the new 1983 Code contains, among others, this conciliar innovation that authorizes “Eucharistic hospitality” which the preceding Code forbade and sanctioned as “communicatio in sacris”.  Which is now on the record.

Art. 3, 4° of the Normae of 2010 reserves to the Supreme Tribunal of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF) only the delict of concelebration of the Eucharistic Sacrifice/Divine Liturgy with ministers of ecclesial communities which lack apostolic succession and which do not acknowledge the sacramentality of the priesthood–e.g., “Protestant” ministers.

§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.

§1. It is not licit for the faithful by any manner to assist actively or to have a part in the sacred [rites] of non-Catholics

    The only sacraments which the Church allows to be given by non-Catholic ministers are those which are absolutely required for salvation, that is, Baptism and Penance. In danger of death and in the absence of a Catholic capable of baptizing, one should ask for this Sacrament even from a non-Catholic. In danger of death, a Catholic who has fallen into mortal sin after his Baptism, in the absence of a Catholic priest, should ask even a non-Catholic priest for the sacrament of Penance.

    For the sacraments not necessary for salvation, the Church never allowed the faithful to go to a non-Catholic minister.

    This is particularly required for the sacrament of Holy Eucharist, which is the Sacrament of the unity of the Church. To participate in this Holy Sacrament with someone who does not belong to this unity is to introduce “a lie” in the sacrament, depriving it of its signification. One wonders what “genuine spiritual advantage” can be obtained at such a price! Everyone can see on the contrary the havoc wrought by these so-called “inter-celebrations.”

    A Catholic priest cannot give the Sacraments to a non-Catholic, for he is outside the unity of the Church, with the sole exception of the Sacraments of Penance or Baptism, given precisely that he might become a Catholic.

    The condition put here: “provided that they demonstrate the Catholic Faith in respect of these Sacraments and are properly disposed,” does not render this Canon acceptable. Indeed, either one requires in them the real Catholic Faith, therefore the repudiation of their errors and their return to the Unity of the Church, and thus there is no more need of such a Canon, or one requires only that they agree with the Catholic Church on the one particular point of Faith in question. But this latter alternative is insufficient, since the Faith is not divisible, it is one theological virtue. One cannot accept it on one point and reject it on another point.

Yes, this '83 Code is what is being ingrained into the minds of submissive parishioners.  
I just spoke to a lady who attends an SSPX Mission Chapel.
She keeps insisting to me that SSPX Headquarters has told her 2x in the past 2 weeks "We (implying priests & parishioners) are not sedevacantists, we follow the pope and the new code of Canon Law.  You trust Bp. Fellay right?  He will not do anything that will be harmful to our souls."

Quote from: Ambrose

Quote from: holysoulsacademy

Yes, this '83 Code is what is being ingrained into the minds of submissive parishioners.  
I just spoke to a lady who attends an SSPX Mission Chapel.
She keeps insisting to me that SSPX Headquarters has told her 2x in the past 2 weeks "We (implying priests & parishioners) are not sedevacantists, we follow the pope and the new code of Canon Law.  You trust Bp. Fellay right?  He will not do anything that will be harmful to our souls."

Which headquarters?  Menzingen or St. Mary's?  

If the SSPX now affirms that they follow the new Code, then are they then admitting that they adhere to the heretical canon 844?

If this is the case, this is a major development of thinking of the SSPX leadership that has gone unnoticed.  

I am assuming here in the US as she has no means to call overseas or would have any inclination to do so.  
She said the priest designated to their chapel at the moment basically said the same to her, they follow the pope and follow the new canon because "we are not sedevacantists".  
The way they (SSPX) keeps throwing that word around reminds me of how the NO would (and still do) throw around the word "schismatic" when referring to those that attend SSPX.

It was the promulgation of the 1983 Code of Canon Law that convinced Archbishop LeFebrvre to consecrate bishops.