The Latin Mass gets trashed

Latin Mass, from American Magazine

Just in time for the weekend, the Pope banned the Latin Mass.

Wait, he did what?

The headlines in quite a few places, including Yahoo News and many Italian sources, say the Pope Francis “banned the Latin Mass.” But other sources say he “reimposed previous limits on the Mass.” So which is it? After a bit of digging, I found the actual Vatican source, an Apostolic Letter issued “motu propio” (meaning “on his own accord”) by Pope Francis called TRADITIONIS CUSTODES. So, let’s have a read!

The letter starts with the subject “On the Use of the Roman Liturgy Prior to the Reform of 1970.” Well, its certainly not hiding what its about. After a bit of babbling about the importance of the Bishops, the letter says that they wanted to “assess the application of the Motu Propio Summorum Pontificum three years after its publication…” The Summorum Pontificum was issued in 2007 by Pope Benedict XVI and allowed and encouraged use of either the 1962 Missal or the 1970 Missal, while proclaiming that “they are two usages of the one Roman rite.” Essentially, this decree opened the door to the Latin Mass and made it more difficult for the Bishops to deny its use. So, we’re revisiting this decree.

Right after this intro we get into the meat of the letter.

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.

Traditionis Custodes

Ok, nothing much here…except there is. See, the Latin Mass normally uses the liturgical book from John Paul XXIII. While there was a debate as to whether the Latin Mass (typically called “the extraordinary form”) or the Mass said in the vernacular (also called the Norvus Ordo, or “ordinary form”) was better or the “true form,” Pope Benedict XVI essentially said that they were all equal. Not so now. The Norvus Ordo is the true form of the Roman Rite. That’s a pretty big shot across the bow, and we’re only on Article 1!

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.

Traditionis Custodes

Yup, that’s a reversal. In Summorum Pontificum, it said “In parishes where a group of the faithful attached to the previous liturgical tradition stably exists, the parish priest should willingly accede to their requests to celebrate Holy Mass according to the rite of the 1962 Roman Missal.” Which pretty much said if people want the Latin Mass, they get to have it. Now the Bishop gets veto power.

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;

Traditionis Custodes

So, first, now we’re simply calling the Latin Mass “antecedent to the reform of 1970.” Wow, it’s kind of harsh not even giving it a name.

At first I didn’t care too much about this section. While my family attends the Latin Mass at our local FSSP parish, I do a lot of things that draw nasty comments from traditional parishioners, such as sending my kids to public schools, allowing my girls to wear pants, and not thinking that Vatican II was horrible. I agree that the IMPLEMENTATION of Vatican II went astray in many places, but there is a huge difference between plan and execution. So, if this was used to get people to tell people to shut up and color on Vatican II, well, I’m OK with that.

But then I got to thinking, what could this be used for? And my first thought was forcing people to sign some sort of loyalty oath to the Church. The same Church that bowed to the authority of the Chinese Communist Party and allowed them to pick Bishops for China. Yeah, that Church. And that made me think, WTF? How can the same Church that kissed up to Xi Jinping turn around and beat down on good Catholics? For all their flaws, the folks attending a Latin Mass are likely trying to do the right thing. Why on Earth would we not want to encourage this? And why would anyone take steps to ostracize them?

§ 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);

Traditionis Custodes

Read my lips, no new Churches. I mean, we lost 1,000 parishes since 1970 just in America alone, so that shouldn’t be an issue, right? We should have lots of extra real estate anyway.

§ 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;
§ 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;

Traditionis Custodes

I got no issues here. FSSP parishes already do this.

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

Traditionis Custodes

Ouch. So now Bishops can now say “We decide to not retain you.” That’s bureaucratic speak for “You’re fired.”

Worse still, not authorizing new groups is a great way to kill something off. There are a bunch of Latin Mass die-hards, and while they aren’t insignificant (estimates around 100,000 US people attend a Latin Mass), they aren’t huge. They are growing, or rather, were growing until this came out. Not being able to start new groups, and being able to kick out ones you don’t like, make future growth a challenge.

Art. 4. Priests ordained after the publication of the present Motu Proprio, who wish to celebrate using the Missale Romanum of 1962, should submit a formal request to the diocesan Bishop who shall consult the Apostolic See before granting this authorization.

Traditionis Custodes

So now the Pope himself must approve new priests celebrating the Latin Mass? Hmmm….want to bet how many requests get denied? Maybe all of them?

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.

