Traditionis Custodes Part 2: Analysis and commentary of Paragraphs 5-8

Hello everyone, 

This post is the second part of my analysis/commentary of the actual articles in the Motu Proprio Traditionis Custodes. The second half is articles 5 to 8.

“ Art. 5. Priests who already celebrate according to the Missale Romanum of 1962 should request from the diocesan Bishop the authorization to continue to enjoy this faculty.” 

Well at least some hope is contained in the paragraph. I’m of mixed blessings though. The negative is that a cruel and heartless bishop can just suspend any existing EF saying priest’s faculties immediately. Also this is a grandfathering clause so that, in the geriatric minds of Francis and his cohort all the old priests who are saying the Latin Mass will die. 

But … there are positives to this. First, with political forethought, it’s an obvious compromise for the faithful attached to the EF and the priests saying it. 

Second, it holds those priests accountable to the bishop and they know whom they are, also allowing the bishop to make sure that if they are granting faculties they know what they are doing. Finally, should priests be priming their lay faithful towards schism with the Holy Father and the regular Church, or blasting off his mouth on the RMT blogs, he can revoke that faculty at will, combined with the other articles of TC, allowing only those priests faithful to the Church to promote the EF. 

Thirdly, unforeseen, I don’t think that Francis and his cohort of middle of Vatican II heyday ordained bishops thought the following: that a number of the younger priests will outlast not only his lifespan and papacy but also those who succeed him. If the younger crop hold the force and outlast, by the time they are of the old folks near the end of their vocations coming from the John Paul II and Benedict XVI generations of ordained priests, they will lead seminaries and become bishops to the Church. These generations of ordinands will assume power in multiple places in the Church, which could make things more friendly for those in the EF … if Satan or those above them do not corrupt them first. 

Finally, as is being observed immediately on the Internet blogs, both radically misrepresenting Traditionalists and borderline, bishops are already granting faculties to allow the EF to continue in those diocese to priests already holding offerings. 

“Art. 6. Institutes of consecrated life and Societies of apostolic life, erected by the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei, fall under the competence of the Congregation for Institutes of Consecrated Life and Societies for Apostolic Life.”

This paragraph is relevant to the EF communities such as FSSP, ICKSP, Canons New Jerusalem, Institute Bon Pasteur (aka Good Shepherd,) etc. Basically their existence and governance falls under a different dicastery of the Vatican so they are not entirely under the same governance of the bishop as diocesan priests are and have some layer of protection against wayward bishops, unlike diocesan priests who have little to no protection against their bishops if they want a place to sleep and eat. 

That being said it does NOT protect them entirely. If said bishop decides to kick them out of a diocese, for whatever reason, that society must go and it will take a lot to fight and bring them back in. But in the short run, as long as these societies are not morphing into the SSPX, the bishop will likely let them stay and will not touch them. Do not worry Virginia, there will likely still be the FSSP in your diocese (that is … if you have them.) 

Even more encouraging, so as not to lose devoted faithful to the SSPX who have a schismatic attitude/mindset despite their eccleastical/legal status, if these canonically legitimate orders/societies exist in a diocese with SSPX, most bishops will keep them to discourage self-schism amongst the faithful. 

“ Art. 7. The Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments and the Congregation for Institutes of Consecrated Life and Societies of Apostolic Life, for matters of their particular competence, exercise the authority of the Holy See with respect to the observance of these provisions.”

This mostly pairs with article 6. It also restates what is known within the Church that Latin Mass related matters became under the CDWDS after the Pope in 20xx declared that the Ecclesia Dei commission was not to stand alone anymore, signifying an end to serious negotiation to bring the SSPX back into the Church. 

“ Art. 8. Previous norms, instructions, permissions, and customs that do not conform to the provisions of the present Motu Proprio are abrogated …. Everything that I have declared in this Apostolic Letter in the form of Motu Proprio, I order to be observed in all its parts, anything else to the contrary notwithstanding, even if worthy of particular mention, and I establish that it be promulgated by way of publication in “L’Osservatore Romano”, entering immediately in force and, subsequently, that it be published in the official Commentary of the Holy See, Acta Apostolicae Sedis.“

 

In short, Summorum Pontificum is now abrogated and TC is in force. Also because Francis knows that the Radicals Misrepresenting Traditionalism will use and abuse Church laws to disobey  Pope Francis, he “crossed the T’s and dotted the I’s” not only in his authoritative language but by promulgating it in the official publications and legal/eccleastical records and/or books. Thus there is no question it is in force and active. 

