As far as a chapel is concerned, everything depends on whether the chapel belongs to the diocese or to the institute. If the chapel belongs to the diocese, it must operate according to the wishes of the bishop. If it belongs to the institute, then it operates according to the norms that govern the institute. Obviously, there are points in Canon Law, SP, UE, and the Sacred Congregation for Institutes of both: Consecrated Life and Societies of Apostolic Life, Ecclesia Dei, the constitutions of the institutes, the vision of the founder and other agreements that enter into the picture here. Most of the faithful are not privy to all of these laws, regulations, indults, and constitutions that play into the final arrangements. That’s why I’ve been saying that the laity should back off this subject and let the SSPX and the Vatican sort through this. Stop acting like the kid at Christmas who wants to get a sneak preview of what’s under the tree. We’ll find out in good time. Jeesh, so impatient and so curious about things that we have no voice in anyway. At the end of the day, if the SSPX and the Vatican agree that the SSPX will celebrate mass in ancient Greek, wearing togas, guess what? We have to live with it.
For this reason, I said in my previous post that it all depends on the setup that you have. The setup is part of the agreement that you make with the Vatican. Bishops cannot override these agreements. Look at Opus Dei, the Military Ordinariate, the Anglican Ordinariate, even the Oriental Churches that are under the oversight of the Latin bishops. There are parameters that the bishops must respect. However, there are also parameters that each institute must respect.
The big thing right now is to stop the proselytizing. We do not have two Churches and two Latin Rites. There is only one Latin Catholic Church and only one Roman rite with two expressions. Everyone on board must profess this and hold this to be true. They are equal in dignity, efficaciousness, validity, and holiness. Everyone must hold this to be true. When they are celebrated correctly, they are part of the living tradition of the Church. Everyone must hold this to be true. Everyone is allowed to have a preference without impunity. No one should be singled out or punished for a preference, unless you belong to a religious order. The laity does not belong to religious orders; neither do secular priests. They don’t have to worry about penalties and consequences in this regard.
The other thing that will be coming up soon is going to be a request from religious superiors of men asking the Holy Father to set the record straight concerning consecrated men. It seems that with this whole tug of war over the EF and OF, many lay people are placing too much stress on the mass and ignoring the vision, mission and charism of the religious life, to the detriment of the religious. Basically, the religious superiors would like to see the faithful reminded of the Right of Exemption granted to the orders by the Council of Trent. Under the Right of Exemption, neither the laity nor the local bishop may ask religious priests, brothers or sisters for anything that is contrary to their laws. This is especially true on such matters as the form of the liturgy that the institute uses, the use of habits, the use of language and other customs. It boils down to this. If you belong to a parish run by Vincentians and the Vincentian superior wants his men to do things in a particular way and Rome approves, you must comply. If you cannot comply, you are free to leave the parish and find another. However, you may not contradict the Vincentian superior. He has rights given to him by the Holy See and the bishop agreed, in your name, to respect those rights and regulations when he offered them the parish. You cannot call wrong what the Church calls right. You can say that you don’t like the flavor. That’s OK. I hate Mint Chocolate Chip ice cream. But it’s not bad.
As you can see, there is a lot here. It’s very intricate. For that reason, I believe that we’re better off not speculating what is in the preamble, what the SSPX is going to say, what the regulations governing the relationship between the SSPX and the Vatican are going to be. For all we know, the Vatican can create new regulations on the spot to meet the needs of the situation as it did with the Jesuits in the 1500s, the Opus Dei in the 1900s and the Anglicans in this century. We can’t handcuff the papacy. The papacy can handcuff us, but not the other way around. At the end of the day, the papacy has the final word. That final word is not going to come until we hear from the SSPX.
Put aside the speculation. Put aside the arguments and the apologia for one side or the other. It’s getting ridiculous that we can’t speak about these things as the saints would speak about them, with great respect, kindness and trust. It does no honor to God or to the Church, to defend one position or another at the expense of good manners, which is the sister of charity.
St. Anthony of Padua was one of the foremost preachers against heresy. However, he was the most polite and kind brother to heretics. When he met a person in error, he always reminded himself that he had erred many times and he remembered Francis words, “any Franciscan who engages in argumentation, even to defend the faith, sins gravely against charity.” Argumentation is not the way to do things.
We have too much arguing and not enough washing of each other’s feet.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
Nothing, the SSPX believes the NO is valid but ‘wrong’ even ‘evil’. That is all. Can someone actually find a single sweeping statement that the SSPX believes all NO masses are invalid or the rite of mass is itself invalid? If not people should realise that continuing to make these claims without evidence is commiting calumy, which regardless of our disagreements with the person or organisation is still wrong.