There is nothing anyone can say which can defeat the clear change of policy represented in the OP of Cor Unum #41 (and with Fr. Chazal, Fr. Pivert, and Bishop Faure also acknowledging the change in policy in 1992, I think any who will try will have an uphill battle).

I didn't comment to start a battle. It looked to me as if you were collecting info and material.

I didn't catch the significance of the SSPX officially moving Ascension Thursday to Sunday because to me that is what R&R means, we trust the SSPX to distinguish which new laws can be followed and which should not be. It is far from ideal and a risky way to be a Catholic, but that is the hand that God has dealt us and we trust Him to help us figure it out. 

But if it is true that Archbishop Lefebvre scrapped the whole '83 and doubted its legitimacy, and the new leadership softened on that once he died, then yes I see how this is yet one more sign of the SSPX stepping away from the Archbishop while still trying to keep his name and legacy. The SSPX currently encouraging 1917 but openly accommodating '83 is a far cry from outright doubting the legitimacy of '83.

Is there something in Church Teaching that led the Archbishop to doubt the legitimacy of '83 rather than pick and choose through it? Or is this yet another question of prudence? If it is yet another question of prudence, then it really cements that while the Archbishop emphasized the R & R, most of the leadership since then has really emphasized the R & R.

God knows best but it seems like we could have used the Archbishop for another decade. He seems to have changed and matured and gained a lot of wisdom in the end from '88-'92. But that's only 4 years. That's not enough time to get through to his entire organization. It seems like many didn't get what he realized in the end and his priests and bishops were still all over the place in their beliefs and opinions. That is not the kind of thing that gets better with time.

But if it is true that Archbishop Lefebvre scrapped the whole '83 and doubted its legitimacy, and the new leadership softened on that once he died, then yes I see how this is yet one more sign of the SSPX stepping away from the Archbishop while still trying to keep his name and legacy. The SSPX currently encouraging 1917 but openly accommodating '83 is a far cry from outright doubting the legitimacy of '83.

Is there something in Church Teaching that led the Archbishop to doubt the legitimacy of '83 rather than pick and choose through it? Or is this yet another question of prudence? If it is yet another question of prudence, then it really cements that while the Archbishop emphasized the R & R, most of the leadership since then has really emphasized the R & R.

I am still trying to absorb all this, because it is very new to me.

But it seems that today, the SSPX has gone even further away from Fr. Schmidberger’s 1992 policy of, as you put it, “encouraging 1917, but accommodating 1983,” by reversing that initial betrayal with a new one:

Encouraging 1983, while making secondary references to 1917.

In the Fr. Chazal conference (linked to p.1 of this thread), he mentions changes to the Ordinances booklet in 2004 or 2005, and then a paper written in 2007 or 2009 (writing from memory; please verify) by a Society priest called the “Official Unofficial Position of the SSPX on the New Code” (or something to that effect), where the new Code was given precedence in the Society (which is why, if you are paying close attention, so many of the SSPX’s recent canonical citations now first cite the 1983 Code, where they used to first cite the 1917 code).

You need to watch the Chazal conference (only the first half is about canon law and the SSPX).

But you can see the compromise after the Archbishop’s death: from Schmidberger’s to the current practice.

Fr. Chazal gives many other specifics.

As regards Church teachings for Lefebvre’s total rejection of the Code, despite some good things in it, in some of his unpublished conferences, he is explaining that the new Code is the codification of the new ecclesiology, etc.

I will provide some snippets later.

But it seems that today, the SSPX has gone even further away from Fr. Schmidberger’s 1992 policy of, as you put it, “encouraging 1917, but accommodating 1983,” by reversing that initial betrayal with a new one:

Encouraging 1983, while making secondary references to 1917.

I think you might be right. The wording in this SSPX link that you posted earlier is pretty clear. 1983 comes first titled as the rules for the present while 1917 is listed second as a guideline for traditional practices. Rules VS Guidelines. I didn't pay attention to how the old SSPX website was worded so I can't compare. 

It is interesting that they link a sermon of Archbishop Lefebvre. This is how they introduce the sermon: 

"The archbishop exhorts the faithful for their personal sanctification to voluntarily practice the traditional rules, even though they are not strictly binding."

Maybe I am missing it because I am reading the sermon with a slant, but I don't see where he says the current prescriptions are binding. He talks about them and how lacking they are and how they come from the ecuмenical and Protestant spirit and how we have need of more penance not less, but it's clearly a pastoral sermon meant to inspire the faithful. I'd like to know what he had to say when he was speaking directly to the legitimacy of the code, when he was forming priests for example. And did his ideas change over the years on this subject too?  