Overall, it is clear that this document was meant to give bishops more control over the Latin Mass in what is an increasingly out of control situation that threatens the Church and the souls of the faithful. While it is not every soul that attends the Latin Mass, unfortunately there are enough voices, societies etc. That have adopted the RMT element, and attitudes of anti-Church, Anti-Francis, and anti-Novus Ordo mentality, one that is clearly expressed in the Social and Internet media being purported by these voices. Also, especially in the USA as evidenced in former President Trump’s endorsement of disgraced and ever increasingly schismatic Archbishop Vigano leading up to the 2020 election, the Latin Mass and the RMT elements became further entwined with far-right politics, elevating the situation outside the realm of the Catholic Church to one of theo-political importance. 

Now, does it give too much power to them? I agree and it’s clear that Francis doesn’t care about wayward bishops abusing their power, because the bigger spiritual threat is Radicals misrepresenting Traditonalism in his mind. There could have been better solutions to the problem or a tweaking of TC could have been the best tool to combat the situation. 

Also, Pope Francis is swatting harmless houseflies of the laity in a way, by targeting mainly the clergy who can celebrate the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass in that form. Most of the social media that attacks the Novus Ordo, the Holy Father and the Church is being controlled by laity. He should have also added clauses to bring punishment to those organizations and/or individuals guilty of promoting radical Traditonalism and corrupting the younger faithful in their physical presence attending the Mass. I would roughly guess that 2/3 of the Radically Traditonalist social media is laity controlled. Pope Francis took the analogy of a shotgun to the problem scattering bullets all over the target and even missing it altogether. He needed a “sniper rifle” approach to tackle this problem instead of a broad granting of power and restriction. 

If personally, we’re I Pope, in a separate Motu Proprio or as part of TC, I would have established a punitive trial process whereby cases of abusive bishops/chaplains/pastors could be submitted by laity alone or jointly with good priests to curb clericalism and spiritual abuse of TC. 

Regardless, quod scripsi, scripsi. 

Now that I have gone through the actual document, my third and final post is going to be my worst …. As in the bluntest, and most curt I've ever written, regarding my personal experience and thoughts on TC and why it was badly needed, especially in the Archdiocese of Toronto. 

Unfortunately what has happened to both my good friends and I, has exactly been the caricature of the RMT that Francis sees, and thus why such control is needed and exactly what Francis sees. 

Pax, Julian. 

Traditionis Custodes Part 1: Analysis and commentary of Paragraphs 1-4 Including sub-paragraphs

Hello everyone,

As promised I will comment on the new restrictive Motu Proprio, Traditionis Custodes, issued by Pope Francis regarding the Latin Mass in the Church, immediately acting. 

My first post, part 1. will be a literal dissection, covering simply the act itself of the first half of the document, paragraphs 1 to 4 of the 8 articles and their sub-articles.

There is a lot of ground to cover here, 8 articles in all, but I’ll look at each one and offer general Church commentary at the end.

 

“ Art. 1. The liturgical books promulgated by Saint Paul VI and Saint John Paul II, in conformity with the decrees of Vatican Council II, are the unique expression of the lex orandi of the Roman Rite. “

Pope Francis is reiterating that the current liturgy of the Roman Rite 3rd edition post Vatican II IS the regular form of the Mass for the Roman Rite, the dominant rite in the Church and in the World. This was always so even with Summorum Pontificum. Sadly he has to state this again because some people think that the Novus Ordo/Ordinary Form is a “bastard rite.” Notice he didn’t say that the EF was abrogated and/or are banned. 

“ Art. 2. It belongs to the diocesan bishop, as moderator, promoter, and guardian of the whole liturgical life of the particular Church entrusted to him, [5] to regulate the liturgical celebrations of his diocese. [6] Therefore, it is his exclusive competence to authorize the use of the 1962 Roman Missal in his diocese, according to the guidelines of the Apostolic See.”  

