Appreciate this analysis very much. I did not realise from reading through the document how strongly it deprecates the principle of subsidiarity amongst bishops.
Nor should it; subsidiarity works best in practise when each level of governance doesn't try to take on tasks that are too big or too small in scope or scale. My coment was intended to give thanks to Mr. Condon for contextualising the impact - perceived as well as actual - of this "instructive document" (I'm not clear exactly what it is) on the bishops themselves, as well as their flocks.
I appreciate Ed.s pov also. I think Ed. and JD are like the Gimbals and Macy's in the Miracle on 34th Street. A coming together of povs for the good. :)
Separate and aside, it is interesting to see the "spirit of Vatican II" argument coopted by one side then the other. Not to say that it is all relevant and there is no truth. Just to observe the same sword present a second edge.
Hi Steve. I would argue there is a very real difference between citing the "spirit of Vatican II" (ie, things Vatican II absolutely did not say but that one party thinks are philosophically aligned) and citing actual things Vatican II said. In this case (you may disagree, which is cool), it appears to me the documents specifically addressed the role of bishops. For what its worth.
As always, be careful what you cheer for - in the U.S., one party created a previously unheard of move called a "nuclear option" which allowed the Senate Majority leader (now gone) to force the approval of an unheard of judge. The opposition party used this very same option to add a 6-3 conservative majority to the Supreme Court.
So to, here. The Pope intervening on who can celebrate what Mass based on the accidental date of ordination, The Pope saying what can be posted in the parish bulletin, The Pope tying the hands of bishops literally thousands of miles away, completely ignorant of the pastoral needs today WILL provide for similar pastoral activity for the Bishop of Rome later. No one is happy all the time with any Pope. Add to the timing of this optional announcement in the week before Christmas. The process is disgusting and dangerous to the office of every bishop.
Really good and interesting analysis! On a related note, I would love to see an explainer of the differences between liturgical “forms”, “rites”, and “ordinariates”. (Maybe “churches” as well? And if you all have already done this, apologies and maybe someone can point me to the place!) My understanding, which may be wrong!, is that the EF and OF are two forms of the same rite, which seems to put it into a unique category. It seems to my mind to give the Holy Father much more latitude in regulating the EF, because it is by its remaining existence EXTRAordinary (at least in the mind of Pope Francis) and therefore regulations keeping it EXTRAordinary fall more into the purview of the Pope than would be regulation of just any old Mass schedule. Does that make sense? I may have the totally wrong end of the stick though, which is why I need the Pillar!
Very difficult to take Roche seriously while he has yet to issue a clarification that the German Bishops are the Devil Incarnate for trying to perform Same-Sex “marriages” or cracking down on the rampant liturgical abuse of the Novus Ordo.
Very weird to me that politicians can make up their own rules about whether they can receive communion, but bishops cannot make up their own rules about whether their priests can say Mass the same way this month that they did last month. It is a topsy turvy world.
I know that this is a piece of analysis, not a persuasive piece, but I suspect that if someone tried to deploy some of points made here in an argument with Abp Roche, he would only laugh.
It's kind of like when someone tries to use the argument "Sacrosanctum Concilium says that preference should be given to the Latin language and to the pipe organ!"
The documents of Vatican II are one thing, the way that "Vatican II" is deployed in intrachurch arguments is another, and the latter has little to do with the former.
It is an interesting question: Did TC and the new clarifications violate the teachings of Vatican II? If so, it would appear that Benedict did the exact same thing with SP by bypassing the local bishop and authorizing an any priest/anytime/anywhere approach. Saint John Paul seems to to have hit the right note vis-a-vis V II by authorizing the Bishops to allow, but regulate the use of the 1962 Missal.
It depends on how you view the TLM. If it is in fact a legitimate mass of the western rite that was never abrogated (as Benedict claims), then the idea that a bishop can tell his priest he's not allowed to celebrate mass would seem to be an abrogation of the rights of the priest. It would be somewhat analogous to forbidding a priest from using the offertory procession even though it's a valid part of the western liturgy. If on the other hand you view the TLM as some sort of alien right that was long ago abrogated that's a different situation.
As is often the case in situations like this what something is informs how it should be used. Benedict has one view and Francis within 15 years decided his predecessor was very very wrong.
