I know of a long time traditional resistance Catholic living in a suburb of a big metro area who refuses to continue going to the SSPX.  He has a chapel of sorts in the basement of his house where he keeps the Blessed Sacrament reserved.  I have attempted without success to elicit a response from him as to his justification, if any, for doing this.  He and his family are visited every once in a while by a visiting traditional cleric who offers the Mass in his chapel.

I was wondering if anyone reading this could offer any sort of justification based in Canon Law and or otherwise as to the legitimacy of a layperson reserving the Blessed Sacrament in their home.

Chapels in homes and priests celebrating Mass in those chapels as well as reserving the Blessed Sacrament in those chapels was once common, especially in the upper classes in Europe.  The Church never forbid the practice, but such became rare for a variety of reasons:  costs involved discouraged the faithful from establishing and maintaining such chapels, the faith waned in much of the upper classes, Protestant persecutions, however slight, of Catholics tended to encourage Catholics to band together more (and the upper classes in America tended not to be Catholic anyway), and an insufficient number of priests being available in the New World to provide for the needs of parishes prevented priests doing such things.

Frankly, I think it is you who are being unreasonable here.  Have you not paid attention to what is going on in the SSPX during the past few years?  Rather than trying to get this man to abandon his safe haven against the coming destruction of the SSPX priesthood (which will happen when the SSPX is regularized and there is more cooperation between the SSPX and the Conciliar bishops), perhaps you should seek to cling to the lifeboat he has created in his home.

By the way, in answer to your question about Canon Law, I found the following:

In his commentary (published in 1918) on Canon 1188 concerning oratories, the Rev. P. Chas. Augusting, OSB, DD, writes:  "The term oratory occurs in the fourth century and signifies a house of prayer. Later it was restricted to small or private chapels."  Later, he expands on this explanation:

"Private or domestic oratories are those erected in private homes for the convenience of a family or private individuals. The term family must here be taken in its strict sense, and excludes artificial persons and corporations. But it includes all the inhabitants of a house living under the authority of the same paterfamilias. Private oratories exist in private homes, which signifies exclusive ownership, so that no public servitude or easement can deprive them of their private character. We find such oratories in the homes of wealthy citizens, in villas, castles, and summer resorts."

Clearly, he is not violating either the letter or the spirit of the law simply because he is maintaining a chapel "of sorts" in his home.

P.S.  We should not use the term "home alone" to describe this man.  The term has come to mean those who have forsaken all priests as invalid or not lawful and worship must, in principle, be done without clergy and at home.  This man is clearly not a "home aloner".

Just read a WWII book by a duchess from Germany who had a chapel in her castle/house.  Probably had one in every house (and they owned 6-7).  Sounded normal.

I do know that there are certain requirements that must be met.

Physical security is one of them. The Blessed Sacrament must be under 3 keys. For example, the tabernacle is locked, the church is locked, and to get that key you have to go into the sacristy, which is also locked. That kind of thing.

The Blessed Sacrament must be renewed every so often, so the priest needs to be able to come at least once every ___ weeks.

A beeswax sanctuary lamp must be kept burning 24/7, so everyone who happens upon the oratory knows that God is there, and due reverence can be given.

Last but not least, God shouldn't be left alone for days on end. An oratory or chapel should have enough "parishioners" that someone can spend at least 15 minutes a day in front of the Blessed Sacrament.

The one responsible for the Blessed Sacrament is the priest. He is taught when to reserve the Blessed Sacrament in a location, and when not to. If someone breaks in and commits outrages against Our Lord, it is the priest who is ultimately responsible. That is why a priest will always be careful.

The Code of Cannon Law does not allow for the reservation of the Blessed Sacrament in private chapels without approval from the local ordinary. So, no, technically a resistance oratory in a home can not repose the blessed sacrament in the tabernacle.

Quote from: RogerThat

The Code of Cannon Law does not allow for the reservation of the Blessed Sacrament in private chapels without approval from the local ordinary. So, no, technically a resistance oratory in a home can not repose the blessed sacrament in the tabernacle.

Oh, aren't we getting technical now?

Let's let Bp. Fellay desecrate the Holy Eucharist in a Novus ordo/Tridentine split tabernacle instead.

Please state 1 instance that Bishop Fellay has desecrated the Holy Eucharist.
You can argue with his statements and principles but don't question the validity of his sacraments or use Our Lord's sacraments as a toy where you can just claim desecration or invalidity whenever you disagree with a priest/bishop.

Quote from: Incredulous

Quote from: RogerThat

The Code of Cannon Law does not allow for the reservation of the Blessed Sacrament in private chapels without approval from the local ordinary. So, no, technically a resistance oratory in a home can not repose the blessed sacrament in the tabernacle.

Oh, aren't we getting technical now?

Let's let Bp. Fellay desecrate the Holy Eucharist in a Novus ordo/Tridentine split tabernacle instead.

Please state 1 instance that Bishop Fellay has desecrated the Holy Eucharist.
You can argue with his statements and principles but don't question the validity of his sacraments or use Our Lord's sacraments as a toy where you can just claim desecration or invalidity whenever you disagree with a priest/bishop.

1. I agree that we should be accurate, stick to facts, not let our criticism cross over into hatred, etc.

2. Nevertheless, Incredulous never said it was past tense.

What exactly do you think unlawful truck with Rome is going to lead to? Why do most Catholics instinctually think it's a bad idea? There has to be a reason.

Peace with infidels leads to things like shared tabernacles. That, of course, would lead to a de-facto, "gentle" desecration of the Blessed Sacrament as the Real Presence is handed out to faithless Novus Ordo attendees wearing beach attire -- into their hands, of course. And by faithless I refer to many/most of them, but not all of them. Many of them are objectively in mortal sin as well, due to bad catechesis and poorly trained priests.

While it's true that some Trads are in mortal sin, those bad Trads can't be blamed on the priests. The bad Novus Ordo Catholics, on the other hand, are BECAUSE OF where they attend Mass. The priests are actually to blame.

The Code of Cannon Law does not allow for the reservation of the Blessed Sacrament in private chapels without approval from the local ordinary. So, no, technically a resistance oratory in a home can not repose the blessed sacrament in the tabernacle.

Is that per the 1983 Code or the 1917 Code?