Hilarious statement from the Archdiocese of Chicago about the suppression of the Institute of Christ the King

ABC7 Chicago has a blurb about the Institute of Christ the King’s Shrine on the South side.  This is hilarious.

“On July 31, the Shrine of Christ the King communicated to the archdiocese that they would stop offering Mass and other sacraments at the Shrine. It was their choice to do so,” the archdiocese said in a statement Wednesday.

I couldn’t find that statement on the website of the Archdiocese.  Maybe one of you can.

Think about this.

The Institute was being forced by Cupich into a situation that Cupich knew was a deal breaker.

The Issue: Cupich told them they had to sign something that admitted that the Novus Ordo is the only expression of the Roman Rite… or else.

OF COURSE no one from the Institute could sign that, and he knew it!   Therefore, it was “their choice” to suspend Masses?  B as in B.  S as in S.

It was Thomas More’s and John Fisher’s choice to have their heads cut off.

It doesn’t make any difference how many time and into what sort of document the claim that the Novus Ordo is the “only expression” of the Roman Rite.  It is patently absurd.  It is false.  Repeating it is tantamount to implementation of The Big Lie technique.

The irony of this is that, according to the statement, I supposed the Institute could now respond in another statement that,

“Since it is, according to the Archdiocese, ‘our choice’ to suspend Masses, we’ve changed our minds.  We will restart the schedule forthwith.”

Hey!  Traditional Catholics are pro-choice after all!


The Sun Times has more of the hilarious statement from the Archdiocese.  It only makes what the the ABC station reported worse, if anything:


[A] representative of the archdiocese disputed Blackman, saying the decision to stop the Masses was made by the church.

They chose to discontinue the Masses and sent the archdiocese a letter [on July 31] stating that they would stop offering Mass and other sacraments at the Shrine,” said Susan Thomas, a spokeswoman for the archdiocese. “They were not denied. We did not ban them. They chose to discontinue altogether.

The Shrine had the option to continue Latin Mass under the guidelines and decided not to,” Thomas added. “It is a false statement that we have a citywide Latin Mass ban. That’s simply untrue. Latin Mass is offered in the archdiocese.”

Early this year, Cardinal Blase J. Cupich sent instructions to parishes and shrines for the “continuation of the Latin Mass in a manner consistent with the decree of Pope Francis,” Thomas said.

Cupich stated in the instructions, “As of Jan. 25, 2022, all priests, deacons and instituted ministers need to request and receive permission from the Archbishop of Chicago” if they wished to celebrate the Mass in Latin.

The cardinal listed several conditions that need to be met in making such requests, most of them dealing with recent reforms in the church. “Latin Mass continues in the archdiocese under those instructions,” Thomas said.


This is an example of lying by omission.   An important fact is left out by the Archdiocese’s spox: that the Institute was being forced, in order to stay functioning, to agree to something that the Archbishop knew they could not agree to.   Similarly, St. Thomas More would have taken the Oath of Supremacy depending on the wording.   However, the wording was such that More could not have even a mental reservation about it.  Hence, he had to either lie to himself and to God and sign and thus save his earthly life while committing a mortal sin, or refuse and be imprisoned and killed.    The statement, “Thomas More chose to be beheaded” is the parallel here.

About Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

Fr. Z is the guy who runs this blog. o{]:¬)
This entry was posted in B as in B. S as in S., SESSIUNCULA, The Drill, Traditionis custodes and tagged , . Bookmark the permalink.


  1. Vir Qui Timet Dominum says:

    “Since it is, according to the Archdiocese, ‘our choice’ to suspend Masses, we’ve changed our minds. We will restart the schedule forthwith.”

    That’s some serious art of war, right there.

  2. Ipsitilla says:

    The archdiocese’s statements also keep repeating “Latin Mass” but don’t distinguish between the Latin Novus Ordo and the Traditional Latin Mass. I’m guessing that’s intentional.

