Emergency canons = a layman’s term which has been around since the start of Traditionalsm in the 70s.  Calm down, man. 

Here is the English translation (modified Deepl) of the nonpossumus article posted by Mr G. Contrast this traditional doctrine with that now posted on the New-Society website cited in the OP:

Thursday, May 22, 2025

NOW THE NEO-FSSPX DOES NOT WANT TO GIVE CONDITIONAL CONFIRMATIONS.

Monsignor Lefebvre always gave conditional Confirmation to the faithful who had received this sacrament according to the new rite of Paul VI, since this rite was of doubtful validity. And the four bishops consecrated by him always did the same.

But now the FSSPX (official website of the British district) has published an article on conditional Confirmation, which says the following in its conclusion:

"The purpose of this article ... is to consider whether or not it is justified to request conditional repetition of Confirmation according to the ancient rite. In answer to the question posed, we can answer: no, unless you have good reason to doubt that your specific Confirmation was invalid when it was performed. Otherwise, rest assured and accept that there are many things that God does not expect you to know with dogmatic certainty in this life. To follow the safest path is to follow the path indicated by the objective principles established by the Church long ago" (read full article here: https://fsspx.uk/en/matters-arising-conditional-confirmation-52375).

Quotes from Monsignor Lefebvre:

... "the sacrament of Confirmation. Now, the current formula is: “I sign you with the cross and receive the Holy Spirit”. You must specify what is the special grace of the Sacrament by which the Holy Spirit is given. If we do not say these words: “Ego te confirmo in nomine Patris...” there is no Sacrament! I also said it to the Cardinals, because they told me: You are giving Confirmation where you have no right to do so!". I do this because the faithful fear that their children will not have the grace of Confirmation, because they have doubts about the validity of the Sacrament that is now administered in the churches. So, in order to have at least this assurance of really having the grace, I am asked to give Confirmation. I do this because it seems to me that I cannot refuse those who ask me for a valid Confirmation even if it is illicit, because we are in a time when the natural and supernatural divine law takes precedence over the positive ecclesiastical law when the latter opposes the former instead of being its channel. We are in an extraordinary crisis“ (”From Luther's Gospel Mass to the Novus Ordo Missae", 1975).

... "I do not hesitate to confirm conditionally when I am asked to do so. The sacrament is too important, especially today, to be neglected" (Letter of Bishop Lefebvre of April 25, 1988. Full docuмent below).

So “the Fraternity could not deviate one iota”? Semper idem?

+ Ecône, April 25, 1988

Dear Father Pivert:

In fact, the sacrament of Confirmation is perhaps the one that raises the most problems today as to its validity.

In Rome, we are criticized for conditional confirmations, to which we reply that we understand the doubts of the parents (this refers to the parents of families. Note from NP):

1° because of the doubtful validity of the translation of the new Latin form which is “accipe signaculum Spiritus Sancti”. What matters is “signaculum”.

How is it translated (...) “Receive the mark” would be clearer than “be marked”. But sometimes it is simply said: “receive the Holy Spirit”, which is certainly not valid.

If “signaculum” is correctly translated, there would be no doubt about the form. Otherwise, there is doubt.

Now there is also the intention. Bishop Bontemps affirmed in his Chambéry Religious Week : " Confirmation does not give the Holy Spirit, but makes one aware of the Holy Spirit received in baptism. "

His confirmations are not valid.

Are there many who now think this way?

2° The matter is also a matter of concern. The tradition of olive oil is such that one can really doubt the validity of any other vegetable oil.

Twenty centuries of use, the reprimands of Rome against other oils, the prayers of consecration all written for olive oil, the general consensus of moralists, the Catechism of the Council of Trent; all force us to think that this matter is of divine intention and that it is part of the substance of the sacrament.

It is possible, but not certain, that many bishops use olive oil, especially in countries where the olive tree grows.

There are many points that raise doubts and are difficult to control, except by writing to the bishoprics to ask what is the form and what is the substance of the sacrament of confirmation.

That is why I do not hesitate to confirm conditionally when I am asked to do so. The sacrament is too important, especially today, to neglect it.

Eventually, it would be up to the parents to write to the bishoprics.

I hope I have answered you sufficiently.

Yours in Christ and Mary,

+ Marcel Lefebvre.

End of nonpossumus article.

These considerations of Archbishop Lefebvre were given 37 and 50 years ago. He considers doubts arising from the matter, the form and the intention. Has anything changed since 1988? Yes, the almost complete disappearance in the Conciliar Church of certainly valid ministers. There is scarcely a priest or bishop alive who was ordained/consecrated in the old rite. That this was a concern of Archbishop Lefebvre is clear from his famous "Letter to Mr Wilson" and the continual practice of the SSPX of conditional ordination of priests who came from the New Church.

The obvious conclusion: ALL confirmations administered in the New Church are doubtful and MUST be repeated under condition.

Second obvious conclusion: The SSPX has abandoned the good fight. The enemy is within.