Now here is where the start of the new laws took place. This is NOT out of thin air. The footnotes are key here. However, one who understands hierarchy in the Church, would NOT be surprised. The Pope, as per Pastor Aeternus aka Vatican I, in chapter 3 paragraph 2 states: “ 2. Wherefore we teach and declare that, by divine ordinance, the Roman Church possesses a pre-eminence of ordinary power over every other Church, and that this jurisdictional power of the Roman Pontiff is both episcopal and immediate. Both clergy and faithful, of whatever rite and dignity, both singly and collectively, are bound to submit to this power by the duty of hierarchical subordination and true obedience, and this not only in matters concerning faith and morals, but also in those which regard the discipline and government of the Church throughout the world. “ Discipline clearly extends to the Liturgy of the Mass. He alone is the prime governor of all major matters in the Church. 

Also Pope Pius XII in Mediator Dei says …. “ 44. Since, therefore, it is the priest chiefly who performs the sacred liturgy in the name of the Church, its organization, regulation and details cannot but be subject to Church authority... 57. The Church has further used her right of control over liturgical observance to protect the purity of divine worship against abuse from dangerous and imprudent innovations introduced by private individuals and particular churches... 58. It follows from this that the Sovereign Pontiff alone enjoys the right to recognize and establish any practice touching the worship of God, to introduce and approve new rites, as also to modify those he judges to require modification.[50] Bishops, for their part, have the right and duty carefully to watch over the exact observance of the prescriptions of the sacred canons respecting divine worship.[51] Private individuals, therefore, even though they be clerics, may not be left to decide for themselves in these holy and venerable matters, involving as they do the religious life of Christian society along with the exercise of the priesthood of Jesus Christ and worship of God; ….  no private person has any authority to regulate external practices of this kind, which are intimately bound up with Church discipline and with the order, unity and concord of the Mystical Body and frequently even with the integrity of Catholic faith itself.“

Dare I say it, these prior documents of importance in the Church of the Vatican I council AND prior to Vatican II makes it abundantly clear: the Pope is the final say on matters liturgical and even to protect the liturgy from abuse from ANY and ALL individuals who dare abuse it as a weapon or an instrument of corruption which sadly both priests and laity have done. Whether it’s via the Internet or actual liturgy on the ground, layperson or clergy, it’s clear that what Pope Francis has done IS within his power and acting as Head of the Church on earth as per these pre-Vatican II documents. 

As for the Bishops, they are the ordinary judges, and actors, and even “officers” of a diocese that are responsible not only in upholding the Teachings of the Church but also govern Liturgical matters. As our government cannot uphold civil and criminal laws without judges and ordinary police officers to enforce it, that is an analogue to what the bishops are. They are the Pope’s “middle managers” as it is who are to carry out said instructions in ecclesiastical law, including liturgy. 

But …. This is the start of now granting direct control to the bishops …. which is a “mixed bag” of sorts. On the one hand, lazy bishops MUST now control the distribution of the EF in the diocese. As this is such a divisive issue in the Church it now MUST be addressed. They cannot sit back and let it just happen. In a positive way they can now root/weed out the vile and rebellious clergy and lay leaders who have poisoned the Latin Mass and led to T.C. being promulgated. HOWEVER … not all dioceses are blessed with a laissez-faire bishop. Sadly and truly, especially in the USA, numerous dioceses have now had notices to their priests/parishes and while I am awaiting names, after this past Sunday (cause with COVID parishes are booking mass slots) those EF masses are stopped …. Gone …. hence liberal or EF hating bishops are able to abuse their power to kill the Latin Mass, and are doing so. 

And unfortunately Francis’ mindset is geared on only the few bad apples spoiling the bunch while the regular good souls are to suffer and clericalist bishops are allowed to be cruel to those good souls attach to the EF. This is the expression “using a sledgehammer to swat a fly” when a fly swatter would have been reasonable. 

