It's in the Library, of course, but what does the SSPX leadership think of it?  This paragraph seems, for me, to sum things up nicely:

"We considering a matter of this kind to be of so grave and perilous a nature that even the Roman Pontiff, who is the viceregent of God and the Lord Jesus Christ upon earth, having a plenitude of power over nations and kingdoms, judging all and being judged of none in this present world, may nevertheless be reproved if he is found deviating from the faith-and (considering moreover) that where there is greater danger there should be also a fuller and more diligent consultation, lest false prophets or others having secular jurisdiction also, should entangle miserably the souls of the faithful, and should draw down with them into perdition and destruction the innumerable peoples committed to their charge and government in spiritual or temporal matters, and so it might happen that we should see the abomination of desolation spoken of by Daniel the Prophet, in the holy place.  We therefore desiring as far as with God's help we can, in virtue of our pastoral office, to capture the foxes who seek to destroy the Lord's vineyard and to drive the wolves from the fold; lest we should seem like dumb dogs unwilling to bark and be compared to bad husbandmen and mercenaries;" (cuм ex Apostolatus Officio, 1)

This is not a discussion about sedevacantism, so if you would please, let's restrict this to the SSPX's views on this docuмent.

The bolded part actually undermines one of the premises of the sedevacantist, namely that position of "recognize and resist" is untenable.  There are principles of the moral and natural law, as well as doctrinal points which are immutable within the docuмent, and with which no one could argue against, but as far as it is considered as a canonical directive, I think it has lost its force.  

Quote from: Jehanne

What caused (again, from the perspective of the SSPX) the docuмent to lose its "canonical directive"?

I believe it has to do with the Code of 1917 -- i.e., once that code became law, cuм ex no longer held.

Reference?  Is it in the 1917 Code?  The 1983 code abrogated the 1917.

We all do.  Of course, SSPX priests do not always agree with each other.  I am looking for someone "in the know."  If you do not have time for this, just stop posting.   :bob-marley:

The 1917 Code of Canon Law was not a "new law".  It was merely the codification into one volume of the body of law that already existed in the Church.  cuм ex Apostolatus was the basis of Canon 188.4 which reads, in English, "Any office becomes vacant upon the fact and without any declaration by tacit resignation recognized by the law itself if a cleric publicly defects from the Catholic faith."  

I'm wondering why all the topics are coming up declaring them off-limits to sedevacantist arguments.  If anti-sedevacantist arguments were so compelling they would be able to stand for themselves.  The problem seems to be that sedevacantists make valid and good points while the anti-sedevacantists simply deny what they are seeing or say that they just can't accept the argument.

Asking questions that logically lead to the sedevacantist explanations while simultaneously declaring that such explanations are unwelcome is just like the modern biologists asking evolution/creationist questions but telling anyone who believes in creationism to keep out.

I can't say that I've ever seen an SSPX position on cuм ex Apostolatus.  But I have seen Bishop Fellay and Bishop Williamson solemnly declare that Benedict 16 and other bishops and cardinals teach and believe heretical doctrines but are still Catholics in good standing.  Thus, it appears that their position is that cuм ex Apostolatus and Saint Paul's Epistle to the Galations (compare Bishop Williamson's ELEISON  COMMENTS  CXCI  (March 12, 2001) : CASSOCKS  WEIGHED) are no longer in force.