In the thread linked immediately below (see p.3), Sean Johnson commented upon a statement from Fr. Asher regarding the "admission" that Ascension Thursday was no longer a holy day of obligation.https://www.cathinfo.com/sspx-resistance-news/is-the-obligation-to-attend-mass-on-ascension-thursday-binding-according-to-sspx/30/
Fr. Asher found it necessary to affirm the non-binding nature of "former" obligation because he and the SSPX did not want the faithful believing an obligation existed which did not exist, then voluntarily violating the "imaginary" obligation, thereby committing a real sin; so too in the case of the new laws of fast and abstinence in another SSPX.org article).
[NB: To be logical, the same concern ought to be manifested, then, with regard to communion in the hand, anticipated Mass on Saturday, etc.]
Sean Johnson raised the question as to whether "laws" (it would be better to say "legislation") which work manifestly against the common good of the Church and souls are in any real sense properly "laws" at all.
The questions and conclusions which naturally follow are:
1) If they are not laws in the proper sense, how can they be binding?
2) If they are not laws in the proper sense, and therefore never abrogated the 1917 CIC, are not the old laws still in effect?
It would seem that Archbishop Lefebvre and the old SSPX shared the same questions and doubts as Sean Johnson:
Below, see the Cor Unum #41
(March 1992), in which Fr. Schmidberger acknowledged these very doubts, and the non-binding nature of the 1983 CIC.
Then, see if you can spot the Trojan Horse he introduces which modifies Archbishop Lefebvre's position only one year after his death.
Finally, within the context of the SSPX ralliement, consider why a Fr. Asher or SSPX.org is publishing articles and making statements which completely ignore the original SSPX position on the new code of canon law, and how the truth is exactly the opposite of the pastoral necessity mentioned by Fr. Asher (or the SSPX.org article on fast/abstinence):
In reality, the concern is not
that we must inform our faithful that the old law no longer binds, in order to save them from believing an obligation exists where it no longer does, which they willfully violate, and thereby commit a real sin.
The real concern is that the old laws persist, and the SSPX, by making statements promoting the new harmful laws as real and true laws, induce the faithful to violate the 1917 CIC still in force!
Granted, the subjective ignorance of the faithful saves them from gravity, but since when is it acceptable to induce venial sin?
And at a higher level, is this not but one more very serious compromise of a rallying SSPX which claims to not have made any compromises?
Here follows Cor Unum #41 (March - 1992), only one year after Archbishop Lefebvre's death:Cor Unum No41 - March 1992II. DECISION CONCERNING PROPER DISCIPLINE OF THE SOCIETY OF ST PIUS X IN RELATION TO THE NEW CODE OF CANON LAW 1. The law is the object of justice. The purpose of ecclesiastical laws is to make the faithful practice justice by placing them in favourable situations, where Christian life is easy and by removing situations dangerous to faith and morals. 2. The reception of the new code of canon law poses a real problem of conscience for Catholics in this regard. On the one hand, it is impressively far from the protection of faith and morals, both in general and in detail. And on the other hand, we do not want to jeopardize the respect due to legitimate authority. 3. Archbishop Lefebvre, despite all his wisdom, did not believe that he could settle the question of the validity of the promulgation of this code, but its content and the principles set out in the apostolic letter of promulgation (25 January 1983) made it doubtful. In this case, according to canon 15 (nc. 14) this "new legislation is not urgent. In this situation, according to canon 23 (nc. 21), the 1917 code is not presumed revoked, but the new legislation must be brought back to the previous one and if possible reconciled with it. The guiding principles of this delicate conciliation follow. 4. The 1917 code remains the reference, in the sense that it contains the spirit of the Church in its pure state and that we follow it in principle and to a large extent. 5. This does not mean that we should not retain anything from the new code. Indeed, on the one hand, the Church's legislation, even codified, does not form an inseparable whole, in such a way that everything must be accepted or refused, and on the other hand, certain norms of the new code are justified, either because they bring about a useful simplification, or because they correspond to a homogeneous development of the Church's practice or to a better adaptation to circumstances. There is therefore nothing to prevent, but on the contrary, it seems appropriate to retain what is good in the new legislation and harmonize it with the legislation of the 1917 Code. 6. New norms that oppose the Catholic faith or the divine constitution of the Church or that deviate from the protection due to faith and morals, we are obliged to refuse them (for example, the new rules on mixed marriages, nc. 1124- 1129). On the other hand, the new norms which, according to what has been established in (5), appear justified, we will retain them in place of the old ones, so as not to deprive ourselves or the faithful of the advantage they bring (This is the case of the removal of certain impediments to marriage: the exemption of "minor" impediments was systematically granted, it was therefore justifiable to remove them). But rather than new standards which, without being bad, would not bring any definite advantage, we must prefer the law codified in 1917 and we stand by it. 7. Another principle must be applied: When the validity (of acts or sacraments) is at stake, it is difficult for us to dare to declare invalid what is considered valid in the rest of the Church, and vice versa, and there is also in this case a practical necessity, for the good of the faithful, not to place them in conflict with the legislation received in the official Church. In these cases, we opt for the 1983 standards, but then strengthen our discipline with legal requirements that bring it closer to the 1917 code (for example, age and affinity impediments to marriage). 8. Finally, with regard to the matter and form of the sacraments, we must be tutiorists and, for example, consider as doubtful the confirmation conferred with an oil other than olive oil, until proven otherwise. Decision approved in broad terms by the General Council in Rickenbach on 3 January 1992, finalized by the Canonical Commission and enacted by the Superior General in Rickenbach on 8 February 1992.