What we have to understand here is that there are rights that are given to us by God and rights granted by legitimate authority.
God gives us the right to worship him in the liturgy.
The Church gives us the right to worship him using different rites.
As far as the Latin Rite is concerned, there are only two forms of the Latin Rite, extraordinary and ordinary.
Anyone who says that the ordinary form has not right to exist is in conflict with the Holy See. The Holy See has given the ordinary form the right to exist. It is not up to the laity or any other person in the Church to take away the right of the ordianry form to exist.
As to who may or may not celebrate it. The Motu Proprio is very clear. Every priest has the right to celebrate it. However, priests who belong to religious orders and religious congregations can be denied that right by their major superior as long as the mass is to be celebrated in a chapel or church that belongs to the community.
No major superior may take away the right of a priest who is a religious to celebrate the EF or the OF outside of their premisis. In their premisis the authority of the major superior is final.
In some religious communities, preists are not allowed to celebrate the OF or the EF, depending on the community, on their premises. They must celebrate the form approved by the community. However, if a local bishop or a pastor asks a religious to celebrate either form on diocesan property, the religious is free to do so.
The only priests who can celebrate both the EF and the OF without any intervention from superior are secular priests. The Motu Proprio was written for bishops. Bishops only have authority over secular priests, not over religious. Religious must comply with the wishes of the bishop only if they are on loan to a bishop or employed by a bishop. Other than that, they are bound by the rules and traditions of their religious community.
In the case of Franciscan University, the University is not part of the diocese. It belongs to the Order. Any friar who is also a priest is bound to follow the rules of his superior, not the Mout Proprio. In their case, the superior would not authorize the celebration of the mass in the extraordinary form on their permises. However, the superior did offer the students and faculty free transportation to the local parish where there is an EF mass and is only 10 minutes away. The local parish belongs to the diocese. The University had no obligation to facilitate transportation to a mass off campus, when they celebrate several masses on campus. That was the issue there. But they did offer to transport the students and faculty and they did offer to discuss the matter in their community chapter.
Yes we have a right to the extraordianry form, but it has been given to us by the Church. Christ gave us the right to the Eucharist. The Church decides the form in which it can be celebrated.
Remember, anyone who puts down the ordianry form is contradicting what the Motu Proprio said. The Motu Proprio is very clear that both forms are the same and equal in sanctity.
Yes, the Holy See is also clear that the extraordianry form may not be celebrated during the Easter Triduum This of course does not apply to religious houses such as the Sons of the Holy Redeemer or the chapels of the FSSP. Those are not part of the diocese. Any chapel or church that is part of the diocese must celebrate the Ordinary Form during the Easter Triduum.
As to what happens in FSSP chapels, I have no idea. The Sons of the Holy Redeemer are exempt from this prohibition, because they are religious. FSSP are not religious. They are secular priests. I don’t know what exceptions Rome makes for secular priests under these circumstances.
Religious communities are exempt from many rules that diocesan priests and bishops must follow. By virtue of their vows, their status in the Church is very different from the rest of us.
Hope this clears up the confusion.
JR
)
I will say that since the sainted Pius V and the fathers of Trent were happy to extend the canon to ALL ceremonies that are USED by the Church, as their terminology was, seemingly regardless of how they came (or were to come) about, then I don’t think we can argue that the canon was inapplicable merely because a particular Mass was not ‘handed down’.