Francis didn't 'decide that his predecessor was very, very, very wrong'. The survey of the progress of the Latin Mass was scheduled to be sent 3 years after Summorium Pontificum but wasn't done then. It was well overdue. Perhaps had it been done back then the big problems that we are seeing now may have been nipped in the bud.
Once again you are failing to respond to what I actually said. This comment has absolutely nothing to do with any survey. This comment deals with what Benedict taught about what the TLM is in relation to the NO. And yes, Francis contradicted Benedict on this point quite pointedly.
It has everything to do with the survey because the very fact that Pope Benedict wanted a survey indicates that the value of SP depended on how the TLMs freedoms manifested in practice. That was always going to be from the assessment of the local bishops overseeing it.
The survey to get the bishops feedback on the freedoms given to the TLM, was part of Benedicts original action. It just happened 10 years later than first proposed. The restrictions on the TLM are the result of it's failure to avoid discord and bring unity.
I don't know much about the suppression of the Jesuits other than that it cited by traditionalists in various discussions, but the suppression was not an indictment on St Ignatius' charism and order itself, but the bad fruits it was being used for at the time. Can you see then that something that is in itself fine, can be used for the wrong ends?
It's quite ironic that this is coming about at the same time as the so called synod on synodality. Does the Vatican expect people affected by all this (or anybody sympathetic to them or even those with a keen sense of justice) to take it seriously?
As many on here are aware of, there are several priest fraternities dedicated to the TLM that were created in cooperation with the Vatican following the SSPX debacle in the 1980s. They were explicitly approved by the Vatican under JPII. They chose NOT to join the SSPX because they wanted to remain in complete communion with the Holy Father. These are folks like the FSSP and the Institute of Christ the King as well as several others around the world. Guess how much they were included in the "dialogue" that took place before TC came out? Zero. Nada. Nobody asked them what they thought, what sort of problems they were seeing in their parishes or anything else. This is how Pope Francis has chosen to treat those who seek to remain faithful - by making them segregated second class citizens without even getting their input first!
And now we're supposed to believe he's interested in synodality? Consider me skeptical.
It's all just so depressing. For those of us with no desire to be "anti-francis" but also can't in good conscience see what happening as anything other than a bully beating up on a small minority, there's nowhere to go. There's no hope in the institutional Church. Nothing to engage in. Nothing to get excited about. I actively try to avoid reading what Francis says, which means it's hard to find anything at all to read about current events in the Church. Just focus on prayer and my local parish. I'm very grateful I have that.
The unfortunate aspect that behoves strong action, is the growing antagonism and rejection of Vatican II in the TLM movement. It can't just be ignored by the Church. Vatican II is affirmed by all the Popes as a gift of the Holy Spirit and essential to our eschatological journey. This huge aspect isn't being taken seriously as a problem by many but to the ordinary Catholic who by default embraces all that the Magisterium with the Pope, teaches, it's the aspect that means everything.
1) This doesn't address my comment. Is it true or not that the Vatican took extreme action against the TLM community without ever seeking their input?
2) The idea that the reason for all this is because the TLM community writ large rejects VII has become such a repeated canard that people don't bother to stop and ask if it's true. The Holy Father would know this if...wait for it...he had bothered to ask these people and listen to them! I know many TLM folks, and not a single one of them "rejects" VII. Heck, even Taylor Marshall doesn't reject VII (at least when I used to listen to him he didn't). You know where you'll find TLM folks that reject VII? The SSPX, which is the one TLM community not affected by TC.
Strong action needs to be just. This action is both unjust and cruel.
With regard to your first point, dialogue with the TLM movement as been a 50 year process and resulted in Pope Benedicts Summorum Pontificum. I believe that this concession has born fruits seen in FSSP, ICKSP and IBP in the US. As far as I know these organisations are not affected by TC an Pope Francis entrusted them to the care of the CDW. Someone might correct me here.
To point 2, as someone who was instantly banned from the major TLM sites on the internet for defending Pope Francis, I can testify that dialogue is not an option. I don't like to link to those sites for any reason or to Taylor Marshall but if you want to search yourself for Taylor Marshalls 2nd March, 2021 response to Pope Francis' statement that Vatican II is the Magisterium, it will give you insight into that particular representative of the TLM movements position.
