attend the TLM). I am often mystified by how many white-haired people - who would have attended the Tridentine Mass in their formative and early adult years - are so complacent about what happens in the NO (or should I say what doesn't happen). And most of them receive Our Lord in the hand. It astounds and saddens me, as if the elders of the Church have slid into a mindless acceptance of a banal and easy religion.

Expand full comment
5 hrs ago·edited 5 hrs ago

Thanks for sharing. I'm personally interested because I wonder if I'll feel the same way some day. Regarding the reasons you give, first, I don't buy the comfort zone one. I'm often very uncomfortable (agitated, angry, etc.) at mass. It doesn't follow that I can no longer go. Second, I'm convinced that people at the NOM are certainly not 'receiving what they need' (although God only really knows what that is for any given individual, within the inscrutable plans of his divine providence, as opposed to any individual's subjective feelings and dubious asseverations about what he or she 'needs'). But that makes me loathe to abandon them, my brothers and sisters, because I know they don't know they're not receiving what they need (i.e., the fullness of the Catholic faith). They are like sheep with bad shepherds! But still they wish to follow Christ, the Good Shepherd, even if they are in many things often being led astray.

Expand full comment
author

According to the order of charity, we should love God first, then love our own souls second, then other people third, and finally our bodies. This is what Aquinas defends. In short, we should make our decisions about worship on the basis of what most honors God and what most nourishes the soul. Catholic tradition does this. The more people flock to it, the better off the Church will be in general, so it does benefit our neighbor too, in the long run. But in the short term, there are times when one has to cut the cords and let the mainstream go off to its inevitable doom.

Expand full comment
12 hrs agoLiked by Peter Kwasniewski

Genevieve Kineke's point about the cannibalistic nature of the new mass and the three logical responses to those situations is spot on. Archbishop Lefebvre pointed out that the new mass sucks the faith out of people; Mrs. Kineke does an excellent job of demonstrating HOW that happens. Thank you for sharing.

Expand full comment

Your first writer pretty much says it all with... If we stand for nothing, we will fall for anything. I would rather suffer condemnation for standing with tradition than receive approval for giving assent and assistance to the cancer of modernism that has destroyed my family, my community, my country... I was raised cradle and it WILL be to grave, an Irish Franciscan Catholic. My number one love is Him and I thank Him many times a day for even the simplest of things (like getting a green light when on the way to a doctor appointment I might make on time). I also persist in His second command, Love one another as I have loved you. My Mom (the Irish half though my Dad was half Irish, Mom just happened to be the really Irish) often said, "You don't have to like them, but you do have to love them, unconditionally". Our Master, born a Jew, raised as a Jew, lived as a Jew, died a Jew and came back from the red as a Jew. Judaism is our spiritual ancestry. I feel it is imperative to love the Lord at all costs and the same with our 'neighbor'. My father and I had many theological conversations often deep into the night. His two brothers, who I loved were Franciscan priests - hence the influence of discarding the material aspects of living. In one of our conversations my Dad said, "You know smokey (a nickname because he wanted me born on July fourth but didn't leave mom's womb until July 10th - so instead of going of like a bang I smoked and fizzled for a bit), I admire the Prophet and the Buddha. But until they come back from the dead I'll be a Jesus man. At his funeral attended by over a thousand on forty-eight hour notice from coast to coast and Germany, my Godfather, my mom's cousin, a Diocesan priest ended his homily with, "I've never met a man more like Jesus." I am my father's son. I deeply value the tradition of our church but even more its center, Him who gave his life for us on a cross. The mass is always a homecoming. I think there may be three types of Catholics. Those who blindly follow the lead of the hierarchy (and not necessarily our dear Pope), those who give up and leave, and those of us that stay to fight it out, remaining true to His commands. I thank Him in all His grand Triune-ness as many times a day as I can.

Expand full comment
14 hrs agoLiked by Peter Kwasniewski

Thank you for sharing these thoughts.

