I was listening to *Pints With Aquinas* this evening where Dr. Richard DeClue, a professional theologian, not a priest, was interviewed, but he didn't want to comment on some _motu proprio_ (probably [_Traditionis Custodes_](https://www.vatican.va/content/francesco/en/motu_proprio/documents/20210716-motu-proprio-traditionis-custodes.html)) citing there were "canonical penalties" for doing so. What is a "canonical penalty"? Does it affect the laity or more the priests and religious? And what exactly constitutes an act that requires someone to be canonically penalized?

It's pretty clear that the Cardinal from Chicago has an appetite for allowing [random and illicit things](https://www.ncregister.com/news/the-city-of-big-shoulders-and-liturgical-confusion-chicago-faithful-flummoxed-by-inconsistent-liturgy-policy) to happen under the guise of Vatican II. And he has clamped down on Traditional Latin Mass and _Ad Orientum_ Masses because of the _moto proprio_ _Traditiones Custodes_. So, what, other than their conscience, is preventing priests in the Diocese of Chicago from celebrating Mass according to whatever customs they desire (replacing bubbles and a pogo-stick with turifers and the aspergillum)? Why wouldn't celebrating TLM just be considered yet another liturgical abuse allowed as a means to connect with the faithful?

As G.K. Chesterton put it, it's useless to say you can't put back the clock, that's literally the function of the clock, to be able to put it back.. that is. So who is Pope Francis to say that liturgical reform (which millions of well meaning, highly educated Catholics are rightly skeptical of) are unable to reverse liturgical reforms? > https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/36674/for-pope-francis-the-liturgical-reform-is-irreversible When all the present Novus Ordo backers die off, leaving a vague Protestant Catholic Church and the recognizable Catholic Church favoring Liturgical Tradition over Liturgical Innovation, won't the _Vox Populii_ take over and the liturgy will automatically "unreform" itself?

Cardinal Cupich ordered no TLM Masses on several days of the year: > The new policy also prohibits the celebration of Traditional Latin Masses on the first Sunday of every month, Christmas, the Triduum, Easter Sunday, and Pentecost Sunday. https://www.ncregister.com/cna/cardinal-cupich-issues-new-restrictions-on-traditional-latin-masses Other than spreading confusion and chaos, what reason could he have for preventing TLM to be celebrated on First Sundays? I've heard of First Fridays, I've heard of First Saturdays, but First Sundays are new to me.

*In light of Traditionis Custodes, is the TLM celebrated by a well known schismatic Priest an invalid Mass?* The recent motu proprio of Pope Francis spoke more on ***"disunity"*** rather than the liturgy of celebrating the Holy Mass. This can be seen from ***Pastor Aeturnus*** , citing unity is vital in celebrating Holy Mass. > 11. The unity of the Church, which the ministry of Peter's Successor serves in a unique way, reaches its highest expression in the Eucharistic Sacrifice, which is the centre and root of ecclesial communion; this communion is also necessarily based on the unity of the Episcopate. Therefore, ***"every celebration of the Eucharist is performed in union not only with the proper Bishop, but also with the Pope, with the episcopal order, with all the clergy, and with the entire people. Every valid celebration of the Eucharist expresses this universal communion with Peter and with the whole Church, or objectively calls for it"***,43 as in the case of the Churches which are not in full communion with the Apostolic See. - The Primacy of the Successor of Peter in the Mystery of the Church Perhaps, the subject of validity is more focus on the consecration of the "bread and wine". Since Art.5 in Traditionis Costudes stated the priestly faculties status quo is not supplied unless a Bishop grant the priest permission to celebrate the TLM. This specific question or scenario must be answer. *If Art.#5 of Traditionis Custodes stated, the priest have no supplied faculties to celebrate the TLM, will the Holy Spirit descend on a restricted celebration and will the Holy Spirit sanctifies the bread & wine tainted with disobedience? If the Holy Spirit do not descend, does it mean the consecration was not confected, therefore invalid?* >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. No Authorization means No Faculties. No Faculties to celebrate the TLM, will it also means no faculties to consecrate the bread and wine? Just like when Pope Francis had not yet supplied the faculties to SSPX priest administer Sacrament of Confession to absolve sins? https://www.vatican.va/content/francesco/en/motu_proprio/documents/20210716-motu-proprio-traditionis-custodes.html Other Source(s): [Pope Francis’ Traditionis Custodes is for the Sake of Unity](https://www.patheos.com/blogs/davearmstrong/2021/07/pope-francis-traditionis-custodis-is-for-the-sake-of-unity.html)