+ABL from 1982-83 (PDF attached)

"We must conserve the true canon law. In the instruction in the new canon law they talk about 'Eucharistic Hospitality. What is this 'Eucharistic Hospitality'?? It means that when" a Protestant comes to receive Holy Communion and he says I have the True Catholic Faith in the Real Presence of Jesus Christ in the Eucharist, and if he says that, then you must give him Communion.
That is incredible!  It is impossible, impossible. He has no other Catholic Faith, only in the Real Presence, and so we must give him Communion. He may have no Faith in the Sacrifice of the Mass, he has no Faith in the papacy, he has no Faith in...
Sanctifying Grace ...and we must still give him Communion? Impossible! It is in the new canon -law.

We cannot use this canon law. It is the same in all the other books that come from this reform of the Council of Vatican II.' If you have some other questions you can ask Fr. Williamson or me... I am ready to give you an answer..."

And this excerpt from an Econe spiritual confrence in 1983, in which +ABL explains the need to reject this Code:

"These are the five characteristics of this new ecclesiology that is in Vatican II. And it is marked in the Pope's speech, in the Constitution which presents the new code of canon law, It is he himself who says these things. People of God, Communion, Service, Collegiality, Ecuмenism. These are the characteristics of the new ecclesiology of Vatican II. It is clear. It is clear that it is the continuation of the work that was done by Vatican II in the liturgy, in catechisms and in the Bible, the ecuмenical bible, the famous TOB, the ecuмenical translation of the Bible.

So, what do we have to think about that? Well, that's because this canon law is unacceptable. There is no new Ecclesiology in the Church. We are not going to give a new definition to the Church, if... Then we were wrong for 2000 years. The Church did not know what it was for 2000 years. Suddenly, it became ecuмenism, collegiality, communion. Communion of what, of who, with whom, with what?

Then we will have to keep the old canon law by taking the fundamental principles and compare with the new canon law to judge the new canon law, just as we keep Tradition to judge also the new liturgical books."

And on this subject, I wanted to say on the occasion of our assessment of the law. As long as a reform like that of Pope John XXIII does not affect our faith, does not diminish our faith, sincerely I do not believe, well, if it does not affect the faith, we must still recognize the authority of the Supreme Pontiff who dictates this book, this new breviary and submit ourselves to it, even if we have a greater affection for the breviary or the missal of Saint Pius X. There is still obedience to be had as long as it does not touch, as long as it does not diminish our faith.

Why precisely, I now return to the conferences, why, in my opinion, it is impossible for us to accept the canon law as it has been published, because it is precisely in the line of Vatican II and in the line of the reforms of Vatican II. The Pope himself says so. In this new ecclesiology, which does not correspond to traditional ecclesiology and therefore indirectly affects our faith and risks dragging us into at least a certain number of essential points of law, in heresies, favours heresy, as does liturgical reform which also favours heresy."

[ABL then goes on to paint an analogy between the new CIC and the new Mass, showing that just as we must reject the latter a a threat to the faith, so too we reject this CIC which implements a new ecclesiology.]

A Resistance priest following this thread writes to me (excerpt):

"About the two quotes of Archbishop Lefebvre you posted on Cathinfo:

"Then we will have to keep the old canon law by taking the fundamental principles and compare with the new canon law to judge the new canon law"
This means that the old code will remain the first positive law norm for traditionalists, and that the application of the canons of the new code is something that must be judged according to the principles of the old code. This is exactly what the 1992 Cor Unum resolution says.

"in my opinion, it is impossible for us to accept the canon law as it has been published"
Meaning, as a body of laws that must be obeyed by all in its entirety, and in each of its parts.

Yet, it can be "accepted" in another way:

Specifically, in those parts that are not contrary to the good of the Church, and which must be judged according to the norm of the old code. This is what the 1992 resolution attempts to set forth."

Comment:

My only question, then, would be: In what was, exactly, was Fr. Schmidberger's 1992 Cor Unum resolution a divergence from the policy of Archbishop Lefebvre (i.e., as Fr. Chazal says was told him by Bishop Faure in the video conference linked above)?

Very confusing.

And the Resistance priest adds this:

"(...) "il nous est impossible d’accepter en bloc le droit canon tel qu’il a été édité, parce qu’il est précisément dans la ligne de Vatican II et dans la ligne des réformes de Vatican II."

He says that the 1983 CIC " is impossible to accept in block", that is, in its entirety. Then, it is possible to accept it partially, and it was precisely to give norms about how to do that, that the resolution of Cor Unum 41 was taken. Therefore, the 1992 resolution did not change in the position of the FSSPX before the 1983 CIC.

The position of the Archbishop and the authorities in 1992 was this: to reject the new code in general, but not in each and every one of its canons. Very well. That is wise and prudent."

Comment:

I still do not understand how to reconcile this statement with the comments of Fr. Chazal, who says this 1992 policy represented a change to the previous policy.

Does anyone have any ideas?

Hello "Hodie."

I received a notice in my email that you sent me a PM, but when I went to check my PM's, there was nothing there.

I sent you a PM back, requesting you contact me at my email address.