This is silly. The FSSP and ICKSP were NOT consulted as a part of this. It's a not so subtle slight of hand to say "well people have been talking between these groups for 50 years." The Pope is being told by people he apparently trusts that these TLM folks are nasty people that need a crack down for very specific reasons. Perhaps he should consult with the people the Vatican has been in consultation with for 50 years? Nobody asked them (you know the folks who have the smell of the TLM sheep on them) if these things were true or to what extent they were true. We know this because they've said so. So much for Synodality. BTW - the idea that this doesn't affect the FSSP isn't true. Do you realize that TC banned all future personal parishes based on the TLM? Where will new priests serve? Do you realize that many FSSP parishes share facilities with regular parishes and now they have to find a new home? Do you realize the general stigma the Holy Father has put on the TLM will directly impact them? And will you accept it as just if the Holy Father next turns his ire directly on the Ecclesia Dei communities?
Look - perhaps you shouldn't form your opinions based on online commentary from the most outspoken sources? Do you know any TLM people. I mean really KNOW them? While there are many questions and misperceptions about Vatican II (as you'll find on all sides!), these people do not reject Vatican II.
Here's another way to look at it - Should we ban the Novus Ordo because there are tons of Novus Ordo attending Catholics who reject the teachings of Vatican II? That would be crazy and unjust.
Just the use of the term 'Novus Ordo' shows the anti VII sentiment. I'm 60 and have practiced the faith all my life. I never heard the term Novus Ordo until the TLM movement adopted it. I say to people just say the Ordinary Form or Extraordinary Form as Pope BXVI did in his gift Summorum Pontificum. The vast majority of Catholic alive today have no other experience than the Mass we know today. It's not the 'new' Mass and as I said 'novus ordo' was never a term we used or knew. It's resurrected for a specific reason and it does irritate those of us who lived on the cusp of the changes. Please call the Mass we know and love the Ordinary Form. That would show the good will that the TLM wants from others.
Well you're changing topics now aren't you? Here's the bottom line. Francis has made his call to synodality vacuous by taking this harsh action again a small minority without ever seeking any sort of dialogue with them. The multi-year run up to this was a series of insults about rigidity, funny clothes, breading like rabbits as well as sacking everyone sympathetic to trads. To make matters worse he didn't bother to release the questionnaire (as Paul VI did) from the bishops that supposedly informed him about how awful these people are. Try putting yourself in the shoes of a TLM person who is dumbfounded by what's being said about you with no dialogue and no transparency. Francis has the authority to do what he's doing. Having authority and using it justly and wisely are two different things.
Do you know who coined the term Novus Ordo? Paul VI. Sorry if you don't like it, but you don't get to control language. And it's more than a huge stretch to claim the term coined by the first pope who promulgated the new Mass and closed the VII council shows an anti-VII sentiment. And it's also historically inaccurate to conflate VII with the Novus Ordo as one and the same. The NO came 5 years after the close of the council and 7 (I think) years after the promulgation of Sacrosanctum Concillium. The degree to which VII bounds the Church to the reforms of the Consilium is highly questionable. As you probably know there are many ways in which the NO goes far beyond what the council called for.
My brother is a priest who says both the TLM and the NO. He certainly accepts VII, although he doesn't appreciate the attacks on saying either version of the Mass. So while this aspect means everything, the Pope is wrong about what the TLM people actually believe.
May God bless your brother. Of all the people harmed by TC I think it's young priests who are spiritually fed by the TLM and want to share that blessing with the faithful who are harmed the most. The Holy Father has done nothing but insult and treat with suspicion these priests almost since the day he took office. I bet your brother is also rigid and likes to dress in silly clothes! And heaven forbid, there are probably some women wearing veils at the Masses he celebrates!
He's not a young priest; he's older and experienced the Latin Mass as a child. He dresses in plain old black shirts and pants with a priest's collar. I have no idea what he and his parishioners wear at those Masses because I don't attend them, although I have met some of his parishioners who do, outside Mass.
Few bishops actually have a fraternal relationship with more than a select few of their presbyters, and their chancery officials are very interested in treating parishes as branc offices rather than canonical persons.
Given the rather supine posture of the USCCB when it comes to liturgy, I expect passive-aggressive resistance rather than outright opposition.
"Some may intend to remind Archbishop Roche that they are, in the spirit of Vatican II, shepherds of their flocks, and not his local branch managers."
Auxiliary TO the local branch managers.
Appreciate this analysis very much. I did not realise from reading through the document how strongly it deprecates the principle of subsidiarity amongst bishops.
