“Traditionis custodes”: Frequently Asked Questions by Guido Ferro Canale

Testo italiano: “Domande frequenti sul M.P. “Traditionis custodes” [qui].

---

“Traditionis custodes”:

Frequently Asked Questions

An Instruction on the implementation of the new rules concerning the usage of the traditional Liturgy is quite likely to be issued, although this won't happen as fast as some are fearing (the drafts of such general documents are supposed to follow a complex procedure before the final approval, which it should be more difficult to hasten by smuggling the same drafts on the Papal table – though the Reigning one is quite unpredictable in that respect). However, because the motu proprio went immediately in force, it is urgent to address various practical issues: in my previous piece on the subject, I confined myself to those stemming from the lack of vacatio legis and a few others, due to space constraints, but I have drawn the main lines according to which all of them can be sorted out; therefore, here I am simply assuming that the reader will have read it before and going on straight away, in QA format.

1) Are religious priests who want to celebrate also bound to ask for the Diocesan Bishop's authorization?

A. - Those of diocesan right, yes; the exempt ones, i.e. those of pontifical right, can celebrate sine populo without any authorization requirement, but for them to celebrate cum populo, an agreement with the local Bishop must have been entered into.

To explain the meaning of the abovegiven answer, I'd better start from the difference between “Ordinary” and “Diocesan Bishop”: according to can. 134, the former word includes religious Superiors, whereas the latter expression does not – actually, even the Vicar general is not included in it.

Here the legislatore has not spoken of the “Ordinary”, but of the “Diocesan Bishop”. Religious Superiors, therefore, are ruled out, at least in the sense and effect that their consent is not enough. But is the Bishop's consent always necessary? This depends on the legal status of the organization the religious priest involved has joined. If it is an Institute of Consecrated Life or a Society of Apostolic Life of diocesan right, he is subject to the Bishop in every respect, his Superiors wouldn't be “Ordinaries” anyway, so the answer is yes: he need the Bishop's authorization both for Masses cum and sine populo, his asituation is exactly the same as the secular priests'.

However, things are quite difference for entities of pontifical rights, which are also called “exempt”, because they are indeed exempt from the governing power of the various Bishops around the world (see cann. 586, 591, 593 and 594: the new Code actually contemplates the possible existence of non-exempt pontifical right entities, but this hypothetical is immaterial in our case). Now, an authorization is an act whereby the said power is exercised.

After centuries of recurring clashes, a balance of sorts between the opposite needs has been reached: such religious men can settle wherever they think best and enjoy autonomy in everything that takes place beyond their walls, with no external subjects involved; however, if they wish to dedicate themselves to apostolic activities, or just let the local faithful in at their Masses, they have to reach an agreement with the Bishop beforehand, because he is the shepherd of those faithful. Therefore:

1. if TLM is celebrated cum populo, then it falls under the Bishop's newly conferred power to decide where and when such celebrations for the benefit of preexisting coetus are to be held and it's up to the diocesan Bishop if it can go on or not; however,
1. until he decides, everything goes on as before, in full legitimacy,
2. before he decides, he is required by law to listen to the concerned people and their issues (see can. 50),
3. in the text of the decision, he must explain his reasoning and address the concrete matter – a generic ramble about the motu proprio, the Council and so on would not do (see can. 51);
2. on the other hand, if the Mass is sine populo and as such confined, so to speak, between the walls of the convent or anu similar place, no authorization is needed either from the Bishop or the major Superiors, who, as I've already said, are not actually included in the expression “diocesan Bishop”. Therefore, give the lack of provisions in the new law, one must conclude that for this situation “Summorum Pontificum” art. 2 does remain in force and such celebrations are still authorized by the law itself.

2 – Is it still possible to celebrate according to the special rites of any religious Order, such as it was in 1962?
A – Yes.

As it is well known, “Summorum Pontificum”'s only concern were the liturgical books of the Roman rite; yet, the ritual forms that were once in use among certain religious Orders (Domincans, Carmelites...) are numbered among the variants of the said rite. Which is why PCED, when it issued the Instruction “Universae Ecclesiae”, held that it was within its powers to extend to those too the principle laid out by SP 1: “celebrare licet”.

