Really, Is Fr Hunwicke OK?

I couldn't help but notice a post yesterday at Fr Hunwicke's blog, which reads in its entirety:

Like Vatican II, TC has now (after only twelve days!!) sprouted its own ghastly SPIRIT, which can even be directly contrary to the wording of TC, but still has to be as ruthlessly enforced.

According to Fr Zed, an American cardinal called Gregory has forbidden an Authentic Form Mass in an American church which ... is NOT a "parish church".

Simply a tyranny, isn't it, all this. You have to guess what Hitler or Stalin or that North Korean chappy really want, then you have to enforce it. If you know what's good for you.

This is what tyrants and their lackeys always really expect. They don't really take seriously even their own wretched enactments. They just want you to grovel.

Several things interest me here. It appears Fr Hunwicke thinks Cdl Gregory forbade a celebration of the Latin mass "directly contrary to the wording of TC". But Article 2 of Traditionis Custodes simply says,

It belongs to the diocesan bishop, as moderator, promoter, and guardian of the whole liturgical life of the particular Church entrusted to him, to regulate the liturgical celebrations of his diocese. Therefore, it is his exclusive competence to authorize the use of the 1962 Roman Missal in his diocese, according to the guidelines of the Apostolic See.

We can question Cdl Gregory's judgment in this particular case, but he's doing nothing "directly contrary" to the guidelines of the Apostolic See. § 2 of Article 3 says the bishop

is to designate one or more locations where the faithful adherents of these groups may gather for the eucharistic celebration (not however in the parochial churches and without the erection of new personal parishes)

But it does not imply that any non-parish church is automatically eligible for celebration of the Latin mass. The basilica involved is a non-parish church, but it happens not to be one that the bishop has designated. And the fact is that if a bishop orders something, the Church orders it. Full stop. One thing I'm picking up when I make these visits to Fr Hunwicke is that if I go back and read whatever document he's referring to, it usually turns out not to say what he claims it says.

By the same token, he refers to a post at Fr Z's blog, which I diligently looked up (he didn't provide a link). Fr Z quotes a release from the Paulus Institute, whose celebration of the Latin mass was canceled (italics in original):

We ask this unfortunate reply be met with controlled reactions, whether with strength, substance, and opposition, but without polemics and inflammatory or coarse words, which The Paulus Institute rejects.

So naturally, Fr Hunwicke compares the pope to "Hitler or Stalin or that North Korean chappy" and calls him a "tyrant", with Cdl Gregory his "lackey". Except that Cdl Gregory has had to "guess" nothing; he's acting entirely within his episcopal authority. And even the Paulus Institute is saying yuu may disagree with the cardinal's judgment, but by using intemperate language, you're making Pope Francis's point for him.

But this brings me back to a more basic question. Where does comparing Pope Francis to Hitler, Stalin, and Kim Jong-un stop and calling him the Antichrist begin? There are hundreds of Protestant denominations that have no problem at all with the comparisons Fr Hunwicke is drawing. Pastor John MacArthur, a highly respected Evangelical, insists that the Roman Catholic Church is not a Christian denomination. Might those views actually be more friendly to Fr Hunwicke in his current state?

In fact, Anglicans of old had no problem at all denouncing the Bishop of Rome. Indeed, Article XXXVII makes it plain:

The Bishop of Rome hath no jurisdiction in this Realm of England.

As Wittgenstein would suggest, the solution to Fr Hunwicke's problem will come from the disappearance of the problem. If he will simply renounce his misguided and clearly ill-informed conversion to the Roman church and return to the traditionial and long-established church of his own nation, which gives and has almost always given him full latitude to celebrate whatever liturgy he wants, he'll be much, much happier. Or do I have this wrong?