“ Art. 3. The bishop of the diocese in which until now there exist one or more groups that celebrate according to the Missal antecedent to the reform of 1970:

§ 1. is to determine that these groups do not deny the validity and the legitimacy of the liturgical reform, dictated by Vatican Council II and the Magisterium of the Supreme Pontiffs;”

Now this is where I say good show Francis! Too many clergy and lay leaders exist, despite being more of a minority, who are poisoning from other laity and clergy, especially youth under 40, with radical Traditonalist garbage! Even Pope Benedict Emeritus XVI made it clear to respect both the EF and OF in Article 1 of SP. If these groups or at the very least the leaders (both clergy and laymen down to little Timmy the torchbearer, though little Timmy is just parroting what his parents, friends, older adults and priests are teaching him,) are becoming weapons of schism, that Latin Mass is truly a weapon against the Church, the Holy Father, and the eternal salvation of the souls within. 

Even sadder, this has morphed into a hideous monster with former President Donald Trump applauding now disgraced (in terms of credibility) Archbishop Vigano in the USA, prior to the 2020 election, adding right wing political extremism to the radical Traditonalism of Latin Massers who idolized Vigano. 

In short thank God the Church via Francis has given bishops greater ability to protect younger lay faithful from these evil leaders. 

However …. That being said, what if a bishop’s outlook is liberal to the extreme? Will he not allow even the modest “The Latin mass draws me closer with tradition, symbolism …” etc should he be conducting a witch-hunt in his eccleastical “kangaroo court,” looking for any reason to cancel a Latin Mass or a priest? Abuse of power and clericalism, the very things Francis abhors, now can be used against honest lay faithful and priests attached or doing the EF.

“ § 2. is to designate one or more locations where the faithful adherents of these groups may gather for the eucharistic celebration (not however in the parochial churches and without the erection of new personal parishes);”

Now this is where I find His Holiness’ restriction to be somewhat cruel to the faithful and good priests who do/attend the Latin Mass. Mr Liberal bishop will see  this and say, YES! Now i can kick those scumbags out of my diocesan parishes and give them nothing! No altar, no liturgical items or vestments, no mass. Sadly there will be bishops who will take this to the extreme and force the faithful out of ANY place with an altar. And in more rural dioceses, there may be no legitimate Catholic chapels OR monasteries/Nun’s convents to have the EF. So where does Fr Latin Mass do the Mass? Someone’s kitchen table? A Garage? A log in a forest (Ironically speaking this HAS been done before in Canada with the Novus Ordo by Jesuits associated with the centre in Guelph, ON. See here.) Actually it could be said reverently outdoors, see here at The New Liturgical Movement website [personal edit: in an ironic silver lining looks like he will be increasing business and the demand for personal/portable carry altars like these ones!]

Not only does this denigrate the faithful attending the mass, but this is only possible IF the group/priest has their/his own liturgicals and/or vestments. Further this will drive these faithful underground and separate them from the regular Church which is the OPPOSITE of what T.C. and it’s accompanying letter implies. And where else will they go?The SSPX! This will further make the faithful hate the Church, Francis, and the ordinary Form Mass/liturgy and oh yeah, likely damn them to self-schism and eternal hellfire, taking their families too if they have kids and raise them in that environment. Not to mention these Good traditionalists (and bad ones too) will not be giving their hard-earned coin back into the coffers of the Catholic Church and the poor. 

Is there any good here in this subsection? Yes. Reasonable bishops who take the time to evaluate this situation, and/or do not have a plethora of groups can control the dispersion of the Latin Mass, and/or, if said infrastructure (with or without EF specific chaplain) is in place, they can simply let what is established remain, and improve or create the infrastructure to what was once loosely based single offerings/groups here and there …. While adhering to subsection 1. 

“ § 3. to establish at the designated locations the days on which eucharistic celebrations are permitted using the Roman Missal promulgated by Saint John XXIII in 1962. [7] In these celebrations the readings are proclaimed in the vernacular language, using translations of the Sacred Scripture approved for liturgical use by the respective Episcopal Conferences;”

OK …. This is a little much to peer at for this layman. Now, likely by “Eucharistic celebrations” this refers to the Mass (re: EF liturgy.) My guess of the basic interpretation, is that the bishop controls which feast days in the Latin Mass Calendar the said designated locations/sites/ offerings can have the Latin Mass. Unfortunately it seems that the bishop interpreting the clause will determine how often the Latin Mass gets said in a particular diocese. This could be anything from only 1st class feast days at the least, to daily and Sunday obligation Masses including Christmas and the Triduum if the Bishop is lenient or sympathetic to an already established community. 