TC 1 doesn't actually contradict that statement at all, just the one that said there were two exoressions of the Roman rite's lex orandi; whatever the reaffirmed unity of such lex might actually mean, it most certainly does not imply that all previous ritual forms are repealed. That's both because “lex orandi” is more a theological than a legal phrase, not synonymous with actual force of law anyway; and because it is still possible to celebrate according to the 1962 Missal, which therefore can't be held repealed, so a fortiori such option does remain for the ritual forms UE 34 provided for, since the strumentalization issues the letter to the Bishop deplores are unheard of insofar as their usage is concerned, perhaps because it has been more scarce.

Moreover, this conclusion is corroborated by the fact that at least two Bishop have reached it in the very wake of TC: Vincent Cardinal Nichols, Archbishop of Westminster, in whose territory the Dominican Rite will be celebrated cum populo also in the future, and His Grace Salvatore Cordileone, Archbishop of San Francisco, who, as he established a monthly TLM in his Cathedral, statec that the first one, falling on the feast of St. Dominic, would be offered according to that Rite.

3 – Does TC 3 actually deal with the 1965 Missal, therefore leaving “Summorum Pontificum” in place? Or, conversely, is it legally allowed to celebrate freely according to the 1965 Missal?

A. – No to both questions.

Someone, who was quite probably trying to contain the damage, has point out that the authorization requirement placed on the groups, being phrased in a different way than the priests' one, doesn't involve the 1962 Missal, but actually the one in force before the liturgical reformation of 1970 – which under a rigorous interpretation should be the Ordo Missae already reformed in part between 1965 and 1967. So in the end – paradoxically and yet according to the logic – the motu proprio would be concerned with a Mass almost nobody actually wants and, having chosen the wrong target, would leave “Summorum Pontificum” intact.

Others have tried to reach a similar result reasoning in the opposie direction, namely: if they are going to deny us the 1962 Missal, let's fall back on the 1965 one, since no restriction has actually been placed upon it.

(For brevity and clarity's sake, I am sidestepping all discussions about why, according to many, a 1965 Missal does not even eist in the proper meaning of the word, there has just been a set of modifications enacted via an amended reprint of the 1962 typical edition)

Both theories, however, are grounded in the same mistake: thinking the 1965 Missal is still in force, while it is not. Since it was but a partial reform, the Instruction “Inter Oecumenici”, which promulgated it, expressly stated that it would remain in force only until the full reformation of the Ordo Missae (see art. 48); and the same stated “Tres abhinc annos”, art. 19, regarding the Divine Office.

By the way, this is the reason why the 1962 Missal has not been repealed: such modifiications were provisional, so they automatically lost every force when Novus Ordo came out; the abrogation problem required a direct confrontation between the two Missals, with no regard for the intermediate steps; and since the manufacturing of a new rite could never, in and by itself, imply the substitution of an ancient one, the latter, given the lack of a proper repealing clause, remained in force. The so-called “Agatha Christie Indult”, actually, mandated the 1965/67 modifications to be followed, quite certainly with the intent of leading even the most recalcitrant faithful, eventually, into the main course of the Great Reformation; however, from 1984 onwards, all the directives issues by the Holy See have mandated the use of the 1962 Missal such as it is. And even if the 1984 Indult, the 1988 motu proprio, the 2007 and the current ones, either taken one by one or all together, should not be able to repeal the 1965/67, the general reception of the 1962 Missal would, because in such an instance it would be tantamount to a repealing custom.

One exception, however, must be made for those entities in whose favour PCED - presumably relying on the norms drafted in 1986 by an ad hoc Cardinals' Commission, subsequently sanctioned by the Pope but never officially published in the whole text – has granted the privilege to follow some of the 1965 rubrics. But since these are indeed special concession, they negate a general persisting force of law rather than supporting it. In any event, they should survive “Traditionis custodes” too, because they concern pontifical right entities and their internal life. Outside this very limited exceptions, however, it is not legally allowed in any way to use the 1965 Missal, with or without the 1967 supplementary set of changes.

4 – What must be done regarding the readings and their proclamation in the language of the people?

A. – In all Masses cum populo authorized by the Bishop under TC 3, be these read, sung or siolemn (High), the reading must be proclaimed in the native tongue of the people; when the Mass is read, it can substitute for the Latin text, but in all other cases it must be added to it.

To explain the reasons that underlie the answer, it must be taken into account that the relevant provision

Per spiegare la risposta occorre partire dal fatto che la previsione rilevante - “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” - is found under TC 3 §3 and, therefore, concerns just the Masses in favour of the faithful (“these” celebrations), not those sine populo and, unless otherwise provided for in a given case, neother the occasional ones.

