Look, at the end of the day, the Truth will be known by the Fruits of the Apostolate. It's what the Lord God said also, "By their fruits you shall know them." (Mat 7:16) Where are the fruits of Father Pfeiffer, who was one of the heroes not that long ago in the Resistance? If you still follow Fr. Pfeiffer, as even some of you will admit, not only your Faith and your Soul are in danger but even your sanity. Can you really and honestly say the same is true in the Society?

I'm not the owner of 1 Peter 5, the fact of the matter is many people saw holiness in how Bp. Fellay bore it. You may disagree, but Bp. Fellay is bearing good fruit.

Meanwhile the SSPX goes from strength to strength. The Seminaries, the Convents and Monasteries are booming. Vocations are flourishing at a level scarcely seen in 3 decades. Cardinals and Bishops have said the salvation of the Church resides in the Society and in Catholic Tradition:

The SSPX continues its principal work, "In March, the SSPX seminaries in Argentina and Australia welcomed 15 candidates in the spirituality year. In all, 65 first-year seminarians will have entered in the year 2018: almost a record, since it has been more than thirty years since the numbers were this high." https://sspx.org/en/news-events/news/large-number-first-year-seminarians-sspx-41279 see also: https://fsspx.news/en/news-events/news/priestly-ordinations-sspx-has-613-priests-23553

Whether you like it or not, whether you admit it or not, whether you believe it or not, Archbishop Lefebvre always said that this - precisely this - is what will ultimately win the battle for Tradition in the Church. "However, I think what counts much more are the facts, than the words or writings, even for Rome. What are the facts which count for us? The seminaries! To make priests! To make traditional priests, priests according to Tradition, to make good and holy priests in our seminaries. That is the work we must carry on with and the work which counts in Rome. Why does Rome still go on receiving me? Why do they still consider me with a certain respect? Because they know that I have seminaries, that I have now ordained nearly 200 priests since 1970 and that I have 250 seminarians in my seminaries (it's now something like 637 Priests and 334 Seminarians; the SSPX continues and will continue its principal mission, the Resistance attempts to tear it apart notwithstanding). They know that very well and that’s what counts at Rome. They no longer have any seminaries.

Their seminaries are empty or they are Modernist seminaries. Now they know that at Econe, at Ridgefield, at Zaitzkofen, and at Buenos Aires, we are forming true priests. They know that very well and they admire our young priests. So, that is what makes even more of an impression on them than my words, writings or meetings. They are well aware that this year I ordained thirty priests. So that’s what I think it is. And they are perfectly well aware that our priests are spread throughout the world. They know of the existence of our traditional groups throughout the world, and a little everywhere in the world. We are striving to extend. They know we have many priories in Europe, in all the European countries. They know, moreover, that there are other traditional priests, that we are not alone, that we support other traditional priests in their work. So all of that scares them a little. They are forced to reckon with us. And that is how I think we will succeed one day in convincing Rome that they must return to Tradition. They will say, we can no longer ignore these seminaries, these priests, not only the priests of the Society, but all traditionalist priests as well. We can no longer ignore them. That is the task before us, and I have never changed! ...

How can they now say, “The Archbishop is changing”? ... We have made no compromise with Rome. That charge is not true. So it is very sad to think that these priests who were ordained by myself and who, after all is said and done, receiving everything from Econe and the Society, should now be turning against the Society. Why? They say we are making compromises, they say we are going to accept the New Mass, they say things of this kind, which are absolutely false. You can see that for yourselves ... bring about a regrouping of the faithful staying with the Society, so that they keep their bond with Rome and with the Church. It is very important that there should always be the bond with Rome if we wish to remain Catholic; even if we do not agree with everything being done in Rome, I think the bond is absolutely indispensable." http://sspxasia.com/Docuмents/Archbishop-Lefebvre/Conference_at_Long_Island.htm

The Resistance does precisely these two things which +ABL says should not be done (1) First, you falsely accuse the SSPX and say it is going to accept the New Mass, whereas the whole world sees that that is not true; (2) Second, you totally deny the Roman Catholic Doctrine that Roman Catholics must always retain some bond with Rome if we wish to remain Catholic, which +ABL taught us here. You think 1988 is a magic year, yet you ignore 1983 completely.

Hm.  I've manifested cheerfulness and long-suffering, lots of times.  Every day--with ALL those children.  Does that automatically make me a saint, too?

Great! Keep it up! But then, nobody has been starting a Resistance movement against you predicated on the premise that you are a traitor, have they? So the two situations are not comparable, the Resistance claims Bishop Fellay is allegedly an evil "traitor" and grave sinner, if so, that would be shown by evil fruits in his life.