Now, the sentence about the readings in the vernacular? This was not thought out well. You ABSOLUTELY cannot perform ANY liturgy of any rite in the Church without reading the prescribed parts. Now if an option is permitted in any liturgy by the Church (e.g. the utterly lazy options in Scripture in the Novus Ordo to shorten them, choice of Eucharistic Prayers, choice of response to “the mystery of Faith” …) that’s fine, but in the Latin Mass there is NO option. The readings MUST be read in Latin. Not only would it be a distraction to have English readings of Scripture ONLY vs the Latin of the rest of the Mass, how would one apply the tones of chanting to reading English Scripture in the Missa Cantata and Higher? Obviously what must be done NOT to invalidate the Liturgy is to say the reading in Latin first as prescribed and then say the English translation after the Gospel (and Incensing post-Gospel in higher levels). 

Sadly this could lead to liturgical policemen for dioceses reporting to their liberal bishops and allow them to wield TC as a weapon to shut it down, lacking any common sense. Stupidity at its finest and somehow I doubt Pope Francis would be that stupid to make something like this. I smell another member of the Curia in this with no understanding of the Latin Mass. 

“ § 4. to appoint a priest who, as delegate of the bishop, is entrusted with these celebrations and with the pastoral care of these groups of the faithful. This priest should be suited for this responsibility, skilled in the use of the Missale Romanum antecedent to the reform of 1970, possess a knowledge of the Latin language sufficient for a thorough comprehension of the rubrics and liturgical texts, and be animated by a lively pastoral charity and by a sense of ecclesial communion. This priest should have at heart not only the correct celebration of the liturgy, but also the pastoral and spiritual care of the faithful;”

Ok right here there is a error, but its an understandable gaffe. There WAS an intermittent revision to the Missale Romanum from 1965-1969. It was close to what the Anglican Ordinate have for their liturgy with Latin and some shortening of prayers (eg Prayers at the foot of the altar reduced,) so this is factually incorrect. However, Francis and the Curia members involved in TC either forgot this or dismiss the MR 1.0 Novus Ordo liturgy as a forgotten footnote because for the majority of their lifespan they dealt with the MR 2.0 revision from 1970-2011. 

Now this chunk in terms of the law should be divided into two parts, the first part being about competency of the priest. YES, exactly a priest should be competent in carrying out the Tridentine Liturgy/Latin Mass. Between many additional/different actions the priest does vs Novus Ordo Mass, how to properly say the Latin, understanding the old rite calendar and differences (eg liturgical colours, levels of feasts, periods of calendar …) they can’t just wing this form of the Mass or gasp! Ad lib it as has been sadly done on many occasions in the Novus Ordo by Fr Prideful and Pompous. I have no question here. Of course HOW to become competent in the Latin Mass …. That’s up to the priest himself. My recommendation would be to take formal courses held by the FSSP/ICKSP etc. As there would be written records, receipts/payments, maybe a nice certificate etc. to have evidence of competency and training. 

However said training will likely be out of the priests’ pockets or donations as after this anti-Traditonalist document, there is NO damn way most bishops will support the training of a priest in the EF financially or spiritually, unless that bishops hand is forced by Rome to make even one paltry offering for a presence of faithful who want it in their diocese (though likely the case would be more to NOT lose the faithful to the SSPX.) 

Now the second part, is highly prevalent. It’s not just correct liturgy, but it’s about the right ATTITUDE and INTENTION as well as proper care of the faithful. I am in full support of this. Should one read the accompanying letter to TC it’s clear that priests and others in their communities were leading the faithful to attack the Church, Pope Francis, the Novus Ordo/Vernacular liturgy etc. If the priest is schismatic in mind and heart and corrupting mentally and spiritually the “sheep” he must “shepherd” he is doing Satan’s work and turning people against the Communal Body of Christ! Also from a Mass perspective a priest to offer the Mass validly must use proper matter, conduct proper form (according to the liturgical books,) AND have proper INTENTION for the Mass. If HE is in a schismatic, anti-Francis/Pope or Anti-Vatican II mindset, he has made the Mass invalid and Null. And sadly THIS sickness and poisoning of the laity and clergy, manifested in vile outward behaviour amongst Trads themselves, one’s Catholic neighbours and non-Catholics (eg extreme insistence on EENS/No salvation outside the Church) is exactly why this paragraph is needed. 