Many have pointed out that this rule seems quite superfluous in all those places – and they are the vast majority – where the faithful follow the celebration on leaflets or booklets with side-by-side translations; however, the by now well-known questionnaire did not investigate on the actual praxis that was being followed – and, most importantly, a set of rules for the proclamation of the readings in the people's native tongue already existed, actually it has been enacted when the uuse of such booklets was widespread, well known and encouraged by the ecclesiastical authorities.

The Sep 3, 1958 Instruction, aimimg amomg other things to put in pratice the teachings of “Mediator Dei” on the active participation of the faithful, dealt with the subject matter at nn. 14 c) and 16 c):

“However, it is desirable that a lector read the Epistle and Gospel in the vernacular for the benefit of the faithful at low Masses on Sundays and feast days. ”;

“Finally, if a particular indult has been granted for the priest, deacon, subdeacon, or lector to read solemnly the Epistle, Lesson, or Gospel in the vernacular after they have been chanted in their Gregorian melodies, they must be read in a loud and clear voice, without any attempt to imitate the Gregorian melodies”.

Therefore, in read Masses the proclamation of the readinfìgs in the people's mother tongue was always allowed, even encouraged, though it was not mandatory; regarding sung or solemn Masses, reference was made to particular Indults granted in some countries, but with the prescription that such proclamation should take place after the Latin text had been sung, without substituting for it and without any re-chanting (since it was an addition made for merely didactical purposes). These rules are, admittedly, nowhere to be found in the section the Code of Rubrics devotes to readings (nn. 466-74), but they were kept in force via the express reference the same Code makes to the Instruction in everything that concerns the active participation (n. 272), even more so because its n. 14 c) is in turn explicitly referenced to by n. 30, who is found precisely in the part of the Instruction that deals with the various ways the faithful can participate actively to the different kind of Masses.

“Summorum Pontificum”, while confirming the uninterrupted force of law the 1962 Missal still enjoys, in art. 6 granted a general faculty to proclaim the readings “etiam lingua vernacula” in the celebrations cum populo: at that time, I wrote that the provision seemed to address only read Masses, because when the Mass is sung there is no proclamation but cantillation, but back then I wasn't aware of n. 16 lett. c), which presumably, on the other hand, the legislator meant to confirm in iots force, while extending at the same time to the whole Church the particular Indults the text had required until then.

Anyway, that's actually what PCED has stated in “Universae Ecclesiae” n. 26, clarifying that “the readings of the Holy Mass that are contained in the Missal of the year 1962 can be uttered in Latin only, or in Latin with a vernacular translation following, or in low Masses even in the vernacular alone.”.

Therefore, up to 16th July 2021, in all celebrations cum populo vernacular readings were optional, not mandatory, and while in sung Masses n. 16 c) of the 1958 Instruction had to be followed, in read Masses the vernacular could also substitute for the proclamation of the Latin text.

The preceding analysis enables us to get the novelty of TC 3 §3 at first glance: what was once optional becomes mandatory... but, since it is not stated that the readings are to be said “only” in the people's mother tongue, the content of such mandate stays the same as the previous faculty. Therefore, in read Masses the vernacular translation must be read and can substitute for the Latin text, whereas in sung or solemn Masses it is now mandatory to have such a translation read after the chant of the Latin text, according to the already oft-quoted n. 16 lett. c).

There is, however, another issue on the table: which translations are we actually supposed to use? While SP 6 stated that they should have been approved by the Apostolic See, TC 3 speak of the Episcopal Conference's approval; yet – be the fact known or unknown to the legislator – such translations can't be the more widespread and recent ones, such as the “Bibbia CEI” in Italy, much less the new Lectionary ones. In fact, a basic tenet of liturgical translations stipulates that they are not supposed to follow the original scriptural texts, but the Latin version approved b the Holy See, which for the Novus Ordo is the Nova Vulgata (cfr. Instruction “Liturgiam authenticam”, n. 24): that's enough to rule out all Biblical translations approved for non-liturgical use. And should one think of using the new Lectionary, aside from the differences between the portions of text selected for reading (a problem almost insurmountable in itself), he would face a legal challenge that, in my opinion, he would not be able to deflect or to overcome: the text so translated is not the one employed in the 1962 Missal, who is still following the Vulgate version.

