http://www.sspx.org/archbishop_lefebvre/twenty_years_of_struggle.htm

A conference given by Archbishop Lefebvre on September 1986
during a priestly retreat at St. Pius X International Seminary in Econe


The fundamental law of the Church is the salvation of souls
In view of this, we have acted according to the fundamental laws of the Church to save souls, to save the priesthood, and to continue the Church. It is effectively these fundamental laws which are at stake. We oppose certain particular laws of the Church in order to save these fundamental laws. By using some of these particular laws against us, the fundamental laws are destroyed. It is contrary to the welfare of souls, contrary to the mission of the Church.
The new Code of Canon Law contains articles which are contrary to the mission of the Church. When it is permitted to give Holy Communion to a Protestant, it cannot be denied that is contrary to the mission of the Church. When the affirmation is made that there are two supreme authorities in the Church, it cannot be denied that this is contrary to the mission of the Church. This definition of the Church as the People of God in which all of the ministries basically can be found and in which there is no longer any distinction between the clergy and the lay people, is contrary to the dogma. All of this is contrary to the mission of the Church. The fundamental principles of the Code of Canon Law are being destroyed! How are we expected to submit and obey?
In order to save the fundamental laws of the Church, we are forced not to observe certain particular laws. In all of this who is right, who is wrong? Clearly right are those who pursue the mission of the Church. The particular laws are made to support the fundamental laws, which is the salvation of souls, for the glory of God, for the continuation of the Church. It is perfectly clear.


http://www.sspx.org/Catholic_FAQs/catholic_faqs__sacramental.htm#celiacdisease


Is a Catholic in mortal sin if he allows more than one year to pass since his last confession?
It is one of the six precepts of the Church, and explicitly stated in canon 906 of the 1917 Code of Canon Law: "All Catholics of either sex who have reached the years of discretion, that is the age of reason, are obliged to confess all their sins accurately at least once a year." Since this is a clear obligation in a serious matter, established by the Church for the salvation of souls, it is clear that it is under pain of mortal sin, and if a person deliberately omits to confess his or her sins, he commits an additional mortal sin.
However, there is a change in the wording of the corresponding canon in the 1983Code. Instead of all sins, it now says "serious sins" (canon 989).This leaves some ambiguity, but it must be understood as meaning "mortal sins" to use the precise term employed by the traditional Code of Canon Law. This seems to take away all obligation to confess sins if one thinks that one has no "serious" or mortal sins on one’s soul. This is the common practice in the post-Conciliar Church, in which many practicing Catholics go for many years without seeing the need to go to Confession. It is a great tragedy, for their conscience becomes extremely lax. Who are they to judge of themselves that they have not committed any mortal sin? It is hard to understand how one who is familiar with the traditional teachings of the Church could be excused from the sin of presumption.

http://www.sspx.org/Catholic_FAQs/catholic_faqs__sacramental.htm#canon844:1
What is the infamous canon 844 of the 1983 Code of Canon Law?This is the canon of the 1983 Code of Canon Law which authorizes sacramental sharing with heretics and schismatics. It is the practical application of the new ecclesiology of Vatican II, particularly the decree On Ecuмenism (Unitatis Redintegratio) and of the new definition of the Church as the People of God, that is without clear boundaries. The pope explains this in the Apostolic ConstitutionSacrae disciplinae leges which precedes the 1983 Code of Canon Law. It follows from the fact that the Church does not have clear boundaries, that there are varying degrees of communion with it. Consequently, this canon speaks of giving the sacraments to those who do not have full communion with the Catholic Church, as if it were possible for there to be an intermediary state. This is in direct opposition to the traditional teaching, according to which one is either in communion with the pope and the Catholic Church, or one is not at all in communion.
This canon explains under what circuмstances it is to be considered "licit" to receive the sacraments of Penance, the Blessed Eucharist and Extreme Unction from non-Catholic ministers, and under what circuмstances it is to be considered "licit" for Catholic priests to administer these same sacraments "to other Christians who are not in full communion with the Catholic Church." This is of course a sacrilegious betrayal of the unity of the one, true Church, outside of which there is no salvation. This is particularly the case for Penance, for sacramental absolution cannot traditionally be given to any person who refuses to embrace the Catholic Faith by becoming a member of the Catholic Church, and for the Blessed Eucharist, which symbolizes the very unity of the mystical body of Christ which these heretics and schismatics deny.
Of course, there are no circuмstances when this can be done, for the heretic or schismatic must first convert to the Catholic Church before receiving Confession and Communion. It is precisely this that the 1983 Code of Canon Law denies, saying that the sacraments can be given in any case..:
...any time that that necessity demands it or true spiritual utility suggests it, and provided that the danger of error or indifferentism be avoided.
Of course we know that necessity or utility can never justify such a betrayal of the unity of the Church, and that in such a case the danger of error or indifferentism could never be avoided.  [Answered by Fr. Peter R. Scott]