Subsidiarity doesn't completely eliminate the role of a central authority to intervene when there is a more universal principle under threat.
Nor should it; subsidiarity works best in practise when each level of governance doesn't try to take on tasks that are too big or too small in scope or scale. My coment was intended to give thanks to Mr. Condon for contextualising the impact - perceived as well as actual - of this "instructive document" (I'm not clear exactly what it is) on the bishops themselves, as well as their flocks.
I appreciate Ed.s pov also. I think Ed. and JD are like the Gimbals and Macy's in the Miracle on 34th Street. A coming together of povs for the good. :)
Bp Dwight Schrute approves.
Separate and aside, it is interesting to see the "spirit of Vatican II" argument coopted by one side then the other. Not to say that it is all relevant and there is no truth. Just to observe the same sword present a second edge.
Hi Steve. I would argue there is a very real difference between citing the "spirit of Vatican II" (ie, things Vatican II absolutely did not say but that one party thinks are philosophically aligned) and citing actual things Vatican II said. In this case (you may disagree, which is cool), it appears to me the documents specifically addressed the role of bishops. For what its worth.
As always, be careful what you cheer for - in the U.S., one party created a previously unheard of move called a "nuclear option" which allowed the Senate Majority leader (now gone) to force the approval of an unheard of judge. The opposition party used this very same option to add a 6-3 conservative majority to the Supreme Court.
So to, here. The Pope intervening on who can celebrate what Mass based on the accidental date of ordination, The Pope saying what can be posted in the parish bulletin, The Pope tying the hands of bishops literally thousands of miles away, completely ignorant of the pastoral needs today WILL provide for similar pastoral activity for the Bishop of Rome later. No one is happy all the time with any Pope. Add to the timing of this optional announcement in the week before Christmas. The process is disgusting and dangerous to the office of every bishop.
Really good and interesting analysis! On a related note, I would love to see an explainer of the differences between liturgical “forms”, “rites”, and “ordinariates”. (Maybe “churches” as well? And if you all have already done this, apologies and maybe someone can point me to the place!) My understanding, which may be wrong!, is that the EF and OF are two forms of the same rite, which seems to put it into a unique category. It seems to my mind to give the Holy Father much more latitude in regulating the EF, because it is by its remaining existence EXTRAordinary (at least in the mind of Pope Francis) and therefore regulations keeping it EXTRAordinary fall more into the purview of the Pope than would be regulation of just any old Mass schedule. Does that make sense? I may have the totally wrong end of the stick though, which is why I need the Pillar!
Very difficult to take Roche seriously while he has yet to issue a clarification that the German Bishops are the Devil Incarnate for trying to perform Same-Sex “marriages” or cracking down on the rampant liturgical abuse of the Novus Ordo.
Very weird to me that politicians can make up their own rules about whether they can receive communion, but bishops cannot make up their own rules about whether their priests can say Mass the same way this month that they did last month. It is a topsy turvy world.
I know that this is a piece of analysis, not a persuasive piece, but I suspect that if someone tried to deploy some of points made here in an argument with Abp Roche, he would only laugh.
It's kind of like when someone tries to use the argument "Sacrosanctum Concilium says that preference should be given to the Latin language and to the pipe organ!"
The documents of Vatican II are one thing, the way that "Vatican II" is deployed in intrachurch arguments is another, and the latter has little to do with the former.
Could you elaborate on that?
It is an interesting question: Did TC and the new clarifications violate the teachings of Vatican II? If so, it would appear that Benedict did the exact same thing with SP by bypassing the local bishop and authorizing an any priest/anytime/anywhere approach. Saint John Paul seems to to have hit the right note vis-a-vis V II by authorizing the Bishops to allow, but regulate the use of the 1962 Missal.
It depends on how you view the TLM. If it is in fact a legitimate mass of the western rite that was never abrogated (as Benedict claims), then the idea that a bishop can tell his priest he's not allowed to celebrate mass would seem to be an abrogation of the rights of the priest. It would be somewhat analogous to forbidding a priest from using the offertory procession even though it's a valid part of the western liturgy. If on the other hand you view the TLM as some sort of alien right that was long ago abrogated that's a different situation.
As is often the case in situations like this what something is informs how it should be used. Benedict has one view and Francis within 15 years decided his predecessor was very very wrong.
