I was reading this:

NB: Let us remember just one statement calmly said by Bishop de Galarreta: "It is almost impossible for the majority, the Superior of the Fraternity - after a frank discussion, a thorough analysis of all aspects, of all consequences - it is unthinkable that the majority could make such an error on matters of prudence", and then added (transcribed VERSIONS OF THIS WERE AVAILABLE IN FRENCH, ENGLISH AND SPANISH but have since been removed, but can still be verified ON DICI’S AUDIO CONFERENCE): "And if, by chance, the impossible happens, well, so much the worse!, in any case, we will do what the majority think" (Conference in Villepreux, France, October 13, 2012).  Some liberal tradis ignored or were unwilling to listen to this last sentence, and instead clung on to the defence that it is legitimate and acceptable that qualified peers and aristocrats decide measures by a majority, which is not what Galarreta says, but rather affirms and accepts and gives his support that truth and number are equivalent; but it has already been seen and verified that it is not absolutely unthinkable that the majority can make an error on matters of prudence and on other matters, as already seen in the Church and in the Fraternity.  And if there is an error, concludes Bishop de Galarreta, you must follow the majority rather than the truth.  Whereupon he comes to accept that which Pius IX condemns in the Syllabus, namely:
LX. Authority is nothing more than the sum of the number and of the material strengths.

And it reminded me of what I've often said about the Reputation system on CathInfo -- namely, that it's near-infallible when it comes to predicting when someone doesn't belong here, or when someone is largely in line with Catholic doctrine and teaching.

In my experience, it's seldom (if ever) been wrong. But that's not an absolute rule. I wouldn't want to modify the software to automatically ban a person with a certain number of downvotes.

I think the key word is "near".  It's not infallible; you still have to objectively analyze a given statement or belief against the body of Catholic dogma. But in MOST cases, you can trust a majority of traditional Catholics to do the right thing.

But a majority, even of Traditional Catholics, is still infected by Original Sin. So in this respect a majority of Trads is no better than a regular, garden-variety "majority" -- for example, the majority that accepts Abortion as a legal right.

Holy Writ says, "Designs are brought to nothing where there is no counsel: but where there are many counsellors, they are established." and again "there is safety where there is much counsel"

Only the Church is endowed with infallibility, anyway, and even that in matters of faith and morals, not in every single everyday decision. All other bodies, including societies of priests, have to rely on the cuмulative experience, knowledge, judgment in making a decision after evaluating the circuмstances. So the decision taken by many, assuming their combined insight and wisdom has gone into making the decision, would probably be safer than that of a few.

The opinion of priests would probably carry more weight than those of laymen, all else being equal; the opinion of a majority of priests likewise over that of a few, that of traditional priests otherwise known for their orthodoxy and sanctity over those not so known etc. When a disagreement arises, it's a question of which is most likely the safer and more prudent course, in my opinion, rather than an absolute and infallible rule. I think that's what Bishop de Galarreta has in mind.

The majority of PRIESTS went along with Vatican II, but that was going with the flow. Most men will always go with the flow. Also, when a CHANGE is proposed, there is a greater chance of that side being IN THE WRONG even if a majority ends up adopting it -- especially if that adoption is the path of least resistance ("going with the flow").

I"m having a hard time understanding you here- can you be more clear (less use of 'that side' and more specific) I want to make sure I understand what you're saying. ?  :tinfoil:

I would add another:

Which side is proposing a change?

The majority of PRIESTS went along with Vatican II, but that was going with the flow. Most men will always go with the flow. Also, when a CHANGE is proposed, there is a greater chance of that side being IN THE WRONG even if a majority ends up adopting it -- especially if that adoption is the path of least resistance ("going with the flow").

I might agree in general, but in a specific case I think you'd have to look at the character of the men involved and what we know about them already. Their fruits, personal sanctity, years of service, experience, judgment, moral strength etc. If they were all good and in order, I wouldn't presume they were necessarily being weak in this case. So there may be a difference in the two instances you are talking about (i.e. priests after Vatican II - many of whom were known liberals, some guilty of perversions or otherwise not suited for the priesthood, itching for novelty etc). Also, in some cases, it simply was a matter of faith, which some abandoned, set aside, or even preached against etc. I don't know that you'd say that that is the case here.

That being said, if there are sound and solid reasons on the basis of which a society like the SSPX takes a decision which, as you say involves some change, I think that same majority should lay out a clear statement of principles, and beside, consider it their foremost duty in justice to explain the reasons for the change calmly and cogently, most of all to their own faithful, who've supported them and invested much of their time, money, effort etc to their cause thus far who would understandably be disturbed.

And so far in my opinion these have not been forthcoming, for whatever reason, though I think more for unwillingness than inability, the Society's priests who have favored canonical regularization have hardly advanced publicly, for the benefit of their faithful - even those who might still agree with them - solid and convincing reasoning for the same. Obviously, as is only to be expected, if they don't, some Society faithful who see no reason for the cahnge, will suspect they are doing it for unworthy reasons and retract their support.

Well, of course there's been a change in the Society's position, the question is whether there is an objective change in the circuмstances that warrants it. I suppose if one is inclined to see canonical regularization as the ultimate compromise, then one wouldn't think so.

Anyway, in general, it seems to me that any organized body invested with decision making capacity (like say, a senate in a government, a board of directors in a company) can only operate in one of three ways.

Absolute monarchy, where the head has full and supreme power, and can act alone and without any dependence on others, as for example in the Catholic Church.

A collegial type of power sharing among members, where the head has some limited power while a simple or say two thirds majority of members alone enjoys the capacity to take decisions e.g. most government bodies and corporations.

Anarchy, where everyone decides on their own, and in case of disagreement goes their different ways.

Is there a fourth? The best one can do, when one sets up such a body is require in its founding statutes a super majority of some sort in taking some important decision, but there is no real alternative to majority rule (other than monarchy on one hand and anarchy on the other) as a general criterion, for better or worse.

Obviously. But what is the workable rule most likely to succeed in preserving sound doctrine is the issue.

I've never implied anything like, Majority is always correct, just that any society or decision making body, as a workable rule will inevitably depend on majority of some sort if it is to avoid falling into anarchy. Any society is only as good as its members, and obviously some societies could become entirely corrupt.

I agree that the Society should focus on explaining the motives impelling its recent actions to its faithful, actually. So far it has not done this in a comprehensive way, apart from a few polemical articles directed at opponents. I read on this forum that the March issue of Cor Unum would address this.