Has this canon 844 always been the policy of the Catholic Church?
This canon 844 is a total and radical departure from Catholic law, and even from the Catholic Faith.
According to the Church’s traditional law, any of the faithful who receive the sacraments from, and thus participate in the ceremonies of, non-Catholics, would automatically be suspect of heresy. (cf. canon 2316 of the 1917 Code of Canon Law, which gives the penalty for the communicatio in sacris with non-Catholics which is forbidden by canon 1258 of the same Code.)
The corresponding canon from the traditional 1917 Code of Canon Law which governs the priests’ administration of sacraments to non-Catholics is canon 731 §2, which states:
It is forbidden to administer the sacraments of the Church to heretics or schismatics, even though they err in good faith and ask for them, unless they have first renounced their errors and been reconciled with the Church.
A more direct contradiction with Catholic Faith and law could barely be imagined, and yet it is to this extent that ecuмenism led Pope John Paul II in 1983, and ever since.  [Answered by Fr. Peter R. Scott]




Archbishop Lefebvre on the New Code of Canon Law


Conference given in Turin, Italy on March 24, 1984
Translated from the French District's bulletin published on February 5, 1992


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



I want to speak to you of a very serious novelty: the New Code of Canon Law. I had not seen any necessity for a change. But if the law changes, the law changes, and we must make use of it, for the Church can ask nothing evil from her faithful.

However, when one reads this new code of Canon Law one discovers an entirely new conception of the Church. It is easy to be aware of, since John Paul II himself describes it in the apostolic constitution which introduces the new Code.


...It follows that which constitutes the fundamental novelty of Vatican Council II, in full continuity with the legislative tradition of the Church (this is to deceive), especially in that which concerns ecclesiology, constitutes also the novelty of the new Code.

Hence the novelty of the conception of the Church according to the Council is equally the novelty of the conception of the new Code of Canon Law.

What is this novelty? It is that there is no longer any difference between the clergy and the laity. There is now just the faithful, nothing else, on account of the


doctrine according to which all the members of the people of God, according to the mode which is proper to each, partake in the triple priestly, prophetic and royal function of Jesus Christ. To this doctrine is likewise attached that which concerns the duties and rights of the faithful and particularly the laity, and finally the Church's involvement in ecuмenism!

This is the definition of the Church (Canon 204):


The faithful are those who, inasmuch as they are incorporated in Christ by baptism are constituted as the people of God, and who for this reason, having been made partakers in their manner in the priestly, prophetic and royal functions of Christ, are called to exercise the mission that God entrusted to the Church to accomplish in the world.

We are all faithful, members of the people of God, and we all therefore have ministries! It is clearly said in the Code: all the faithful have ministries. They therefore all have the responsibility to teach, to sanctify and even to direct.

Let us continue our commentary on this Canon 204:


…having been made partakers in their manner in the priestly, prophetic and royal function of Christ, they are called to exercise the mission which God entrusted to the Church to accomplish in the world, according to the juridical condition proper to each one.

Hence everyone without exception, without distinction between clergy and laity, inasmuch as they are the people of God, has the responsibility of this mission entrusted by Jesus Christ properly to the Church. There is no longer any clergy. What, then, happens to the clergy?

It is as if they said that it is no longer parents who have the responsibility to give life to children but the family, or rather all the members of the family: parents and children. This is exactly the same thing as saying today that bishops, priests and laymen have all responsibility for the mission of the Church. But who gives the graces to become a Catholic? How does one become faithful? No one knows any more who has the responsibility for what. It is consequently easy to understand that this is the ruin of the priesthood and the laicization of the Church. Everything is oriented towards the laymen, and little by little the sacred ministers disappear. The minor orders and the subdiaconate have already disappeared. Now there are married deacons, and little by little laymen take over the ministry of the priests. This is precisely what Luther and the Protestants did, laicizing the priesthood. It is consequently very serious.