  3. Patrick-K says:

    It is funny that they are so defensive and intent on distancing themselves from this and from suppressing the TLM generally. If the TLM is spiritually dangerous or at least not in conformity with V2, then it should be restricted. Right? Didn’t TC say it should be restricted? Is the NO not the sole form of the Latin Rite? Wasn’t that you guys’ whole point…? It doesn’t even make sense… Ephesians 4:18 comes to mind.

  4. B says:

    The Archdiocese should provide a copy of the letter then… The Institute should reveal all their correspondence and return info from the Diocese to set the record straight.

  5. Josephus Corvus says:

    I seem to remember it being said that the Institute holds the deed to the church, so the local police department won’t get involved by someone claiming trespassing. What’s the equivalent in this situation of the head-chopping that St. Thomas More received? For him, that was the choice: sign vs. lose head. There’s an intermediate step in this case. The cardinal is perfectly fine with no signature, unlike the king. The choice is to say Mass anyway. Then we have equivalency.

  6. Orual says:

    The Archdiocese of Chicago is using the ‘pinch of incense’ argument.

  7. Recusant5 says:

    Perhaps the Institute should say this in a public statement; so the Archdiocese cannot get away with equivocation.Also, educate the Media and the Public regarding the Archdiocese’s deceptive statement. We traditionalists need to get more adept at public relations.

  8. APX says:

    If the “Novus Ordo” is the only expression of the Latin Rite, then we’re does that leave the Missal of Divine Worship and Anglicanorum Cœtibus? I wish Bishop Lopes would ask Cupich what he means by that.

  9. Peregrinator says:

    I wish Bishop Lopes would ask Cupich what he means by that.

    Sadly the phrase originates not with Card. Cupich, but Pope Francis himself.

  10. Patrick-K says:

    B & Recusant5 : no faithful Catholics in Chicago believe a word Cupich says. There isn’t much to be gained in expending energy trying to win language games with him. It’s obvious that ICKSP didn’t just decide to stop offering Mass in a church they had just expended a lot of resources to restore of their own volition. Maybe it’s worth making a blog post or something just to be completely clear but if you’re too oblivious to follow what’s happening here I’m not sure how helpful that would actually be.
    Josephus Corvus: I believe the bishop has the legal authority to restrict Masses in his diocese. I’m sure the ICKSP has given this a great deal of thought, and I’m not going to second guess them. I am not a canon lawyer but there is the possibility of their Masses being illicit and incapable of fulfilling our Sunday obligation.

  11. TheCavalierHatherly says:

    Say a private Mass and leave the door unlocked.

    This doesn’t permit the distribution of communion, but people can always go to an Eastern rite liturgy on Saturday evening if they want to receive. That’s what had to be done in these parts for over a year when people didn’t want to be forced to receive communion in the hand.

  12. TonyO says:

    The Institute should indeed hand over the entire correspondence to the media for publication.

    I seem to remember it being said that the Institute holds the deed to the church,

    It may be possible, but it is very unlikely: bishops do not like to hand over parish properties to be owned by others. But what happened here is indeed telling: orders cannot rely on bishops’ good will to last from one bishop to the next, so in this new day of internal persecution, they need to get guarantees before investing huge effort and resources into buildings (and juridic persons like parishes) that they don’t formally own. For instance, they could set up a guarantee of this sort: if the bishop suppresses our ministry here, the bishop has to repay to us the entire construction fund spent on the work (plus interest). This is, in fact, what justice would demand ANYWAY, nowadays they need to get that in writing.

    The statement (oath of loyalty) that Cd. Seepage is demanding is not in Traditionis, the cardinal just made it up to make it harder for the ICKSP to accept terms. While they could have countered by signing a statement that IS actually true, and insist that it is “functionally equivalent” (and then continue saying masses) but my guess is that they didn’t think that would work either, and didn’t want to seem to be disobedient. They might even be right. But they better darn well learn from this that being owned by the bishop means being at the whim of whomever Rome decides is going to be your bishop, and (in today’s world) that’s not likely going to be helpful.