On a small practical note, it seems that an EF chaplain setup is being promoted via this paragraph and it does usually work well. It also parallels other special minority provisions in the Church (eg Charismatic groups, Anglican Ordinate, …) that KEEP people attached while nourishing them spiritually in a specific way or accustomed to their culture/past spiritual background/unique way to speak to their souls.

§ 5. to proceed suitably to verify that the parishes canonically erected for the benefit of these faithful are effective for their spiritual growth, and to determine whether or not to retain them;

This I say is simple prudence. An analogy would be a company or business. The goal of the company or business is to make profit via conducting business which includes the sale of goods. If a company is costing more to run and/or using more money than it is making on its service/products it must either stop its wastage, cut its costs, or fire employees to continue to remain aloft. It’s budget it entirely dependent on the product it sells or the business it conducts, and the old economic principle of supply and demand. 

While an imperfect analogy it’s basic concepts ALSO apply to worship in the church. It’s main goal is to SERVE people. Now, while there is much that can be argued about the poor implementation of the Novus Ordo Mass, especially after the 1970/MR 2nd revision combined with post-conciliar liturgy documents, regardless bishop MUST be prudent (not just as a personal virtue) in how they are to serve the faithful best and WITNESS to those outside the Church, with the liturgy/worship as a primary means. So at its base level, a bishop has to determine whether it should use its limited resources (eg its parishes and priests) to hold Latin Mass, based on the demand in their diocese. 

More so, one of the very reasons Francis did this was because of the Anti-Church, Anti-Novus Ordo, Anti-Papal attacks and attitudes of a number of these wayward movements. Is everyone like this in the TLM? NO! However a sizeable number of clergy and even lay people (with or without accompanying tabloid blogs and websites eg RorHATE Caeli) clearly presented enough of a concern to Francis that this clause got inserted. It’s good that this coincides with Sub-clause 4 as those “renegade” environments and priests who have made the Latin Mass a weapon and corrupted the lay faithful (especially the youth!) deserve to be shut down. 

However my caveat, is again, Liberal or EF hating bishops abusing their power to wipe it out completely with little to no recourse or appeal to counter the bishops’ clericalism and abuse of power. 

§ 6. to take care not to authorize the establishment of new groups.

The bad: It’s plain as day. Pope Francis does NOT want the Latin Mass to grow exponentially. 

The good: This does NOT 100% ban new groups or communities from forming, or the bishops to bring in the FSSP/ICKSP/Institute Bon Pasteur (or of the Good Shepherd)/Canons of New Jerusalem into an existing diocese if they have a parish for them to inhabit. 

Stay tuned for part two of my analysis of the paragraphs of Traditionis Custodes, and then, my personal opinions and advice about the need for TC related to the Archdiocese of Toronto and my experience dealing with the Latin Mass in this diocese. 

Pax Tibi Christi, Julian Barkin. 

It Happened. New Motu Proprio by Francis on Regulating the Latin Mass

 So …… it happened. For once the rumour mill was right:

https://press.vatican.va/content/salastampa/it/bollettino/pubblico/2021/07/16/0469/01014.html#ingM

https://press.vatican.va/content/salastampa/it/bollettino/pubblico/2021/07/16/0469/01015.html?fbclid=IwAR0N2w6wdS-ScndPAloqXLnFdSe3oTkDyjzVZeHruzvJpzTKESDmnBFKVfQ#ingL

I’ll read it as I get break time at work and after ….. but a cursory read through …. Does not look good for Traditonalists as a whole. 

More to come ….. Sancte Michele, Ora Pro Nobis.

Thoughts on the Supposed (Dreaded?) Document (Possibly) Restricting Summorum Pontificum

"OH NO, THE SKY IS FALLING!" 

