Nice catch!

Here's the deal:

Before the ralliement ramped up into overdrive in 2011, the SSPX was content to retain the pre-conciliar modifications in practice, even though it knew such practices and disciplines were technically abrogated, obrogated, or derrogated by subsequent legislation.

The SSPX was keeping the traditions anyway.

There was no hand wringing about "Oh, people think they are sinning when they aren't, and therefore we need to explain that, though we recommend the old practices, they are no longer binding."

That's true, technically.

But the old SSPX never felt the need to specify (except perhaps in the confessional or in private).

But today, it wants to do so publicly, and so we get the articles on feasts moved to Sunday; fasting laws; the new CIC; handbook on indulgences; etc.

In other words, whereas in the old SSPX you might get a sermon about the scandalous 1 hour fast, or Ascension Thursday moved to Sunday, today you are more apt to get one saying, "Well, technically..."

And so little by little, fallen human nature being what it is, people forego the old disciplines and devotions: "Well, if it isn't a sin anymore, then I can have coffee on the way to Church, and by the time I get there, since its a sung Mass, the hour is up by the time I receive Communion."  

Or, "Well, I might as well throw my Raccolta away, since it is now only good as an historical or devotional artifact, but worthless from the perspective of indulgences in 4/5th's of the prayers contained therein.

Ultimately, what we are witnessing is an increasing legalism (which not only caused Menzingen's scruples with regard to its canonical status, but is also affecting the every day quality of spiritual life of the average faithful):

The constant bombardment of reminders of all these changes in discipline and canon law are sending the message:

We are conciliarists, legally, and the only difference between us and the other more modern conciliarists, is the rite of Mass we attend...for now.

For all the rest of it, we are slowly transforming into Novus Ordo Catholics (dress, discipline, worldliness, doctrine, devotion, etc.), with all these public explanations, articles, and sermons paving the way for it.

I have no doubt the legalist, scrupulous SSPX genuinely feels bound to do so.

But it was not always so, and when the SSPX (and its faithful) were more vigorous, these explanations were handled as needed in private.

I really don't get this kind of stuff TBH.

I get R + Rs rejecting the (fallible) doctrinal statements of the current hierarchy that they perceive as clashing with tradition.  Sure.  Makes sense.

But on what basis can you ignore the purely disciplinary laws of the people you think are in charge?  I of course get Sedes rejecting their disciplinary laws, because they reject their authority.

I'm not trying to disrespect anyone here, but stuff like this really confirms my intuition that the regular SSPX is taking the most trad position you can consistently take while being Sedeplenist, and the SSPX-Resistance is functionally acting like they're sede.

Those who consider themselves to be Traditional will follow the "old" law (i.e. the consistent laws of centuries).  Those who want to be saved will follow the "old" law.  Those who follow the new laws - the letter of the law - will die spiritually and not be saved.

The Church can decide what minimum practices are obligatory under sin. However, even the modernist church doesn't prevent people from doing more than the minimum. Wouldn't doing something when it is not obligatory be following the "spirit of the law"?

It's also difficult to talk about "consistent laws of centuries" when the laws of fasting and abstinence have changed a LOT. It wasn't that long ago there was obligatory fasting during advent. Do you think "partial abstinence" and two "smaller meals" while fasting is centuries old?

When I was involved with the SSPX 20 years ago, prayers in the chapel bulletins just identified indulgences as plenary or partial, without reference to a specific number of days. I even recall one priest having a chapel practice that he took specifically from the 1960s enchiridion of indulgences (it was the plenary indulgence for a public veni creator on January 1 and Pentecost.)

I joined the Knights of Our Lady, and you should too

What is the Knights of Our Lady?  Is there a good website for information?

Here's a true treasure from the Treasury of Indulgenced Prayers, 1944: https://www.ecatholic2000.com/cts/untitled-674.shtml I prefer the traditional method of stipulating indulgences in days of penance. Suppose the temporal punishment of our sins required 10 or even 100 years of the hardest penance. Imagine how difficult it would be to finish this, yet we would be bound to do so, or else probably face an even greater punishment in purgatory, e.g. 100 or 1000 years. So when there are Indulgences of 300 days or of 7 years, the meaning is, the Indulgence granted, by the Mercy of God, and the Treasury of Merits of the Church, is equivalent to 300 days or 7 years penance. The time in Purgatory we would have to suffer, because Divine Justice would probably be more severe, is probably even more than 7 years. But by making use of indulgences, we can partially or even entirely pay off that debt of temporal punishment.

There are many indulgences, even plenary, to be gained at the hour of death.

PART XII.
FOR A HAPPY DEATH

Jesus, Joseph, and Mary, I give you my heart and my soul.

Jesus, Joseph, and Mary, assist me in my last agony.

Jesus, Joseph, and Mary, may I breathe forth my soul in peace with you.

(7 years every time each one is said)*

From sudden and unprovided death, O Lord, deliver us.

(300 days every time said)

O Lord, my God, I now, at this moment, readily and willingly accept at Thy hand whatever kind of death it may please Thee to send me, with all its pains, penalties, and sorrows.

(7 years every time said. Plenary indulgence at the point of death to all those who at any time of their lives, with sincere love toward God and with the usual conditions, make this kind of act)

"IV. The recital of the Rosary (with its great indulgences) and making the Way of the Cross (which is also richly indulgenced) are excellent means of helping the Holy Souls.

St. John Massias, as we saw, released from Purgatory more than a million souls, chiefly by reciting the Rosary and offering its great indulgences for them.

V. Another easy and efficacious way is by the constant repetition of short indulgenced prayers [applying the indulgence to the Souls in Purgatory]. Many people have the custom of saying 500 or 1,000 times each day the little ejaculation, "Sacred Heart of Jesus, I place my trust in Thee!" or the one word, "Jesus. " These are most consoling devotions; they bring oceans of grace to those who practice them and give immense relief to the Holy Souls.

Those who say the ejaculations 1,000 times a day gain 300,000 days Indulgence! What a multitude of souls they can thus relieve! What will it not be at the end of a month, a year, 50 years? And if they do not say the ejaculations, what an immense number of graces and favors they shall have lost!

If you declare the pope not to be a true pope and also claim that there have been no true popes since Pope Pius XII (basically, the sedevacantist position), I can see why you would cling to the old fasting rules, old calendar, old indulgence rules and old holy days of obligation.

However, if you claim that the current popes since VII are still valid popes but we don't have to follow them if they go against truth and morals (the R&R position), then you have no choice but to follow all of the administrative changes made by these popes over the years since VII. 

The reason is that that a valid pope has the authority to change all of the following administrative things in the church because they don't contradict truth and morals which include:

1. fasting rules
2. the church calendar including feast days of the saints
3. indulgence rules
4. holy days of obligation

The point is, if you consider Pope Francis a valid pope, you have to accept his administrative changes.

Mr. McCheese makes arguments that I personally can not refute.  Valid popes have the right to make the administrative changes to which he alludes.  I think that the R&R position winds up losing in the end.  I wish I could make their case, but am finding it increasingly difficult to do so.