+ABL:"So, I trust you will remain faithful and that we will be able to continue working together for the greater good of the Church, because there is nothing more disastrous, even in the face of Rome, than these divisions, because these divisions weaken us and weaken our fight for Tradition. So, let us pray that everything will be sorted out." By unnecessarily taking away Priests and Religious from the SSPX from doing their duties together with their brother Priests and for the faithful, the resistance are causing, in ABL's words, something than which there is nothing more disastrous, because such divisions weaken us and weaken our fight for Tradition.

Meg, yes, I read the full article by the Dominicans of Avrille, understood their point and replied to it on that thread. You can take it up there if you wish to. And while there's no need to accept the false premise that none of Archbishop Lefebvre's words have any validity at all, except only those in the last 3 years of his life, even with that false premise, see the words of +ABL in 1990 on that thread.

I believe Bp. Williamson, the good Dominicans of Avrille (who recently wrote an article about regularization which, if not exactly the SSPX's position, at least comes to it and doesn't preclude it entirely) and other such good Bishops and Priests should be re-united with the Society, hopefully at, say, the next General Chapter. There's no reason that can't happen. You should see by now the claims of some people here that the SSPX is going to start saying clown masses has no basis in truth.

At the same time, you can't just condemn all your Superiors as heretics and modernists and what-not before the Faithful and then expect nobody to do anything. You're not the only Catholics in the world. If there are disagreements about the best way to proceed with Rome, they should be raised with one's Superior in an appropriate way. Otherwise, no religious order can function. Archbishop Lefebvre said a similar thing in 1983. And there is much basis in the Archbishop's actions for seeking an "as is" normalization with Rome.

I'm sorry for my lack of computer skills...I haven't mastered the quote function yet.
You're living in a fantasy land. I haven't seen anyone associated with the Resistance seriously suggest that the problem lies with the SSPX "starting to say clown masses". If your litmus test for compromise is only triggered when clown masses start happening, you have your head in the sand. What you don't seem to recognize is that the most reverent N.O. in the world is substantially the same thing as a clown mass. A clown mass is simply the N.O. taken to its logical conclusion: a massive assault on the kingship of Christ, designed to undo the faith. So, for Bishop Fellay to suggest, as he did, that the new sacraments were 'legitimately promulgated' is already in and of itself a massive betrayal. Read the Society's attempts to explain this statement: they're absolutely laughable (Fr. Daniel Themann's comes to mind). 

The fact that you, and many die hard SSPX'ers, think that problems only exist when the SSPX starts to "say clown Masses" is the definition of rose coloured glasses.

In 2018, Econe ordained only 3 priests.

I believe that is an all-time low.

https://sspx.org/en/news-events/news/june-ordinations-16-priests-be-ordained-sspx-seminaries-month-38611

The fact is that the Archbishop was a human being, and an incredibly holy one. He always sought to see the best in people, and the same went for Rome and the newpopes. For decades, he held out hope that things would get better, as any Catholic should have done. Once it became apparent, particularly at Assisi, that the Romans were interested primarily in smashing the First Commandment and making war on the Faith, the Archbishop realized that collaboration would be impossible. 

Justifying the relentless pursuit of an agreement by using the Archbishop's careful negotiations throughout the 70s and 80s is capitalizing on his good will. He was a man of good will, but also smart enough to recognize that by 1988, the gulf between the newchurch and the Society was so large that an agreement was simply not possible, even if offered carte blanche, doctrinal conditions aside. The argument that the Society is just fine simply because they're doing what the Archbishop did is unacceptable.

The archbishop was testing the waters throughout the 1970s. Assisi hadn't happened yet, and a bunch of other events hadn't taken place. The circuмstances were a little different. The were still (a few) cardinals and bishops who seemed genuinely sympathetic towards tradition. These cardinals died, or simply changed their positions, and the newpopes continued their destruction of the Church. I'm sorry, but your argument is very disengenuous, and again, demonstrates that you don't really understand what the Archbishop was about. 

'Oh, Archbishop Lefebvre met with rome in the 1970s so therefore the Society has the obligation to resume negotiations in 2019' is the epitome of wishful thinking. 

This is a very dangerous way of thinking. Don't forget that we're talking about doctrine here. To suggest that the Society is spiritually and doctrinally sound simply because they're building fancy new seminaries and big chapels is flat out wrong.

Glad you raised this point.  You may have missed the earlier thread where I called him out for PRECISELY THIS.  I asked him, given his theological positions, what reason does he have of being with the SSPX rather than in full communion with Rome in the FSSP?  I told him that he would have to have serious theological reasons, reasons of conscience, to justify this to absolve him from schism.  His answer then was the same, that it was essentially due to the size of the SSPX's seminary.