Traditionis Custodes

Hmmm…want to bet there are strings attached with approval?

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.

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.

Traditionis Custodes

This is bureaucratic shuffling that puts a thumb on, and limits the influence of, Latin Mass groups like FSSP.

Art. 8. Previous norms, instructions, permissions, and customs that do not conform to the provisions of the present Motu Proprio are abrogated.

Traditionis Custodes

Seems harsh. Again, its giving Bishops a big stick, a bazooka and other high end weapons against the Latin Mass.

So, the big takeaways are:

  1. The Latin Mass isn’t banned outright.
  2. The Latin Mass is pretty heavily restricted now.
  3. Every possible step was taken to prevent any spread.
  4. This seems to be motivated by a hatred of the traditional-type Catholic that questioned Vatican II.

I would compare this to being an AR-15 in President Biden’s America, where your existing presence is tolerated but every attempt is made to make it more difficult to acquire, manufacture, use and sell AR-15s in the future. Worse, some Biden crony will come to your door and ask you to sign a form saying you’re not violating the law. I’m sure that won’t come back to haunt you.

I would also like to again point out that Pope Francis is now treating Latin Mass attendees more harshly than he treated the People’s Republic of China wrecking his Church in mainland China.

Not a good move. I’d expect to see an awful lot of uproar over this. We’re already seeing places, like Arkansas, publish statements to quickly conform with Pope Francis. While the Latin Mass has increased over time, its hardly the norm in America or elsewhere, and a systematic effort to stop its spread could be effective. However, it might actually spread more because of the sudden focus on the Mass. As more people emerge out of COVID-19 isolation and (hopefully) attend Mass regularly in-person, it’ll be interesting to see what parishes they choose to seek out.

This post represents the views of the author and not those of the Department of Defense, Department of the Navy, or any other government agency.

Under the Fedora Latin and English, Biden & History, NYT vs Alex Stephens, LGBTQ vs Legal Documents, Dick’s Vs Guns

My post on Canon Turner’s 1st Mass got a lot of attention considering it wasn’t instalanched and I wanted to make a point that might have been unclear.  I have been to the Latin mass before just not a high mass of the type that was on display.  Personally I think it would be healthy for both the vernacular and the Latin masses to both be offered in all parishes.  It would be a perfect illustration of Christ as fully human and our brother while also fully Divine as our God.  I think it’s healthy to remember both.


I don’t see why anyone is surprised that Joe Biden got the decade wrong that RFK & MLK were assassinated.  Given the historical ignorance of the young who tend to vote democrat these days and the attempts to re-write history such a mistake makes perfect sense.  Of course, maybe 1968 identifies as a year in the 70’s


Speaking of re-writing history the NYT 1619 project attempt to reframe a false history as true has actually been going on for a long time by the left.  It’s been a full generation since Mary Lefkowitz Not out of Africa and the backlash she got for refusing to teach myth as history the only difference is now their bold enough to admit it and no amount of facts such as the Vice President of the Confederacy’s attack on the founding fathers for opposing Slavery and considering it evil will stop it.  What happened with Lefkowitz was the broken window theory of this type of thing


On a similar subject that’s a pet peeve of mine on twitter this week the subject of Transgenders altering their birth certificates to change their birth sex/name is something I think is very wrong.  A birth certificate is a legal document recording an actual event.  Namely a person was born of a particular sex to a particular set of parents on a particular date at a particular place.  These are all facts and are not subject to the whims or vanity of others.  Now if you wanted to create a document that was a “certification of live birth”  where a city can certify that a person who has a different legal birth name and a different legal birth sex was in fact born at a particular place on a particular year that would be a fair compromise but we have no business changing the written record.


Finally there is word that Dicks Sporting goods which made a big deal about being woke on guns is considering discontinuing guns altogether.  It actually makes perfect sense when you consider the reaction by gun owners to the company’s previous move:

“I’m not furious, not at all. They made a business decision. I get it. They want to step out of their non-political lane and become corporate activists. I can calmly step out of my lane, too. And given every chance I get, I will not use their products,” he said.

If buyers of guns with long memories are still angry and not going to your stores and you have no interest in getting their business back it’s a logical business decision to stop carrying items that might appeal to that customer base, the remaining guns and hunting items in this case,  and move to a set of items that appeal to the customers you still have.

It’s the same principle that MSNBC and the NYT is using when moving away from reality why give facts when your remaining base will only pay for propaganda?