The last point that the Bishops got in response about ***Traditionis Custodes*** was: > A parish priest or chaplain who is authorized to celebrate the traditional Mass but must also celebrate the ordinary form of the Mass during the week cannot then also celebrate the traditional Mass on the same day (binate). https://www.ncregister.com/news/traditions-custodies-vatican-responses-to-11-dubia My parish priest has three Weekend Masses a Novus Ordo vigil Mass in English, a Novus Ordo morning mass in English, followed by a TLM Mass, followed by a Novus Ordo Mass in Spanish. Does this mean that a priest can't celebrate two different liturgical forms of the Mass on the same day?

I was reading [Fr. Raymond de Souza's article on the Pickle that Cardinal Gregory is in](https://www.ncregister.com/commentaries/pope-francis-motu-proprio-places-new-burden-on-bishops-particularly-on-cardinal-gregory) and it reminded me of something I thought of when reading [Traditionis Custodes](https://www.vatican.va/content/francesco/en/motu_proprio/documents/20210716-motu-proprio-traditionis-custodes.html) , it would seem as if the final point: > Previous norms, instructions, permissions, and customs that do not conform to the provisions of the present Motu Proprio are abrogated. Suggests that all the accretions in the _Novus Ordo_ mass, (i.e. the Kumbayah stuff that TLM goers often object to) is abrogated as well. In fact, it seems if: > 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. is what Pope Francis wants us to go with, then all congregations who fail to observe the rite properly are just as out of sync with the Motu Proprio as any TLM community. Or is this not how _Motu Proprios_ work?

[Traditiones Custodes](https://www.vatican.va/content/francesco/en/motu_proprio/documents/20210716-motu-proprio-traditionis-custodes.html) states that > ... 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; Maybe this is illicit in the first place and therefore a non-issue motu-proprio-wise, but I've gone to several masses in Spanish for the Latino communities who live around me where the priest has a very weak grasp of Spanish and delivers his homily in English. Also, I've gone to many masses in English with missionary priests, who we're grateful for coming into our diocese to help with the priest shortage, but it's not clear that they posses a knowledge of the "English" language sufficient for a thorough comprehension of the rubrics and liturgical texts. One reason I'm asking is because in recent weeks I've heard about the deep spiritual significance of Latin and that some people believe proper diction is essential to proper celebration of the Eucharist. Now, I would imagine this is not something that the Holy Father has on his mind when he's considering reasons for limiting celebration of the Traditional Latin Mass. However, he used knowledge of Latin as a bullet point, and it would seem to me that knowledge of the language the Mass is prayed in is important no matter which books a priest is using. So is knowledge of Latin more imperative than knowledge of other languages?

This bullet point in [Tradionis Custodes](https://www.vatican.va/content/francesco/en/motu_proprio/documents/20210716-motu-proprio-traditionis-custodes.html) has me super confused: > Art 8. Previous norms, instructions, permissions, and customs that do not conform to the provisions of the present Motu Proprio are abrogated. And I can't watch enough Dr. Taylor Marshal podcasts to find this out. I went to two Latin Masses this weekend for a Troops of St. George Assembly and noticed that the two different priests closed the Mass differently. Which got me thinking, if something like Pope Leo XIII's St. Michael Prayer is customarily prayed in some parishes or a few Hail Mary's or anything of the sort, are this customs canned in favor of strict adherence to the 1962 missal (except the part where the readings are in the vernacular)?