  13. warden607135 says:

    For APX and Perigrinator, the Decree which established Divine Worship (Protocol No. 160/15) contains…

    “Aware that authentic Catholic worship in Spirit and truth has always found expression in diverse forms, this Congregation [CDW] together with the CDF, drawing from various Anglican sources and from the current Roman Missal, has prepared this text for the celebration of the Mass in the Personal Ordinariates.

    “…this Congregation [CDW] by virtue of the faculties granted to it by the Supreme Pontiff FRANCIS, now approves this Missal as a legitimate adaptation of the Roman Rite…”

    The Mass has been approved in Pope Francis’ name, and the decree, signed by Cardinal Sarah, also carries the signature of Abp Roche (of all people).

    Divine Worship is a vernacular adaptation of the current Missal, and should not be in danger. The options which are currently available can encourage a manner of celebration which does have much in common with the TLM — although there are significant differences in using the NO lectionary and no silent canon — but I have no doubt that the greatest minds in the Vatican will soon be set to work on all of that.

    All of that said, and to bring this comment back on topic, the somewhat disingenuous statement of the Archdiocese reflects badly on them — amongst those who are more aware of the situation than the average newspaper reader, anyway.

  14. Recusant5 says:

    You want to educate the secular media and show them what a bully Cupich is. That needs to be explained. If done correctly the media will turn on Cupich as a wicked Cardinal is a good storyline. Cupich fears the media he knows it can be used against him. If done with focus he may ‘like a typical bully , back down.

  15. WmHesch says:

    So is it a fair inference that those priests in Chicago where TLM’s continue (including St. John Cantius) have all committed mortal sins by assenting to the “unique expression” bologna?

    Or is there some Jesuitical nuance?

  16. mo7 says:

    They made them an offer they had to refuse. Hints of mafiosi.

  17. Archlaic says:

    The deed was – indeed! – transferred to the Institute after the fire. Not only did the Archdiocese announce it in a press release, but it was duly recorded at the Cook County Clerk’s office. Anyone can view it online.

    Incidentally it has been reported elsewhere that this was done only after the Archdiocese had received the funds from the insurance settlement… to the best of my knowledge none of that money has been used toward the reconstruction of the church. But the Institute did the deal anyway and (again) raised millions of dollars from the Faithful to rebuild the church. Now, by demanding impossible concessions of the Institute as a condition of continuing the activity – by its lawful owners – for which the church building exists, it seems pretty clear that the Cardinal Archbishop of Chicago has for a second time denied the Institute and their benefactors their equity. (To say nothing of his lack of mercy!)

    I wonder if there are any members of the Chicago news media capable of connecting these dots and asking some questions?

  18. leftycbd says:

    This article:


    states the following about the deed.

    “The Archdiocese deeded the church’s property to the Institute of Christ the King in 2016, but Save the Shrine said it continues to monitor the status of the deed because it includes an option for the property to revert to the Archdiocese.”

  19. Josephus Muris Saliensis says:

    warden607135 – In fact what you say is not quite true. The Ordinariate Missal is NOT a vernacular version of the NO,. The propers fro al Sundays and most feast are from the ‘Tridentine” Missal, and the Roman Canon is obligatory for all but some weekday Masses.

    Thus in terms of the “Lex orandi” the Ordinariate Missal presents the theology of the Mass before Vatican II, namely a true balance of the Mass as Sacrifice, of the repeated awareness of our sinfulness and the need for repentance and forgiveness, the beneficial nature of the prayer of the saints, and the salvific nature of blessings – things which are repeated throughout the prayers of this Missal.

    In that respect, if the Roman Missal represents a divergence from the new Theology, then the Ordinariate Missal was in error the day it was promulgated. Yet, as you rightly point out, two of its signatories, Francis and Bp Roche, are the very ones presenting this contradiction now.

    One can only conclude madness.

  20. Lurker 59 says:

    It is important to consider that the institutional Church is conjoined with the institutional (deep) state and the institutional media. This makes it incredibly constrained in what it is capable of doing, especially in terms of shaping the narrative. Chicago is trying to shape the narrative through the old media. One of the things that conservatives/traditionalists are terrible at is, that while they bemoan the old media, they don’t understand how to leverage the new media to their advantage.

