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.