They are all very insightful!

Expand full comment
7 hrs ago·edited 7 hrs ago

So the Legionaries recruited (a) well-formed young people, who (b) trusted the Church's judgment over their own. But is (b) a good thing, or not? If it's not, how is it compatible with (a), being well-formed? If (b) is a good thing, then how can that have been the/a problem? A dilemma. I think we need to introduce more distinctions here.

As for decrying the continued existence of the Legion, again that seems like a painfully complicated issue. One could say the same about any number of Church institutions (e.g., the Jesuits, or most Catholic schools/universities -- heck, the episcopate, for crying out loud!), so why single out the Legion? Are the men and women affiliated with the Legion really particularly pernicious in their influence on the Church? (And isn't that what matters?)

("They are shamed as ungenerous or unfaithful if they’re not lectors or ushers, etc. — analogously to the Legion cult, where people were pressured into always giving, doing, committing more, and were tossed aside if they did not deliver." If this is really an apt analogy, then the implication is that the cult-like psychological pressure is analogous. If that is true, then having experienced the NOM-side of the analogy, I have to say, get a backbone! If you can't handle that -- just saying "no" to parish busy-bodies who want you to do stuff you don't want to do -- then what can you handle? The cross?? A person who can't say "no" when appropriate and be at peace is certainly not well-formed.)

Expand full comment
6 hrs agoLiked by Peter Kwasniewski

1. Constitutions were approved (very few knew the duplicity in that event);

2. Pope JP2 praised MM as “model for youth”;

3. Every time any order was questioned, member was put down with, “statutes are all approved” (this was false);

4. Reverent Masses belied unseen wickedness;

5. Growth was said to be indication of God’s holy will and all virtue was manipulated;

6. Pious Catholics were exhausted by rampant impiety, which the Legion played brilliantly: “Enemies of the Church are maligning a saint.”

I spent years deflecting snarky commenters who said, “Sheesh, what was wrong with you? Why didn’t you see the problem?” MM built a cult in the heart of the Church, and it took years to dismantle. Even so, in the end, the Church allowed it to remain despite no charism.

Apart from that, we’re all learning how to distinguish God’s will from charlatans operating in His name. If it were easy, Dr K (and so many others) wouldn’t be writing and speaking so extensively on how to do it without endangering one’s soul. Pax.

Expand full comment

But of course the truth about Maciel did eventually come out. Legion members had said in good faith, "enemies are maligning a saint." (It does happen! Christ himself promised it would!) They now know they were wrong. Hopefully they've learned something from that? And some of them still see fit to save what they can out of the scandal. Is it really obvious that they ought not to be allowed to do so, because they were deceived about the sinner Maciel?

Expand full comment
author

The complicity and depth of wickedness was really much greater than your comments allow. "Eventually came out" - yes, after untold harm was done to souls. And all of this was like the McCarrick business: insiders who knew, but kept quiet out of ambition or fear or whatever. Sickening.

Regarding liturgical suffering:

https://onepeterfive.com/sufferings-abuse-error/

Expand full comment
5 hrs ago·edited 5 hrs ago

With due respect, Peter, despite your gratuitous assertion to the contrary, I think my comments do allow the complicity and depth of wickedness that really occurred. Why would you claim otherwise? And how is this different from the sickening cowardice and corruption that is endemic to many institutions in the Church? Regarding harm to souls, it's a hard teaching, but I'm sympathetic to St Paul and St Catherine of Siena: "all things work to the good for those who love God"; and "no one can judge the secrets of the heart of man. That which thou dost not see thou should not judge in thy mind, even though it may externally be open mortal sin, seeing nothing in others, but My Will. ... In this way thou wilt arrive at perfect purity, because acting thus thy mind will not be scandalized, either in Me or in thy neighbor. Otherwise thou fallest into contempt of they neighbor, if thou judgest his evil will towards thee, instead of My Will acting in him." (from the Dialogue, Treatise on Prayer).

Expand full comment