To sum it up, we need translations that have been approved by the Episcopal Conferences, follow the text of the Vulgate and, preferably, are also arramged as some kind of Lectionary for Vetus Ordo Masses, given the practical difficulties that one could easily imagine would follow otherwise. Luckily indeed, such translations do exist, though they may not be easily available: they were made in the first stage of the liturgical reform, since according to Inter Oecumenici, n. 49, readings had to be proclaimed versus populum, better if from the ambo, and it turned out that it was more simple to print them all aside in one book than to move the Missal, an act the rubrics didn't even contemplate anyway. On a provisional basis, it was even allowed to use the translations that were found in the most common booklefts; but – leaving aside the current legitimacy of the option, which is quite doubtful at least – it shouldn't be necessary to resort to such an extreme, an archeological excavation in the sacristy will do.

5 – What's the proper role of the Bishop's delegate for the pastoral care of the faithful?

A. - He is a chaplain with additional faculties, that are to be granted according to the concrete needs of the given group.

I think the vast majority of coetus, especially when the celebrant is not also the parish priest, so far have experienced a range of activities more or less confined to the celebration of the Mass or strongly connected to it (for instance, the establishment of a choir, or the organization of altar server groups). The need for ad hoc pastoral care, then, was surely felt and does exist; yet, one could wonder what should properly be the newly-minted delegate's role, given that the current motu proprio's logic seems restrictive rather than promotional.

Undoubtedly, he will be task with vigilance, so that the group won't fall prey to those degenerations to avoid which, we are told, TC has been issued. I also think that the office of delegate, in practice, will be expoited to give some cover-up to things we have already seen anyway, such as a hyper-progressive priest appointed just so that he might sabotage the celebration, here and now I am going to investigate how its role should be properly shaped, in order to provide also some suggestions for future dealings with the Bishops.

First of all, then, it should be noted that in the Code, the priest to whom has been confided in a stable manner the pastoral care of a specific group of faithful is termed a chaplain (see can. 564). His duties are set forth in can. 566 §1 as follows: “A chaplain must be provided with all the faculties which proper pastoral care requires. In addition to those which are granted by particular law or special delegation, a chaplain possesses by virtue of office the faculty of hearing the confessions of the faithful entrusted to his care, of preaching the word of God to them, of administering Viaticum and the anointing of the sick, and of conferring the sacrament of confirmation on those who are in danger of death.”.

“Summorum Pontificum”, art. 10, stated that pastoral care could be organized according to all three options provided for in the Code: chaiplancy, rectory, personal parish. Now, TC does no longer allow the erection of new personal parishes, but, given that it has not barred them out, the other two options are still on the table (and they are usually correlated in practice, sice a rectory is a church where, should it deemed appropriate, celebrations for specific groups can be set up). Therefore, if the delegate for the pastoral care is always a chaplain, as to me it seems necessary to infer, we must conclude that, when TC went into force, the establishment of such an office changed from optional to mandatory and that he is automatically granted both the tasks enumerated in can. 566 §1 and that to ensure the “correct celebration” (the latter coming from particular law, namely TC itself).

Moreover, the Episcopal decree of (first) appointment could add other tasks too, according to the concrete situation and needs, which seems fairly important to me. Here, it would be necessary to start with a careful assessment of the status quo, meanuing, what the coetus is actually doing: for instantion, one could provide for occasional celebrations in addition to the regularly scheduled ones, be it for marriages or other Sacraments to be administered more antiquo, for Requiem or votive Masses, etc.; and the same goes fr devotional practoces such as the Holy rosary, and so on. Last but not least, it would be especially appropriate to appoint more than one delegate, in solidum, who could therefore agree on their own, day by day, how best to organize the concrete activities taking place; as an alternative, it should be granted a faculty to subdelegate, so that other priests authorized by the Bishop could step in, at least for one given liturgical action, when the delegate faces an impediment, as sooner or later he is certainly going to.

Setting up the delegate's tasks for the concrete situation is going to be the battleground where the future of the coetus and their activities will be decided: I think it is necessary to stress right now the need to focus on it. All the more so because, though TC's logic does actually sound restrictive, yet there are no particular limits on the faculties the dekegate could be granted, therefore nothing forbids the possible addition of new activities. This would certainly require good will both on the Bishops' and the delegates' part; but it is up to the faithful, in first instance, to get aware of the possibe opportunity, which is not quite visible, siìo to speak, in such peculiar legal surroundings.

6 – Should the Mass be suppressed or other damaging decisions be taken, whom could the faithful address their grievances to? A. – To the Congregaztion for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments; in second and at the same time last instance, to the Supreme Tribunal of the Apostolic Signatura.

