croix - I don't think it can be said with certainty that this action of the nine summoning +Lefebvre to court is uncanonical and therefore worthy of excommunication.  And, I am not a supporter of the nine.  I am only sympathetic to the sspv portion of them.  Because, when this occurred(1981 I think), the sspx was not in a canonically regular situation, similar to today.  Is that not correct?  So, it is arguable that canon law would not apply, no matter how well or how much we hold ourselves to it.  Because, if the sspx is not canonically regular, then a superior(+Lefebvre in this case) does not have canonical authority.  And, it is canonical authority when taken to civil court that is excommunicable.  No matter how important it is to follow previous canon law, or how well it is followed, the pope is the ultimate authority in the church no matter how heretical he is.  And, well, things have changed.

For argument's sake, even if Archbishop Lefebvre wasn't canonically regular *, he was still a bishop.   That's not nullified due to his canonical status. Old Code of Canon Law says no Catholic can bring a civil suit against a Catholic bishop, lest they become automatically excommunicated. Does it elaborate on the canonical status of the defendant bishop? If Archbishop Lefebvre was really excommunicated by JPII, did that mean he was no longer Catholic? He certainly wasn't a schismatic or heretic. He was a Catholic bishop, so any Catholic (Sanborn, Dolan, Cekada, et al)  who brought a civil suit against him was automatically excommunicated, were they not? 

* Can heretics really excommunicate a true Catholic, thereby, making him canonically irregular in the Eyes of God? That's like a tranny saying a woman is no longer a woman because she didn't "transition" from a man like the tranny, who claims to be a "woman", did...

Croix - by the way, after re reading +Williamson's letter about this, I totally agree with him.  However, he is not at all explicitly disagreeing with what I am saying.  

+Williamson is just exposing the nine for the frauds that they are.  And, he does it perfectly.  But, +Williamson never assumes authority to say they are officially excommunicated.  And, I cant recall if you go so far as to think that.  But, I am just playing devils advocate.  Because, we have to walk a fine line.  

"Hence, according to the only Code of Canon Law which they themselves recognize, these five priests are excommunicated!"

For argument's sake, even if Archbishop Lefebvre wasn't canonically regular *, he was still a bishop.   That's not nullified due to his canonical status. Old Code of Canon Law says no Catholic can bring a civil suit against a Catholic bishop, lest they become automatically excommunicated. Does it elaborate on the canonical status of the defendant bishop? If Archbishop Lefebvre was really excommunicated by JPII, did that mean he was no longer Catholic? He certainly wasn't a schismatic or heretic. He was a Catholic bishop, so any Catholic (Sanborn, Dolan, Cekada, et al)  who brought a civil suit against him was automatically excommunicated, were they not?  

* Can heretics really excommunicate a true Catholic, thereby, making him canonically irregular in the Eyes of God? That's like a tranny saying a woman is no longer a woman because she didn't "transition" from a man like the tranny, who claims to be a "woman", did...

As of 1984, +ABL was only "suspended", not "excommunicated".  He wasn't supposedly "excommunicated" until 1988.  

Would you mind linking for me the canon law text regarding this?   I would like to see it.  

And, if it is as simple as not being allowed to take a catholic bishop to court(no matter the status), as long as said bishop is not excommunicated, which +Lefebvre was not at the time in 1981.  Then, all one would have to argue is that there is new canon law,and the old does not apply.  However, when that is argued by sedevacantists/the nine, who I think still try to operate by the old canon law, then it becomes really a pathetic poor argument.  But, they are in error anyways, who cares.  However, we should not be in error about how to apply ecclesiastical penalties.  And, to say they are officially excommunicated, is just not safe.  We do not have the argument nor the authority.  

I hoped to find the 1917 Code of Canon Law in English translation on Archive, but it's not there.

