Has the SSPX always used these terms to refer to their chapels, the laity who attend, and the priest stationed there? I thought that all Society mass locations are technically chapels, and that you cannot be a parishioner because the chapels do not belong to a diocese. Just wondering if there is historical precedent for this, or if it is a neo-SSPX thing

I also noticed recently that a location I attended mass at had an image of the NO diocesan bishop on the wall in the vestibule. Very strange

I would be interested in hearing more about this. 

Has the SSPX always used these terms to refer to their chapels, the laity who attend, and the priest stationed there? I thought that all Society mass locations are technically chapels, and that you cannot be a parishioner because the chapels do not belong to a diocese. Just wondering if there is historical precedent for this, or if it is a neo-SSPX thing

I also noticed recently that a location I attended mass at had an image of the NO diocesan bishop on the wall in the vestibule. Very strange

How is it strange? Doesn't the SSPX recognize the Novus Ordo hierarchy as legitimate, even though they have built a parallel church alongside of it, all in opposition to their "pope"?

How is it strange? Doesn't the SSPX recognize the Novus Ordo hierarchy as legitimate, even though they have built a parallel church alongside of it, all in opposition to their "pope"?

Well, strange in the sense that I have never seen something like that before. In my limited experience with SSPX chapels (4-5 different ones), I do not recall even seeing a picture of Bergoglio until I visited Our Lady of the Assumption in Walton..and it was right next to a picture of St. Pius X! 

Well, strange in the sense that I have never seen something like that before. In my limited experience with SSPX chapels (4-5 different ones), I do not recall even seeing a picture of Bergoglio until I visited Our Lady of the Assumption in Walton..and it was right next to a picture of St. Pius X!

The picture is just a decoration.  SSPX don't in any way treat him as pope.  

Has the SSPX always used these terms to refer to their chapels, the laity who attend, and the priest stationed there? I thought that all Society mass locations are technically chapels, and that you cannot be a parishioner because the chapels do not belong to a diocese. Just wondering if there is historical precedent for this, or if it is a neo-SSPX thing

I also noticed recently that a location I attended mass at had an image of the NO diocesan bishop on the wall in the vestibule. Very strange

I always think of it as, in this case, a figure of speech, and not meant to be taken literally.  No, they're not "churches", you cannot be a "parishioner", and they cannot have a "pastor".  "Proto-parish" and "proto-pastor" would sound kind of weird.

The same would hold true for any chapel or group outside of a diocesan framework (SSPV, CMRI, independent, et al).

I always think of it as, in this case, a figure of speech, and not meant to be taken literally.  No, they're not "churches", you cannot be a "parishioner", and they cannot have a "pastor".  "Proto-parish" and "proto-pastor" would sound kind of weird.

The same would hold true for any chapel or group outside of a diocesan framework (SSPV, CMRI, independent, et al).

And the same has been true of many Mass stations in the diocesan church structure, including before VII.  Most Catholic hospitals, and many shrines and schools, would have and still have Masses open to the public on weekdays, sometimes Sundays and Holy Days.  These locations were usually referred to as chapels rather than parish churches, those attending weren't parishioners, the priests who cared for these locations were chaplains rather than pastors.

No, they have not always used those terms.  It doesn't seem that long ago that the chapels were referred to as "Mass Centers".  
The chapel in Linden, VA is what I would consider a hybrid chapel - half SSPX and half diocesan parish.  That is what they are working towards, full integration into the diocesan structure.  If the local bishop (Burbidge) wasn't so opposed to the Society I think it would be no different than an indult "parish", and there would be N.O. priests offering the sacraments to the mostly willing "parishioners" when the Society priests needed help.  With 90% of the faithful being Summorum Pontificuм induters who bounce back and forth, what difference would it make to them?  Those of us who would have a problem with it are a very small minority. It's only a matter of time until the deal with Rome is revealed, and with Francis on his last leg, it may be soon.