One of the most pressing problems during the Indult era was the practical lack of any superior authority to whom one chould address his appeals against the negative decrees enacted by the Bishops. While CDW claimed jurisdiction and was actually the heir of Dicastery that had issued the Indult in the first place (as they stated it, “The competence, and indeed the authority of the Holy See in the case of those communities which enjoy the indult to follow the previous forms of the Roman Rite, belongs to the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei. But the relations of these communities with particular Churches, so far as liturgical celebrations are concerned, are subject to the competence of the Congregation of Divine Worship and Sacramental Discipline, other interested jurisdictions having the right to be heard.”), on the other hand there was PCED, who admittedly always claimed not to possess any power to rule on such appeals and confined herself to putting some good words with the Bishops, but on this matter has been overruled by the Supreme Tribunal of the Apostolic Signatura (tasked, among other things, with sorting out conflicts or jursdiction between the Dicasteries of the Roman Curia): “Sometimes an appeal has been lodged against an act of the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei: for instance, the grievance of a faithful who, having asked the said Commission for the granting of an indult, was given the answer stating the lack of jurisdiction to grant what had been asked. When the concerned party appealed to the Apostolic Signatura, his appeal was granted.” [J. CANOSA, Lezione X – Il ricorso contenzioso-amministrativo, §III, in J. MIRAS – J. CANOSA – E. BAURA, Compendio di Diritto amministrativo canonico, Roma 2018, pag. 386, translation mine]. Regrettably, this judgment from the most the most important Tribunal in the whole Church has remained utterly unknown to the faithful that could be interested in it, as far as I know it hasn't been published yet and, worse still, it did not even lead to a change in PCED's praxis. The whole matter resulting in that systemic denial of justice many of us can still remember all too weel and are afraid to experience again.

“Summorum Pontificum” solved the then-current problem as it incorporated into written law the Signatura's holding:

“Art. 12. The same Commission, in addition to the faculties which it presently enjoys, will exercise the authority of the Holy See in ensuring the observance and application of these norms.”. So, the Pontifical Commission was to exercise authority over the so-called “Ecclesia Dei commities”, with the same powers and tasks that are usually entrusted to the Congregation for the Institutes of Consecrated Life and the Societies of Apostolic Life; moreover, it regularized the canonical situation of those who may happen to have left FSSPX or other communities related to it; and, most important, it had the power to decide on appeal by the faithful interested to the proper implementation of “Summorum Pontificum”.

As it restated all this once more, “Universae Ecclesiae” (n. 10 §2) did expressely add that the same Commission's decrees could be challenged before the Apostolic Tribunal. A possible explanation for this are legal doubts on the Supreme Tribunal's part: SP 5 e 7, as it is well known, put to the fore the coetus fidelium, which generally is an association of the faithful erected according to local State law, but lacks canonical recognition of any kind. In 1987, however, an authentic interpretation of can. 1737 stated that such entities cannot lodge any appeal against administrative acts, at least they can't as a group: it should be brought by the individual members, who should also prove that they have suffered a specific damage as individuals. Therefore, the Instruction has clarified and confirmed that “Summorum Pontificum”, speaking of coetus under art. 7, has meant to derogate this rule and allow collective appeals also, perhaps because the enforceable right is indeed individual in itself, but, according to SP's logic and the very nature of things, it is exercised in an associated form (due if nothing nothing else to logistic considerations, well known to whoever has found himself setting in place Vetus celebrations from scratch!).

When PCED was absorbed into CDF and became its Section IV, its area of jurisdiction stood the same and was handed over, such as they were, to the incorporating Dicastery.

Rebus sic stantibus, what is the impact of TC?

It is most easily understood when one reads artt. 6 and 7:

“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.”.

Nothing special here to comment on, in my opinion; maybe, however, it is worth stating that PCED suppression did not entail abrogation of the particular law on which “Ecclesia Dei” communities are grounded; or, put in another way, the “Ecclesia Dei adflicta”, n. 6 a), where it grants force of law to the Protocol of agrement signed on 5th May 1988 between Card. Ratzinger and H.G. Léfebvre, is still in force. The extent to which it will be followed and enforced by the newly-competent Dicastery remains to be seen.

“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.”.

