Article 3 outlines six directives tasked to the local ordinary. We will cover these carefully, one at a time.
Art. 3. The bishop of the diocese in which until now there exist one or more groups that celebrate according to the Missal antecedent to the reform of 1970:
§1. is to determine that these groups do not deny the validity and the legitimacy of the liturgical reform, dictated by Vatican Council II and the Magisterium of the Supreme Pontiffs;
I’ve read one or more online objectors complain about the “fuzziness” of Traditionis Custodes. It seems clear enough that Pope Francis is allowing the local bishop the leeway to make his own assessment.
One possible example from 3§1: does one traditional Catholic blogging about the evils of Vatican II sink her or his whole community on this point? I would tend to doubt a bishop would be that harsh. A pastor? That might be another matter. If a church leader was spreading lies about liturgical reform, that could well poison an entire community of believers. Likewise parish bulletins promoting an anti-validity message. Who decides how much denial might be a problem? That would be the bishop.
It really couldn’t be anyone else. Lone ranger priests have proven a problem and even an occasional scandal. There is also no traditional basis for anyone other than a bishop to be the chief liturgist of a diocese. It is part of the job description.
It can’t–or shouldn’t–be the pope. There is no way a single person could monitor the communities of a few thousand dioceses. The bishop bears the heavy lifting on this one. He alone must make the assessment asked of him.
The approved English translation is here.
An ordinary of a large diocese may need to more actively involve auxiliary bishops and vicars forane aka deans. But he shouldn’t pass the buck to them to retain plausible deniability, as was the case in abuse cover-up scandals.