    Taking some points from the thread about 3.5% activism needed to impact change, progressivists are really adept at understanding how to use 3.5% activism to astroturf to create and shape narrative via the new media. All you have to do is have enough content creators talking about specific topics at the same time and then signal boosting that content. It is all about getting the ball rolling, conversations started, and establishing a public record that people can find. This is how narrative is changed, shaped, and you put pressure on the institutions.

    When you go looking for info reguarding

    Archdiocese of Chicago and Institute of Christ the King

    on various search engines, facebook, twitter, youtube, etc. there really isn’t much content out there outside of the little from the MSM. There really should be so so much more from the “3.5%”.

  21. JesusFreak84 says:

    A few sobbing brides on TV, lamenting the cancelations of their weddings, would play VERY well with a populace where so many had to defer their weddings because of WuFlu, IMHO. Cupich also has a reputation for “gentrifying” the Archdiocese, closing minority parishes (aside from St. Sabina’s,) and expecting the parishioners to go to predominantly white parishes. The Shrine also has some wonderful, intelligent, and articulate non-white parishioners; get them on the camera and it looks like the white man’s trying to kick the black man out of his church again, and in either case, Cupich would fold quicker than Sen. Joe Manchin being offered legislative pork. He may not fear God, but he sure fears bad press. If rebuilding continues on the actual church building, it’ll look awfully silly on ABC if they’re building a church they can’t use, and an AG looking to harm Cupich (let’s be real, that’s all of them,) could ask if he’s doing something that’s secularly-illegal.

  22. APX says:

    Ireland is quickly running out of priests. I wonder if they’re desperate enough to bring in displaced traditional societies. They have some very beautiful stone churches made for the Mass.

  23. Philmont237 says:

    This is called “gaslighting.”

  24. Recusant5 says:

    JesusFreak84 is spot on.

  25. I understand that the Institute has judged that it is best to ‘keep silence’ for the time being in the face of this unchristian behavior of Cardinal Cupich. Eventually, though, aren’t they going to have to speak publicly, if only in order to vindicate the truth about the whole lamentable situation? The Cardinal and his lackeys plainly have not done so. God, who is His Providence can give us a new pope, can also provide Chicago with a new archbishop.

  26. Not says:

    In the Law and I have used this in Federal Court, You cannot be forced to sign a document that you don’t believe is true. That would be Perjury and you can’t be forced to commit Perjury. Forcing or threatening these great Priest to sign a document about VaticanII is the same. Remember, when we sign our name we are making an oath before God. People who used to sign with an X was not an X but a cross. My Grandfather signed his Passport with his name followed by a cross.

  27. Not says:

    P.S. There is Case Law to back this up. I would have to go dig it out in my Law books.

  28. Joe in Canada says:

    Whodathunk we might want Andrew Greeley back! “Return of The Cardinal Sins”

  29. Kathleen10 says:

    These people have no concern about the truth, and they’re just managing the damage. Telling obvious lies that can easily be proven false is something they don’t have to worry about. The media won’t care that it’s an outright lie, and most Catholics are so poorly informed they will probably believe whatever the diocese says. Whole swaths of “Catholics” will look the other way while their pope and bishop smashes the most faithful segment to bits for no reason except malice. What they have done to faithful Catholics is evil. To then lie about it openly is a shocking level of evil, if we could be shocked by them anymore. We can’t be.

  30. Pingback: SATVRDAY EDITION – Big Pulpit

  31. KateD says:

    Of course there are a variety of expressions within the Roman Rite. If there were to be only one, it would have to default back to the source, Latin. Otherwise you are cutting yourself off at the roots and setting yourself adrift.

    It’s odd that people who promote diversity such as expression of sexual orientation deny diversity of expression within their sphere of influence and authority.

    The common thread, sadly, is his fidelity to wickedness.