 (From the 2005 Disney Movie, Chicken Little, Source:https://biggerpieforum.org/health-care/chicken-little-is-wrong-again/ )

Hello Everyone, 

Just a quick post asking for prayers and to let you all know I’m alive and doing ok, working full time and raising now TWO kids with my wife. Just had her in January this year and she’s blessed and happy. 

So, there are somewhat plausible rumours going around on the Radical Traditionalist (and borderline) websites that apparently, Pope Francis or the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF) under which Latin Mass matters got moved to, with His Holiness’ approval, will be replacing Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI’s Summorum Pontificum with a document that will restrict the Latin Mass/Extraordinary Form to some degree.

It appears that this is the result of a questionnaire sent to dioceses back in 2020 regarding the Latin Mass. Other blogs go into speculation and try to make the codex of things prelates and Pope Francis has said fit their narrative too, but can't be relied upon. I tried to fill out the 2020 survey myself but it was a heavy endeavour, needing at least an hour to complete and I couldn’t afford that on my 45 minute lunch break, where I had to respect my colleagues coverage to allow my meal. 

Sadly, the radical Traditionalist sites are predicting that these restrictions are negative. However we cannot trust these sites blindly as (1) they do NOT cite their sources as to where they are getting their information from, (2) those sites are often anti-Francis and anti-Novus Ordo/regular Church culture (to the point of hatred and the spiritually deadly sin of Pride) and (3) other more reputable or trustworthy information sites including the Vatican’s own news.va are NOT corroborating with said reports, leaving the information of doubt and highly biased. 

Now, the sites are predicting this Friday, July 16, 2021 is when said restrictive document will be publicly released. And what if it is true? Well, one must first read the document in whole to see what the restrictions are. Also, perhaps it is just a foolish rumour based on a statement of one Curia member taken too far and NO such document exists. Guess one will have to wait and see that day, possibly late Thursday night as Rome is many times zones ahead of E.S.T. here in Toronto. 

One thing we can be sure of, it will NOT be a total ban on the EF. One thing Pope Francis is NOT, is stupid politically speaking. As a Jesuit he is particularly capable of being a politician in the Church (institutionally speaking) and he wouldn’t be so stupid as to kill the Latin Mass sparking a war amongst the faithful and his priests. This is especially so pertaining to the United States; Francis would be cognoscente of the wealth of the USA, and also the sizeable, gradually growing dissent on the right tied to Trump/right-wing politics. The Church would be sufficiently damaged in terms of charitable funds coming from the USA as the EF ban in full would be the fire to light the powder keg of these spiritually corrupting forces. 

What if it was strictly controlled by the bishops again? Well, that depends on the diocese. This might be the case of what the document would do, knocking it back to 1988 indult status. I personally wouldn’t agree with this as some dioceses have good level headed bishops, others would abuse this law to punish the good Trads with the bad. 

Now were that scenario of bishop-controlled Latin Masses or approval required to be here in Toronto, I foresee that at least with the contacts I am with, there would be reasonable ability to continue with the EF as long as ++Collins is in charge. Other parties, I cannot speak for. Mind you we have a chaplain for the Latin Mass in our Archdiocese so it might be just left as it is, with no interference from the chancery office. 

And what if the EF is abolished and I cannot serve another Latin Mass until someone overturns Francis? Well, I might pursue other opportunity at my local parish in the Novus Ordo, in discussion with my pastor, but that would be as my children become older and not need as much of my help. If the extreme scenario occurs, what I will NOT do, and I implore you NOT to do, is go the way of Satan and rebel against God, by fleeing to the SSPX who are anti-Novus Ordo, Anti-Francis, rife with the potential for yourself and your family to become schismatic in attitude, and thus separated from Holy Mother Church. They also have not been immune to sexual abuse scandals and cover-ups, as Michael Voris of ChurchMilitantTV (TM) has done his own investigation work and found numerous cases, including lay members, guilty of such charges. 

In the meantime let us pray earnestly and honestly that this is either false, or the restrictions have been carefully thought out that they will not infringe on the charity of the lay faithful seeking out the Latin Mass, nor the ability of priests to be trained in the EF, nor the ability to hold offerings in diocesan parishes and chapels in its boundaries.

Sancte Michele, Ora Pro Nobis! Pax Tibi Christi, Julian Barkin.