There is one important point that has been mentioned here, which I had put out of my mind. However, it is true. When speaking about any organization that is in the situation in which the SSPX finds itself, it is important to remember that the rules that apply to the laity are not the same as those that apply to the clergy. The reason is simple. The theology of the laity and the theology of Holy Orders address different states in the Church. Canon Law has to build on the proper foundation. It cannot create laws for the laity based on the theology of Holy Orders or of religious life. The law will make certain concessions to the laity that it does not make for clerics and vis a vis.
It’s also important to remember that the Society is a secular society. It is not an Institute of Consecrrated Life. Therefore, it will not have the same freedoms that religious orders and religious congregations of Pontifical Right have. Nor will it be exempt from certain points in canon law as are religious orders of men. One of those points is the issue of ordination. In religious orders of men the bishop has no authority over whom he ordains. He must ordain whomever the major superior calls forth for Holy Orders. In addition, the major superior grants faculties to the ordained members of his religious institute in their own chapels. A secular society cannot do this. They don’t have a religious superior. Canonically, the bishops of the SSPX are not religious superiors, since they are not consecrated religious. They are bishops, but they are not religious. Therefore, they do not have jurisdiction in the diocese of another bishop. Whereas, religious superiors have canonical jurisdiction in their own chapels, oratories, universities, hospitals, schools, friaries, monasteries, houses of formation and any other fixed place that belongs to the community. They don’t need the local bishop’s approval for certain things such as hearing confession in their chapels. It is only when they set foot in the bishop’s terrain that they need faculties from him.
A good example that I can give from my own religious family is our colleges. We have several universities around the world. Take any of the Franciscan universities. No bishop can deny faculties to any of our friar priests to hear confessions on our campuses. The highest ranking authority is not the bishop, but the major superior. The bishop can suspend any of our friars from functioning in his diocese, but no in any of our own facilities. This is not the case with the Society, because they are secular, not exempt religious.
Interestingly enough, if it were not for the superceding suspension by Rome, any religious superior coudl grant an SSPX priest faculties to hear confessions in a religious house or an institution that belongs to a religious order. You don’t have to belong to the order. You just have to be on their turf. Theoretically, the major superior of Franciscan University could grant an SSPX priest full faculties while on campus, if the suspension had been imposed by a bishop. When it comes to Rome, that changes things. All religious orders are subject to obey the Holy See, except in those areas where the Holy See has exempted them. Those are found in the constitution of each religious order.
For example, when the Motu Proprio released the TLM, it specifically mentions that religious priest must have the permission of their major superior and that such permission can be given according to the norms of the religious institute. Whereas, the Motu Proprio said that any priest can celebrate the TLM, but it has one single clause in it that excludes regular priests. That’s an example where the religioius is exempt from implementing a mandate by the Holy See. The Society does not have this coverage.
Therefore what is said about the laity being able to fulfill their Sunday oblgiation at an SSPX chapel does not mean that the SSPX priests can celebrate mass licitly. We have a similar situation in my community. We cannot witness marriages except with the permission of the local bishop, not even in our own chapels. We can hear confessions and absolve. But witnessing marriage is not allowed to us, except with permission of the local bishop and it must take place in a diocesan chapel or parish, not one of our own. We cannot baptize in our chapels without the permission of the local pastor, because our chapels are not parishes. We have no way of recording the baptism. We must get the local pastor’s permission to baptize in one of our chapels and record the baptism in his parish. It would make sense that an SSPX chapel must follow the same rules, since they are not canonical parishes. Therefore, if they baptize without the permission of the local pastor, it is valid, but ilicit. It begs the question, what is the home parish of the new baptized? You must belong to a parish community, except in the case of an emergency. If the SSPX chapels say that they are keeping records of baptisms and first communions, then this creates another problem. Are they chapels or are they parishes? If they are parishes, who erected them? Only diocesan bishops can erect parishes. No bishop can erect a parish in a diocese that’s not his own.
There are the little complexities that do not apply to the laity, but do apply to the clergy. What was said above about the difference in rules for the clergy and the laity is a valid point.
Fraternal prayer for this holy season,
Br. JR, OSF