  32. teomatteo says:

    “Just sign the oath and you’ll be set free.”
    “I’m already free.”

  33. tzabiega says:

    The Institute of Christ is looking at the bigger picture. They have parishes around the world while Cardinal Cupich has Pope Francis’ ear. They say something to the press and a month from now Pope Francis will suppress the Institute. For the sake of millions of Catholics elsewhere, the Institute may have to abandon its Chicago parish.
    The interesting thing about the church now owned by the Institute in Chicago is that it was meant to be bulldozed by Cardinal George about 15 years ago. The parish church, however, had been the home parish of at least one liberal Chicago alderman and a few other liberal Democrat politicians. These liberal politicians proclaimed it a historical landmark and so Cardinal George was forced to sell the dilapidated church to the Institute which was doing a favor to everyone by renovating the church. If the Institute abandons the church, which it should instead of wasting more resources on it with Cupich in power, the Archdiocese cannot demolish it and it still needs a lot of work, so Cupich will have to find the cash to do the work. The TLM parishioners will have to travel a bit to the Institute’s parishes in the neighboring Rockford diocese or Milwaukee or to the FSSP parish in the diocese of Joliet, but there is little reason for the Institute to waste anymore time and money on Chicago which it has done so money material and spiritual favors for. Shake the dust of their shoes and leave the wretched city.

  34. JesusFreak84 says:

    tzabiega, not only was Cupich, not the TLM-friendly Cardinal George, in charge of Chicago when the Shrine fire burned, Cardinal George was dead. Not sure how any of this is his fault.

    Also, telling me that I need to drive from here my parents are to MILWAUKEE, at current gas prices, you’re nuts. This is a time where people can LEAST afford to “shake the dust from their feet,” as satisfying as it may be to type that anonymously online.

  35. WVC says:

    Frankly, if the Institute of Christ the King and FSSP haven’t figured out that they will be suppressed eventually (probably by incrementally ordering liturgical compromises with the threat of full suppression behind them until they are either unrecognizable or gone), then they’re not paying close enough attention. Take Francis and his cohorts (including the many Cardinals he has made over the past decade who will be electing Francis’s successor to carry on his perfidious work) at their word – when they say there will only be one expression of the Roman Rite, they mean it. And no matter what one thinks about making the NO “beautiful” – it will eventually be mandated that it must be celebrated in the same “Spirit of VII” that is banishing the TLM. Ad Orientem, Latin, Chant – fuhgeddaboutit. It’ll be mandatory Altar Girls and Gather Hymnals for everyone.

    Whether folks realize it or not, this is a now-or-never, Flight 93 type moment for those who love the Church. Either we push back now, or we will have to figure out how to survive underground, completely cut off from the regular Church. Perhaps that’s the reason the Vatican has been so cozy with China for the past several years – they want China to share notes on how to crush and marginalize those who resist.

    Thank God the SSPX never fell for any of Francis’s traps (or Benedict’s good intentioned but just as harmful offers for full reconciliation). Meanwhile, I hope the many good priests who offer the TLM are doing their best to make their NO parishioners understand that this crisis is going to affect them just as much as the TLM folks. If the good intentioned, faithful NO crowd doesn’t rise up to join the fight, it’s not going to go well for the good guys.

  36. Lurker 59 says:


    The language is highly likely that if Masses are no longer being said that the property reverts to the Archdiocese.


    Not just camera but webcam/phonecam. People should create content and then tag ABC / the Archdiocese when they distribute it. The Archdiocese has a right to its good name but so does the Institute. No need to drag the Archdiocese in this, the raw truth and experience is enough.

    When it comes to weddings, a good contract lawyer could argue that the Archdiocese is financially responsible for the breaches in the contracts.