Francis didn't 'decide that his predecessor was very, very, very wrong'. The survey of the progress of the Latin Mass was scheduled to be sent 3 years after Summorium Pontificum but wasn't done then. It was well overdue. Perhaps had it been done back then the big problems that we are seeing now may have been nipped in the bud.
Once again you are failing to respond to what I actually said. This comment has absolutely nothing to do with any survey. This comment deals with what Benedict taught about what the TLM is in relation to the NO. And yes, Francis contradicted Benedict on this point quite pointedly.
It has everything to do with the survey because the very fact that Pope Benedict wanted a survey indicates that the value of SP depended on how the TLMs freedoms manifested in practice. That was always going to be from the assessment of the local bishops overseeing it.
What does a survey have to do with what the TLM is? You'll notice I said nothing of the value of SP.
The survey to get the bishops feedback on the freedoms given to the TLM, was part of Benedicts original action. It just happened 10 years later than first proposed. The restrictions on the TLM are the result of it's failure to avoid discord and bring unity.
I don't know much about the suppression of the Jesuits other than that it cited by traditionalists in various discussions, but the suppression was not an indictment on St Ignatius' charism and order itself, but the bad fruits it was being used for at the time. Can you see then that something that is in itself fine, can be used for the wrong ends?
It's quite ironic that this is coming about at the same time as the so called synod on synodality. Does the Vatican expect people affected by all this (or anybody sympathetic to them or even those with a keen sense of justice) to take it seriously?
As many on here are aware of, there are several priest fraternities dedicated to the TLM that were created in cooperation with the Vatican following the SSPX debacle in the 1980s. They were explicitly approved by the Vatican under JPII. They chose NOT to join the SSPX because they wanted to remain in complete communion with the Holy Father. These are folks like the FSSP and the Institute of Christ the King as well as several others around the world. Guess how much they were included in the "dialogue" that took place before TC came out? Zero. Nada. Nobody asked them what they thought, what sort of problems they were seeing in their parishes or anything else. This is how Pope Francis has chosen to treat those who seek to remain faithful - by making them segregated second class citizens without even getting their input first!
And now we're supposed to believe he's interested in synodality? Consider me skeptical.
It's all just so depressing. For those of us with no desire to be "anti-francis" but also can't in good conscience see what happening as anything other than a bully beating up on a small minority, there's nowhere to go. There's no hope in the institutional Church. Nothing to engage in. Nothing to get excited about. I actively try to avoid reading what Francis says, which means it's hard to find anything at all to read about current events in the Church. Just focus on prayer and my local parish. I'm very grateful I have that.
I expect they will invoke the 'Spirit of Vatican II" in their defense.
The unfortunate aspect that behoves strong action, is the growing antagonism and rejection of Vatican II in the TLM movement. It can't just be ignored by the Church. Vatican II is affirmed by all the Popes as a gift of the Holy Spirit and essential to our eschatological journey. This huge aspect isn't being taken seriously as a problem by many but to the ordinary Catholic who by default embraces all that the Magisterium with the Pope, teaches, it's the aspect that means everything.
Two things:
1) This doesn't address my comment. Is it true or not that the Vatican took extreme action against the TLM community without ever seeking their input?
2) The idea that the reason for all this is because the TLM community writ large rejects VII has become such a repeated canard that people don't bother to stop and ask if it's true. The Holy Father would know this if...wait for it...he had bothered to ask these people and listen to them! I know many TLM folks, and not a single one of them "rejects" VII. Heck, even Taylor Marshall doesn't reject VII (at least when I used to listen to him he didn't). You know where you'll find TLM folks that reject VII? The SSPX, which is the one TLM community not affected by TC.
Strong action needs to be just. This action is both unjust and cruel.
With regard to your first point, dialogue with the TLM movement as been a 50 year process and resulted in Pope Benedicts Summorum Pontificum. I believe that this concession has born fruits seen in FSSP, ICKSP and IBP in the US. As far as I know these organisations are not affected by TC an Pope Francis entrusted them to the care of the CDW. Someone might correct me here.
To point 2, as someone who was instantly banned from the major TLM sites on the internet for defending Pope Francis, I can testify that dialogue is not an option. I don't like to link to those sites for any reason or to Taylor Marshall but if you want to search yourself for Taylor Marshalls 2nd March, 2021 response to Pope Francis' statement that Vatican II is the Magisterium, it will give you insight into that particular representative of the TLM movements position.
