Can. 844 §1. Catholic ministers administer the sacraments licitly to Catholic members of the Christian faithful alone, who likewise receive them licitly from Catholic ministers alone, without prejudice to the prescripts of §§2, 3, and 4 of this canon, and ⇒ can. 861, §2.

§2. Whenever necessity requires it or true spiritual advantage suggests it, and provided that danger of error or of indifferentism is avoided, the Christian faithful for whom it is physically or morally impossible to approach a Catholic minister are permitted to receive the sacraments of penance, Eucharist, and anointing of the sick from non-Catholic ministers in whose Churches these sacraments are valid.

§3. Catholic ministers administer the sacraments of penance, Eucharist, and anointing of the sick licitly to members of Eastern Churches which do not have full communion with the Catholic Church if they seek such on their own accord and are properly disposed. This is also valid for members of other Churches which in the judgment of the Apostolic See are in the same condition in regard to the sacraments as these Eastern Churches.

§4. If the danger of death is present or if, in the judgment of the diocesan bishop or conference of bishops, some other grave necessity urges it, Catholic ministers administer these same sacraments licitly also to other Christians not having full communion with the Catholic Church, who cannot approach a minister of their own community and who seek such on their own accord, provided that they manifest Catholic faith in respect to these sacraments and are properly disposed.

§5. For the cases mentioned in §§2, 3, and 4, the diocesan bishop or conference of bishops is not to issue general norms except after con

Indeed.  How do you avoid the conclusion that, despite all appearances, such could not possibly have been (legitimately) promulgated by the (legitimate) authority, whose very raison d'etre is guarding the Faith and good morals?

Indeed.  How do you avoid the conclusion that, despite all appearances, such could not possibly have been (legitimately) promulgated by the (legitimate) authority, whose very raison d'etre is guarding the Faith and good morals?

What are you saying?  I agree that this Canon (especially its subsection 4) is despicable, but what are you saying?

I would be curious to hear your solution, Telesphorous.

Adhering to the Faith and to conscience is the only thing one can do.

It's very dangerous to grant any authority to these independent groups - they seem to be unable to avoid abusing it.

I can accept a mystery, patiently awaiting the happy resolution.  What I cannot accept, even on the level of the merely rational, is (obvious) contradiction.

That Canon Law is infallible is a theological opinion, one that I reject.

In truth, to be an indultarian sedevacantist is not more self-contradictory than other positions.

As an aside, if this matter does not pertain to the Faith, and Canon Law is not infallible, upon what grounds would you argue that this law is problematic, etc?

That Canon Law is infallible is more than a theological opinion--it's considered a theological certainty, the rejection of which would entail a grave sin against the faith even if not heresy in the strict sense.

Really the only question here would be whether infallibility covers in the strict sense something that's permitted or only those things which are mandated.  I would say that the Church cannot actively permit something that's positively evil.

So this certainly makes the sedevacantist position highly probable.

Major:  Canon Law is infallible.
Minor:  1983 Canon Law declares that Holy Communion may be given to schismatics.
-----------------------------------
Conclusion1 (neo-Catholic by way of modus ponentis):  It's OK to give Holy Communion to schismatics.
Conclusion2 (sedevacantist by way of modus tollentis):  Pope who promulgated it could not have been legitimate.
Conclusion3 (SSPX by way of distinguishing the Major):  Canon Law is not infallible in allowing things but only in mandating them [same line of argument they use vis-a-vis the NOM]
Conclusion4 (theological error:  complete denial of the Major)
Conclusion5 (heresy:  complete rejection of infallibility)

And these five conclusions pretty much sum up the entire crisis regarding the Church.