  37. Christopher Mahon says:

    If the Roman Curia so willingly traffics in legal fictions like TC’s, that the NO is the “only expression of the Roman rite”, then we should question the similar absurdity that the liturgy of the ordinariate is to be considered only an “adaptation of the Roman rite”. Anglicanorum Coetibus explicitly mandated that we use “the liturgical books proper to the Anglican tradition,” and the ordinariate liturgy is firstly distinguished by being a distillation of those books. Yes, there are elements of the NO to be found in the ordinariate liturgy, but there are also elements of the EF to be found therein as well. The decree in question also doesn’t even specify what it means by “Roman rite”. Rightfully, the ordinariates are to use the Anglican liturgy (Catholicized where necessary or appropriate, of course, and approved by the Holy See). The Roman Curia is contorting itself into pretzels in all this. Just let the old rite be Roman, the ordinariate rite be Anglican, and the Novus Ordo be honest about being Novus.

  38. Archlaic says:

    The deed (and other related documents) are publicly accessible on the Cook County Recorder’s website: https://ccrd.cookcountyclerkil.gov/i2/default.aspx

    Doc #s for the deed and memo are: 1606829039 & 1607644053 respectively.

    Being only a legal (and ecclesiatical) laic – however “arch” – I am unable to identify a specific clause in the deed itself which would result in an “automatic” reversion; however there is a subsequent Memorandum which grants the Archdiocese the first option to purchase the property if the Institute sells it.

    The only language which I found mildly concerning was #6 in the list of “use restrictions”:
    “Any activity not listed above which is inconsistent with or contrary to the tenets of the Roman Catholic Church, including canon law, doctrine, moral law or customs, in the sole discretion of the then-sitting Bishop or Archbishop of Chicago”

    Would said Archbishop ever attempt to assert in a civil court that the TLM was in his judgment “inconsistent with or contrary to the tenets of the Roman Catholic Church”? I would not bet the house – or the shrine – against it!

    It would be helpful in understanding the situation if one of the legal eagles commenting on this site could take a quick look at the actual deed for the real estate which the Institute acquired from the Archdiocese in 2016, along with the other relevant documents, and offer an unofficial opinion as to his/her understanding of the rights and obligations of each party.

    The “Property ID Numbers” (PINs) of the church and adjacent buildings transferred in 2016 are:

    PIN 20-23-210-017-0000 appears to be the additional property purchased by the Institute in 2021 from a third party…

  39. tzabiega says:

    To Jesus Freak 84: I am not writing about the fire. That was later. The original parish was St. Gelasius, an Irish parish that was closed and meant for demolition by Cardinal George. Read the following article: https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/ct-xpm-2003-09-03-0309030318-story.html. It was 19 years ago, not 15, so that is my fault with the timing.
    I feel sorry for you having to travel far for the TLM. Except for the first Sunday of the month, when Cardinal Cupich does not allow for the celebration of the TLM in his Archdiocese, you can attend the TLM at St. John Cantius which is about a 30 minute drive from the Institute’s church. On First Sunday’s, you may have to drive to Naperville or Joliet in the Joliet Diocese (google Joliet Latin Mass), about an hour away. My family drives frequently to St. John Cantius which is at least 45 minutes away from our home (depending on Chicago traffic, it can take longer). Yes, gas prices are high, but you are still blessed with more TLM Masses relatively close to you (even if you drive to Milwaukee) than most people in the United States. What do the Wyoming Catholics feel about gas prices when their bishop has banned the TLM in the entire state?

  40. sjoseph371 says:

    For all those suggesting that the Institute just move out of Chicago to a more Traditional friendly area – you may be neglecting a few things:
    1. I believe that they would need the permission of the bishop who granted them their faculties to celebrate in that diocese to move out. [No.]
    2. The bishop of the new area would need to grant them permission to move in.

    For #1 – CC is vindictive enough that he’d deny them that if for no other reason to punish them by keeping them prisoner [No.]
    For #2 – That would require one bishop to basically go against another one. While there are some great shepherds out there, I don’t think there’s any who would go against another in the “club”

    This is why you don’t see other “problem children” like Fr. Altman just pick up stakes and move to another parish in another diocese

  41. Pingback: Una data di scadenza per la Messa in rito antico – Il fumo di Satana

Comments are closed.