In other words: if SP sided with the Signatura, TC sides with CDW and their 1999 stance;the internal life of what we can actually still call “the Ecclesia Dei communities”, provided that we mean their foundational law, will fall under the oversight of the Congregation for the Institutes of Consecrated Life, just as it is for religious entities in general; all liturgical matters, including their external apostolate, will be the duty and province of CDW. So, at least there is one thing we don't have to worry about, lack of clarity about jurisdiction.

And since TC too is still speaking of “groups”, I think that nothing has changed regarding the allowed appeals.

7 – What is the procedure you must follow to lodge and pursue such appeals?

A. - The generally applicable procedure laid out for hierarchical recourses in first instance (cann. 1732 sgg.), then for jurisdictional recourse before the Signatura. Nothing more, nothing less. First of all, let us recall once more that, until the Bishop does not issue an express decision, everything stays the same. Then, the faithful could wisely make contact on their own accord, but I don't think it would be in their particular interest to try and speed up the decisional process (due exception being made, however, for special cases).

If, however, the Bishop does suppress current celebration without providing for any alternative, or if he alters their venue, time or frequence in a way that is harmful to the faithful, the procedure is as followas:

1. ten days from the moment when you know of the decision, so that you may ask in writing that it is amended or nullified (you can add more reasons later on). Please take not that all administrative acts should be issued and given in written form, yet it's better to react against such “decisions” as may be issue or disseminated by voice too, asling at the same time to be served the written document and, out of prudent, that the content you heard of be changed. To avoid any problems with the recourse coming from a coetus, it one be better to have more than one person sign such requests, with a statement that all the undersigned are acting in their own capacity as well as members of the coetus, and the same goes true for all the subsequent steps;
2. the faithful are free to enumerate and expound on all the reasons why the Bishop's decree is unfit for the situation, makes things more difficult for them, etc.; the best course of action is alwauys to stick to the facts and the case at hand, refraining from broad general statements, but two legal grounds of nullity we are going to see quite a lot are the lack of consulytations with the people that is going to be affected by the decision (can. 50) and the lack of motivation (can. 51), especially should the Bishop content himself with saying or writing “The Council... the Pope...”;
3. after he has recived the request – which should better be sent by registered mail or any equivalent means – the Bishop must answer it within thirty days;
4. if he rejects it or ignores it, the faithful have a fifteen days window to appeal to CDW, for any reason, even of mere opportunity (for instance, “He has put as in the tiny church on top of Mt. Onethousandavalanches”);
5. the Congregation in turn must act within ninety days (please take note that can. 57 says “three months”, but in canon law months are always numbered as having thirty days each, regardless of the calendar), afterwards, unless it has notified that it needs more time, the reject of the appeal is presumed and can be challenged before the Signatura;
6. to lodge an appeal before the Supreme Tribunal of the Apostolic Signatura, the faithful have sixty days, but they can only complain about breaches of law, because the Signatura decides whether a given act of the ecclesiastical authority is lawful, not if it is also the most expedient possible one. Therefore you should say, for instance, “The Bishop violated TC 3 because he suppressed the Mass, period, he didn't even try to find out whether the faithful adhere to the Council etc., and the Congregation incurred in the same vice by staying silent and/or rejecting our recourse”. You are under no obligation to file such an appeal through a lawyer, although it would be wise to do so for many reasons, but such obligations arises afterwards and involves all subsequent acts. Moreover, in principle it is not enough to be accredited before the Roman Rota, you'd need a lawyer enlisted among the Advocati apud Curiam Romanam: practically speaking, then, it would be better to contact one of them beforehand, maybe to use his service already before the Congregation, and in any case get the Advocati list from the Supreme Tribunal's Chancery.

Everybody can see by himself that, during the time necessary or granted by lw anyway for a decision to be taken by the competent authority, the faithful could well be subject to irreparable harm: once the Mass is cancelled, for instance, in all likelihood the coetus would dissolve too. For this reason, the petition address to the Bisop, that he might amend his decision, entails by law (but no one forbids to state it explicitly) a request of suspension of its effects, on which he has to decide within ten days; if he does not or rejects it, you can bring the matter before the Superior, always for suspension only and under the provision that, even if it is granted, you shall appeal on the merits, should the Bishop reject or neglect your petition for an amended decree (see can. 1736).

*** *** ***

These considerations, of course, do not even purport to be exhaustive or even to adress all the problems that the new regulations on the requirements for access to usus antiquior celebrations have created; nonetheless. I hope to have at least given some useful advice for the more pressing situations.

Genoa, 10th August 2021
in die festo S. Laurentii Martyris
Guido Ferro Canale