This is quite openly explained in an article in L’Osservatore Romano of March 17, 1984:


The role of the laity in the new Code. The active function that the laity has been called on to exercise since Vatican II by participating in the condition and mission of the entire Church according to their particular vocation is a doctrine which, in the context of the appearance of the concept of the people of God has brought about a reevaluation of the laity, as much in the foundation of the Church as for the active role they are called on to develop in the building up of the Church.

Such is the inspiration of the whole new Code of Canon Law. It is this definition of the Church which is the poison which infects the new laws.

The same can be said for the Liturgy. There is a relationship between this new Code of Canon Law and the entire liturgical reform, as Bugnini said in his book The Fundamental Principles of the Changing of the Liturgy:


The path opened by the Council is destined to change radically the traditional liturgical assembly in which, according to a custom dating back many centuries, the liturgical service is almost exclusively accomplished by the clergy. The people assist, but too much as a stranger and a dumb spectator.

What? How can one dare say that the faithful are present at the sacrifice of the Mass as simply dumb spectators so as to change the Liturgy? How must the faithful be active in the sacrifice of the Mass? By the body or spiritually? Obviously spiritually. One can draw a great spiritual profit from assisting at Mass in silence. It is, in effect, a mystery of our Faith. How many have become saints in this silence of the true Mass!

"A long education will be necessary for the Liturgy to become an action of all the people of God." Without a doubt. Then he adds that he is speaking of "a substantial unity but not a uniformity. You must realize that this is a true break with the past." This past is the twenty centuries of prayer of the Church.

Bugnini was the key man in the liturgical reform. I went to see Cardinal Cicognani when this reform was published and I said to him: "Your Eminence, I am not in agreement with this change. The Mass no longer has its mystical and divine character." He replied: "Excellency, it is like that. Bugnini can enter as he likes into the Ppope's office to make him sign what he wants." This is what happened to the Secretariat of State. This is how all these changes happened. They agreed on it beforehand, and then obtained signatures for some changes, and then others, and then others.

I said to Cardinal Gut:


Your Eminence, you are responsible for Divine Worship, and you accord permission for the Blessed Sacrament to be received in the hand! They will know that this was published with the agreement of the Prefect of the Congregation for Divine Worship!

He replied:


Excellency, I do not even know if I will be asked for it to be done. You know, it is not I who command. The boss is Bugnini. If the pope asks me what I think of Communion in the hand, I will cast myself on my knees before him to ask him not to do it.

You see, then, how things happened at Rome: a simple signature on the bottom of a decree and the Church is ruined by numerous sacrileges... The real presence of Our Lord is ruined, for it is no longer respected. Then, nothing sacred remains, as was seen at the large reunion at which the Pope was present, where the Blessed Sacrament was passed around from hand to hand between thousands of persons. Nobody genuflects anymore before the Blessed Sacrament. How can they still believe that God is present there?

It is this same spirit which inspired the changing of the canon Law as that which inspired the changes in the Liturgy: it is the people of God, the assembly, which does everything. The same applies to the priest. He is a simple president who has a ministry, as others have a ministry, in the midst of an assembly. Our orientation towards God has likewise disappeared. This comes from the protestants who say that eucharistic devotion (for them there is neither Mass nor sacrifice: this would be blasphemy) is simply a movement of God towards man, but not of man towards God to render Him glory, which is nevertheless the first (latreutic) end of the Liturgy. This new state of liturgical mind comes likewise from Vatican II: everything is for man. The bishops and priest are at the service of man and the assembly. But where is God then? In what is His glory sought? What will we do in heaven? For in heaven "all is for the glory of God," which is exactly what we ought to do here on earth. But all that is done away with, and replaced by man. This is truly the ruin of all Catholic thought.

You know that the new Code of Canon Law permits a priest to give Communion to a protestant. It is what they call eucharistic hospitality. These are protestants who remain protestant and do not convert. This is directly opposed to the Faith. For the Sacrament of the Eucharist is precisely the sacrament of the unity of the Faith. To give Communion to a protestant is to rupture the Faith and its unity.