This is the best I could find, but I don't know if the ecclesial Latin is correct, nor do I know if the content is correct.

http://www.jgray.org/codes/cic17lat.html

Also, you might find it in this: A commentary on the new Code of the canon law (all volumes), by Dom Charles Augustine Bachofen; published 1918:

https://archive.org/details/1917CodeOfCanonLawCommentary

Here is a more likely reliable ecclesial Latin 1917 Code:

http://www.intratext.com/X/LAT0813.HTM

For argument's sake, even if Archbishop Lefebvre wasn't canonically regular *, he was still a bishop.   That's not nullified due to his canonical status. Old Code of Canon Law says no Catholic can bring a civil suit against a Catholic bishop, lest they become automatically excommunicated. Does it elaborate on the canonical status of the defendant bishop? If Archbishop Lefebvre was really excommunicated by JPII, did that mean he was no longer Catholic? He certainly wasn't a schismatic or heretic. He was a Catholic bishop, so any Catholic (Sanborn, Dolan, Cekada, et al)  who brought a civil suit against him was automatically excommunicated, were they not?  

* Can heretics really excommunicate a true Catholic, thereby, making him canonically irregular in the Eyes of God? That's like a tranny saying a woman is no longer a woman because she didn't "transition" from a man like the tranny, who claims to be a "woman", did...

If a SSPX priest opted to go Resistance and decided to bring a civil suit against Bishop Fellay, would he be excommunicated from the Catholic Church?

All cases against clerics, both civil and criminal, 
must be brought into the ecclesiastical court, unless for 
some countries other provisions have been made. 

Cardinals, Legates of the Holy See, bishops, even titu 
lar ones, abbots and prelates nullius, the supreme heads of 
religious bodies approved by Rome, the major officials of 
the Roman Curia in reference to business belonging to their 
office, cannot be sued in the secular courts without permis 
sion of the Holy See. All others, clerics and religious, who 
enjoy the privilege of the forum, cannot be sued in a civil 
court without permission of the Ordinary of the place where 
the case is to be tried. The Ordinary, however, should not 
refuse such permission, if the suitor be a lay person, espe 
cially after his attempts to effect an agreement have failed. 

If clerics are sued in the civil court by one who has not 
obtained the permission, they may appear in court because 
they are forced to obey the summons if they want to protect 
themselves against more trouble, but they shall inform the 
Ordinary from whom permission should have been obtained. 
(Canon 120.)

So.....it appears that under normal circuмstances permission is required from either the "Holy See" (aka the pope) or the Ordinary (aka the Diocesan Bishop).  Exactly how would that work during those not-so-normal times?  

I have no qualms with the Thuc-line. Des Lauriers was the confessor of Pope Pius XII and actually helped pen the Dogma of the Assumption of the BVM, as well as the Ottaviani Intervention. The most knit-picking and extreme group out there has said that there is no positive doubt in the matter. I admire Father Jenkins, but he truly makes no case for positive doubt of the Thuc lline. I've heard Fr. Jenkins call into question every single bishop except for the Lefebvre and Mendez line. He has even stated in one of his videos that the Eastern Orthodox episcopal lineage is dubious!!! The Church has never said such. He literally has a video about the finding of the child Jesus in the temple that is amazing except that he interrupts it for a few seconds to take a jab at Thuc line bishops saying that if they will justify the Thuc consecration that they will justify anything as if it were the worst evil to ever take place on the face of the earth. I've got to say that I admire the SSPV's wisdom in all areas except the Thuc line. It seems as if it is more personal than based on solid principle. I mean, if it was that serious to them, why not attempt to unite Traditional Catholics by offering to conditionally consecrate their bishops and clergy with their esteemed Mendez-line? Would one be correct in assuming they lack the charity to do so??

Yes, one of the nine personally told me that then-Father Kelly stated something along the lines of "we can't say that the Thuc bishops are valid, because then people might go to them."  Ineed, they're obsessed with the Thuc bishops.  SSPV used to have that cable TV show "What Catholics Believe" and they'd have great shows on various Catholic topics but rarely failed to find a way to digress from an otherwise-excellent program to take jabs at the Thuc bishops.

What's ironic is that EVERY SINGLE ARGUMENT that the SSPV has used against the validity of the Thuc line applies EVEN MORE to the Mendez consecration of +Kelly.