This is silly. The FSSP and ICKSP were NOT consulted as a part of this. It's a not so subtle slight of hand to say "well people have been talking between these groups for 50 years." The Pope is being told by people he apparently trusts that these TLM folks are nasty people that need a crack down for very specific reasons. Perhaps he should consult with the people the Vatican has been in consultation with for 50 years? Nobody asked them (you know the folks who have the smell of the TLM sheep on them) if these things were true or to what extent they were true. We know this because they've said so. So much for Synodality. BTW - the idea that this doesn't affect the FSSP isn't true. Do you realize that TC banned all future personal parishes based on the TLM? Where will new priests serve? Do you realize that many FSSP parishes share facilities with regular parishes and now they have to find a new home? Do you realize the general stigma the Holy Father has put on the TLM will directly impact them? And will you accept it as just if the Holy Father next turns his ire directly on the Ecclesia Dei communities?
Look - perhaps you shouldn't form your opinions based on online commentary from the most outspoken sources? Do you know any TLM people. I mean really KNOW them? While there are many questions and misperceptions about Vatican II (as you'll find on all sides!), these people do not reject Vatican II.
Here's another way to look at it - Should we ban the Novus Ordo because there are tons of Novus Ordo attending Catholics who reject the teachings of Vatican II? That would be crazy and unjust.
Just the use of the term 'Novus Ordo' shows the anti VII sentiment. I'm 60 and have practiced the faith all my life. I never heard the term Novus Ordo until the TLM movement adopted it. I say to people just say the Ordinary Form or Extraordinary Form as Pope BXVI did in his gift Summorum Pontificum. The vast majority of Catholic alive today have no other experience than the Mass we know today. It's not the 'new' Mass and as I said 'novus ordo' was never a term we used or knew. It's resurrected for a specific reason and it does irritate those of us who lived on the cusp of the changes. Please call the Mass we know and love the Ordinary Form. That would show the good will that the TLM wants from others.
Well you're changing topics now aren't you? Here's the bottom line. Francis has made his call to synodality vacuous by taking this harsh action again a small minority without ever seeking any sort of dialogue with them. The multi-year run up to this was a series of insults about rigidity, funny clothes, breading like rabbits as well as sacking everyone sympathetic to trads. To make matters worse he didn't bother to release the questionnaire (as Paul VI did) from the bishops that supposedly informed him about how awful these people are. Try putting yourself in the shoes of a TLM person who is dumbfounded by what's being said about you with no dialogue and no transparency. Francis has the authority to do what he's doing. Having authority and using it justly and wisely are two different things.
Do you know who coined the term Novus Ordo? Paul VI. Sorry if you don't like it, but you don't get to control language. And it's more than a huge stretch to claim the term coined by the first pope who promulgated the new Mass and closed the VII council shows an anti-VII sentiment. And it's also historically inaccurate to conflate VII with the Novus Ordo as one and the same. The NO came 5 years after the close of the council and 7 (I think) years after the promulgation of Sacrosanctum Concillium. The degree to which VII bounds the Church to the reforms of the Consilium is highly questionable. As you probably know there are many ways in which the NO goes far beyond what the council called for.
My brother is a priest who says both the TLM and the NO. He certainly accepts VII, although he doesn't appreciate the attacks on saying either version of the Mass. So while this aspect means everything, the Pope is wrong about what the TLM people actually believe.
May God bless your brother. Of all the people harmed by TC I think it's young priests who are spiritually fed by the TLM and want to share that blessing with the faithful who are harmed the most. The Holy Father has done nothing but insult and treat with suspicion these priests almost since the day he took office. I bet your brother is also rigid and likes to dress in silly clothes! And heaven forbid, there are probably some women wearing veils at the Masses he celebrates!
He's not a young priest; he's older and experienced the Latin Mass as a child. He dresses in plain old black shirts and pants with a priest's collar. I have no idea what he and his parishioners wear at those Masses because I don't attend them, although I have met some of his parishioners who do, outside Mass.
Few bishops actually have a fraternal relationship with more than a select few of their presbyters, and their chancery officials are very interested in treating parishes as branc offices rather than canonical persons.
Given the rather supine posture of the USCCB when it comes to liturgy, I expect passive-aggressive resistance rather than outright opposition.