Tradition is indeed living, but only in the sense that lesser (small “t”) traditions can develop in a homogeneous way, never by mutation or rupture. The error of historicism falsely concludes that “we are in different times,” as if truth itself could change. In reality, the crisis remains objectively the same as it was in Archbishop Lefebvre’s day, and he already provided the clear Catholic answers to it. Those answers remain valid because they were drawn from what Eternal Rome had already settled long before the Second Vatican Council. A handful of faithful Resistance priests continue this same fidelity today, preserving the unbroken attitude of the past thirty years.

I sincerely hope, for the sake of His Excellency’s soul, that this take is not true. And if it is, may it be the result of weakness or confusion in his later years rather than deliberate deceit. It is far more charitable to believe that he succuмbed to liberal influences or infirmity than to think he acted as a conscious infiltrator against the Faith.

So... Is it your position that if a bishop does anything bad that the bishop from whom that bishop descended is to blame?  I hope the Apostles realize that all the heresies and schisms perpetuated by bishops of their lines are their fault!

I'm going to step in here and defend the sedevacantists because my gripe is only with the dogmatic ones.

The issue is not that it is "not traditional". It is a legitimate theological opinion. And its not about "keeping it to themselves".

The issue is those who make it a dogma.

Such a silly response as yours is why so many of them turn dogmatic. You make them feel like they are ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖs or something.

I thought your position was that Thuc was invalid?  The idea of 'bad fruits' is a separate argument altogether.

Of course you are going to defend them - your own stance is not much different; a novel stance that claims it is more Catholic than any other Catholic. And yes it is novel. The Church does not teach and has never taught sedevacantism. So I repeat, it is a perceived theological opinion, not a real one. As a parish we have already had a gutful of Sede's trying to push their opinions on us as if they were dogmas. So, yes, it is about keeping their errors to themselves for the overall good of the parish. No one wants their children corrupted with this poison. What starts out as 'a discussion' always ends with Sedes trying to forcefully convert the faithful to their way of thinking and I have witnessed families break apart over this. This is because it is rooted in pride - "I know better". And it is the very same spirit that emulates from you - "Join the Resistance or you are not Catholic".  I have all the time in the world for Catholics who are tempted with Sede-vacantism - it is hard to understand how our recent Popes can be doing what they are doing - but when you start down that road trying to make converts to your position as if it was an established truth, I will treat you like an active ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ. The safety of our children demands it.

What does tradition teach us? :That leaving the established Church is an act of apostasy; rejecting the authority of the Pope is an act of apostasy. What does Mr. Gubbin claim as truth: to stay united with the established Church is an apostasy and to acknowledge the authority of the Pope is an act of apostasy. In other words, Mr. Gubbin advocates a total inversion of tradition - just like the first Protestants did.

Archbishop Lefebrve, on the other hand, consistently advocated the 'recognize and resist' position. So if my stance is toxic, so too is Lefebvre's.

Look, if you choose to take that risk and partake in a loose association without the safe guards of the Church, then that's your choice. But you must admit it is a choice without precedent and it is a choice fraught with immediate danger and an unknown future. For all its failings, the SSPX provide traditional sacraments, Masses, sermons, schools, community life. This in turn provides the stability and support families need to keep their teenagers close.  Do you have children Mr. Gubbins? Do you have teenagers? And if you do, have they stayed close throughout your journey with the Resistance? I know there are resistance families who have achieved this with exceptionally committed parents, but there are far more who have not. Therefore to claim that the Resistance is the dogmatic answer to the troubles within the Church is as wrong as claiming Sedevacantism is.