LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS ON "TRADITIONIS CUSTODES" - written by a Priest and Canon Lawyer
Article: "Legal Considerations on the motu proprio Traditionis Custodes" - Restrictions demand strict interpretation
by Fr. Pierre Laliberté, J.C.L.*
1. Principles
The motu proprio “Traditionis Custodes” was issued by Pope Francis on 16 July 2021, along with an accompanying letter.
As a restrictive decree, this present motu proprio of Pope Francis should be interpreted strictly, in accord with the legal maxim Regula Juris 15 (odiosa restringenda, favorabilia amplificanda). Interestingly, there is no vacatio legis on the document either.
Pope Francis indicates in the first paragraph that the bishops constitute the principle of unity of the particular churches and govern them through the proclamation of the Gospel. As the specified end of the document is the “constant search for ecclesial communion”, it would also appear that hermeneutically, this document should be interpreted in a way which genuinely fosters ecclesiastical communion between the faithful, priests, and bishops, and does …More
I try not to bomb those whoo "follow" me with a stream of articles. You've paid me a profound compliment and I'm ever-mindful of it.
In terms of Canon Law this article is the legal equivalent of St. Michael The Archangel and the Heavenly Host routing the Fallen Angels straight out of Heaven.
Notice the author's genius in finding this legal loophole.
"In considering Article 3, it is worthwhile to note that the provisions of this article refer to the “Missal antecedent to the reform of 1970.” Strictly understood, the Missal antecedent to the reform of 1970 is the editio typica of 1965 with the alterations of Tres abhinc annos of 4 May 1967. This is not the 1962 Missal. To this author’s knowledge, the 1965 missal is used hardly, if ever.
What the author said is legally correct. "Restrictions require strict interpretaton". --to which I would modestly add, "what is meant is not what was written."
If Pope Francis and his cronies meant to restrct the 1962 Missal and, in their Canonical ignorace, what they wrote restricted the almost-never used1965 Missal by mistake, too bad.
Perhaps it was the whimsical guidance of "the god of surprises and "the holy spirit" whom Pope Francis never tires of invoking to support his reforms against "rigidity". ..
This reasoning is fallacious. Article 3 has six sections, but it's not the only article in the motu proprio. The other articles directly address the 1962 missal.
So, assuming arguendo that article 3 only refers to the missal of 1965 (which it doesn't, see section 3), that doesn't negate the fact that the other articles refer directly to the 1962 missal.
At best, what could be stated is that the motu proprio refers to both 1962 and 1965, no one can say that it does not restrict 1962 if the bishop so chooses. Articles 2 and 5, and section 3 of article 3, allow for restrictions of the 1962 missal.
The bishop has full authority over whether, or not, the 1962 missal will be used in his diocese. If he says no, then it's restricted. That's what the motu proprio entails.
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.
Art. 3, § 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.
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.
"This reasoning is fallacious."
...which explains why you cited the fallacy and showed how it applies, the way I do when I call you out for fallacious reasoning. @DJRESQ
"Article 3 has six sections, but it's not the only article in the motu proprio. The other articles directly address the 1962 missal."
Irrelevant to the author's refutation of the point raised here from Article 3.
This reasoning is fallacious. :D
It's a Fallacy of Division. You're assuming that because the other articles address the 1962 Missal, that changes the meaning of what was written here in Article 3.
What part of "antecedent" are you having difficulty with here?
merriam-webster.com/dictionary/antecedent
Last time I checked, 1965-67 comes after 1962. The Missal that is antecedent to the reform of 1970 is that one, not the 1962. What Francis meant is not what he wrote.
Formal documents are the final word. When the CDF forbids the blessing of homosexual "unions" and Pope Francis signs off, THAT is the official Church position, not the gushing letter of praise he sent to Father James Martin which in itself was carefully worded not to overtly contradict the CDF.
Simply put, he loused up here and let's all have a good laugh at his expense over it because the point you're making has always been irrelevant in practice.
"The bishop has full authority over whether, or not, the 1962 missal will be used in his diocese. If he says no, then it's restricted. That's what the motu proprio entails."
...and that changes nothing.
Bishops have been running their own diocese that way all along in spite of Summorum Pontificum. Bishops who disliked the TLM simply forbade priests from celebrating it on their own authority and woe to the priest who tried to argue against his direct superior!
Rome was very far away and unesponsive. The Bishop's wrath was just a phone-call and a reassignment letter away.
Once again, the incontestable truth of Church Law trumps a sloppily worded attempt to "abrogate" it. Masterfully done.